Claim Form

Coupon-mad

What do you need to know that's not in the WS and evidence section of post 2 of the NEWBIES thread?

After reading that section, your best bet is to search the forum and copy a recent one from 2025 which is about the same solicitors.

Nicenice

Okay thank you I will look for it

Nicenice

IN THE……………. COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: …………..

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ……………..

1. I, ……………………am the Defendant in this matter and was the driver of vehicle ………... I make this statement in support of my defence against the claim from ……………..regarding a parking charge issued…………..

1. I dispute the validity of the parking charge for the reasons outlined below. I deny that I am liable for the amount demanded, or any amount, as the contact was fulfilled in substance.

The Facts (What Happened)

1. On…………, I parked my car at ………………
2. I arrived at the car park at 18:36:28 and I intended to pay for parking.
3. After parking my car, I had to queue before it got to my turn to read the terms and conditions and then made a decision to pay through the APP as the payment machine was charging an amount which was not displayed at the entrance.
4. The signage at the entrance of the car park displayed £1 PER HOUR. Exhibit A showing the signage.
5. The terms and condition on the sign board in the car park stated that, the £1 per hour could only be paid on the APP. Exhibit B photo of the sign board attached.
6. As it was my first time to park in that car park or any of their car parks, I had to download the APP (connect cashless) which took time for me to download, then register on the day, which then kept saying transaction declined after 3 attempts, before allowing me to pay.
7. After being able to download the APP within approximately 19 mins, I still paid for the full duration of the parking, starting from when I entered the car park. Exhibit C showing a screen shot of receipt of payment.

Arguments in Defence

10.Misleading Signage: The misleading signage at the entrance of the car park which states £1 PER HOUR was ambiguous signage leading people to think it was £1 PER HOUR every time of the. In June 2024, the trades bodies (BPA & IPC) published a new code of practice which mandates “the need for clear and uniform signage to prevent confusion”. Under the IPC’S combined single sector code of practice 4.1, it states that the parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the needing to leave the vehicle to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises. This was not so for the sign at the entrance.

11. Full Payment Paid: I paid the four-hour parking and Excel received the money. Why will excel not follow the IPC code of practice clause 15.7 and allow a first-time mistake seeing as all other conditions were complied with especially having paid for the ticket. The payment being made before leaving shows intent to pay.

12.The doctrine of commercial impracticability in the context of contract law, signifies that the execution of a contractual obligation has become unfeasible and cannot be reasonably achieved. There was no way I could have driven and fine a parking space, walk to the machine, read the signs and under consideration make the informed decision to stay. Then decide to pay by using the APP, download the APP as a first-tine user. This will be impossible to achieve cashless payment in the 10 minutes suggested on the signs making the terms and conditions impracticable.

13. Conclusion: Given that the parking fee was paid, I believe this charge is unfair and punitive.

Statement of Truth

14.I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

15.Signed: __________________________

16.Dated: __________________________

Dear all this is what i have been able to do with my witness statement, any thing i should add or remove?

Any guidance will be appreciated thank you.

Coupon-mad

Just reminding us all that this is an unlawful '5 minute rule' case and the Claimant is VCS, claim by DCB Legal which was signed off by SE, not a solicitor.

Your WS is missing paragraphs 8 and 9.

Also, you need to add some of the exhibits that I tell everyone about in the NEWBIES thread.

Your WS needs exhibits.

As I posted above, look in the WS and evidence section of post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. I am not seeing any of the suggested exhibits so please re-read that section now because you've missed the exhibits.

And add this as the lower half of your WS before the conclusion and statement of truth, with paragraph numbers added of course:

I admit that I was the registered keeper and driver but deny liability for any sum at all. The Claimant suffered no loss and the alleged breach is denied. Even if 'paying within x minutes' was a prominent term of the contract (which I deny: it was not mentioned at the machine, nor on the signboard, nor when using the app) it was void for impossibility and unfair as a matter of consumer law. That makes the term unenforceable. ParkingEye v Beavis is fully distinguished.

As stated in my defence, car park terms that impose an unstated 'rule' of unspecified minutes to pay (despite it taking longer due to faulty machines and/or typical glitchy apps) were identified as unfair under the Consumer Rights Act ('CRA') 2015, in two well-publicised 2025 cases.

The first of these was Excel v Hannah Robinson, heard atMiddlesbrough County Court.District Judge Janine Richards found that Excel's conduct was 'unreasonable and out of the norm', and she ordered the firm to pay Ms Robinson's legal costs of £10,240.The judge agreed with the counsel for Ms Robinson that that a £100 PCN that penalises paying patrons for not paying within a certain unstated number of minutes (yet still paying for the full stay) was: “An unenforceable penalty, served no legitimate purpose, and such a term was ‘unfair’ under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.”

As was reported in the Law Society Gazette, what became known last year as the '5 minute rule' always was illegal, regardless of when the IPC trade body finally caught up with the CRA 2015 'test of unfairness', ten years after that Act became law:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/pro-bono-team-beats-parking-claim-as-charity-nets-10k/5122957.article




The judgment made the national papers and the outcry forced a U-turn and sector-wide ban on pursuing such cases. No time limit can be imposed as long as the driver pays whilst the vehicle is on site (or later, where allowed at certain sites).The parking industry Trade Bodies both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and pursuing these cases was banned.

As well as being an unfair term under the CRA 2015, to hold a consumer liable for a 'x minute time limit' term, is a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant. The Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair until last year" or "we allowed more than 5 minutes".  Those arguments would be absurd, especially given that this Claimant's sister company - both owned by notorious ex-wheel-clamper 'Captain Clampit' Simon Renshaw Smith - is the same firm responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News that I mentioned in my defence; one being Ms Robinson's case linked above.

The other case was against Rosey Hudson - a £2,000 claim - with articles about it including by the BBC. Excel responded with consumer blame but they finally backed down and reportedly paid her solicitor's costs but this was too late for the adjacent firm, Jumpin' Fun, which reportedly went out of business as a result of lost custom as people boycotted the site. These firms ruin motorists' lives and can ruin high street businesses. The courts have a duty to consider unfair terms in every consumer contract case, per s71 of the CRA 2015.

In my case, the agony of this litigation is extremely prolonged and I have had to cope with navigating the defence process as an unrepresented Litigant in Person. This Claimant has continued to unlawfully process my data and has carried on pursuing this claim for a year, demonstrating their flagrant disregard for the sector-wide ban on the 5 minute rule.Excel and VCS reportedly told irate MPs last year that all such cases have been dropped, due to the adverse publicity.  One wonders why they think they can pursue this one and I want the chance to question their staff at the hearing, to explain themselves.

Double recovery of the same heads of cost

As was also stated in my defence, the added £70 costs are double recovery and the claim exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. And pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'.

As usual, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC.

I would like to draw the court's attention to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PCN covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the judge should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'. That first judgment in Beavis is linked in an official UKSC Blog here:

https://ukscblog.com/case-preview-parkingeye-limited-v-beavis/

and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PCN, already increased from £37.50, and hiking it up to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice but this is exactly what the parking industry have got away with for over a decade, no doubt cashing in on tens of thousands of bloated default CCJs whilst hoping that no judge in a defended case reads Beavis too closely.

Wholly unreasonable course of conduct

Everything about this litigation against me has been vexatious and unreasonable from start to finish.

In a recent well-publicised High Court case in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgment was that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation.

The legal assistant who signed off this abusive claim form (and she apparently signed off all DCB Legal claims prior to October 2025) is not an authorised litigator according to a search of the SRA Solicitors Register, therefore the whole claim was filed in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is detailed below in the following legal blog:

https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

I understand that exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the courts to intervene, as are very poor particulars signed off by an unauthorised person (see Mazur) as well as Claimants pursuing cases that they know are not just hopeless but unlawful by relying upon a banned unfair term.

These are all egregious features of this abusive claim and amount to a wholly unreasonable and vexatious course of conduct.

In all the premises, thissurely reaches the Dammerman v Lanyon Bowdler bar for vexatious conduct which permits of no reasonable explanation

Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) theWhite Book has this annotation:

'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

I seek fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct opening up the possibility of further costs on the indemnity basis (CPR 46.5). I seek this even if the Claimant now discontinues because this claim has distressed and intimidated me and put me to wasted time and dominated my thoughts for well over a year.

Le_Kirk

The signage at the entrance of the car park displayed £1 PER HOUR. Exhibit A showing the signage.
The terms and condition on the sign board in the car park stated that, the £1 per hour could only be paid on the APP. Exhibit B photo of the sign board attached.

I think you should emphasise that the two sign boards were in different places and the second one was AFTER you have used the information on the first one to make your decision to enter the car park.

think it was £1 PER HOUR every time of the.

Is there some text missing here?

There was no way I could have driven and fine find a parking space, walk to the machine,

Why will excel not follow the IPC code of practice clause 15.7 and allow a first-time mistake seeing as all other conditions were complied with especially having paid for the ticket.

I don't think you can ask questions in a witness statement; maybe state " the claimant is put to strict proof as to why they did not follow their own code of practice………" OR similar

After parking my car, I had to queue before it got to my turn to read the terms and conditions and then made make a decision to pay through the APP as the payment machine was charging an amount which was not displayed at the entrance.

Nicenice

thank you all so much I really appreciate this.