Witness Statement - Due Today

Mxk377

Hi All - I left this late expecting Premier Parking/Gladstones to cancel the proceedings but I've been sent a witness statement and also need to file my witness statement today.

I was parked for 4 minutes outside a restaurant. I walked to the restaurant and decided not to go in because honestly there was a lot of mess and it was busy.

I couldn't find a template so I've produced the following via chat GPT prompts. Other than a costs assessment, will this work?

------------------------

WITNESS STATEMENT

Claim No: [Insert Claim Number]
Between: [Parking Company Name] (Claimant)
And [Your Full Name] (Defendant)

I, [Your Full Name], of [Your Address], am the defendant in this claim. I make this statement in support of my defence and based on my own knowledge and belief.

---

1. Background and Circumstances of the Alleged Breach

1.1. On [Date of Incident], I briefly stopped my vehicle, registration number [Your Vehicle Reg], at [Location], for no more than four minutes.
1.2. My intention was to visit Pepe’s Piri Piri, located adjacent to the parking area. However, upon walking past the restaurant, I observed that it was extremely busy and decided not to enter.
1.3. Prior to leaving, I spoke to an individual standing outside the restaurant and asked whether it was permissible to park there. They informed me that parking was not allowed, so I immediately returned to my vehicle and exited the site.
1.4. At no point did I leave the premises, use any of the facilities, or attempt to park for an extended period. My brief stop was merely to confirm whether parking was allowed, and upon receiving a negative response, I left without delay.

---

2. Inadequate Signage and Lack of Contractual Agreement

2.1. The signage at the location is small, unclear, and not prominently displayed to a standard that would constitute a legally binding contract.
2.2. As seen in Exhibit A (attached image from Google Street View), the signs are positioned high on the wall, making them difficult to notice or read from a vehicle. The font size of the text is small and not easily legible, especially in a brief stop scenario.
2.3. The legal principle established in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 states that for a contract to be formed, the terms must be sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver before they are bound by them. Given the poor visibility and placement of the signage, I had no reasonable opportunity to acknowledge or agree to any parking terms before stopping.
2.4. The Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 lists unfair terms that create a significant imbalance against the consumer. The placement and size of the signage at this location fail to provide fair notice, rendering any purported contract unenforceable.
2.5. Furthermore, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasized that terms must be clear and prominently displayed. In this instance, the signage does not meet these legal standards.

---

3. De Minimis Principle and Grace Period Requirements

3.1. The claim is invalid under the de minimis principle, which applies in civil law to disregard trivial matters. A stop of only four minutes does not constitute meaningful parking or cause a material loss to the claimant.
3.2. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Clause 13.1) and the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice both mandate that a minimum 10-minute grace period should be provided before issuing a penalty. The claimant’s failure to adhere to this guidance makes the charge unreasonable and unenforceable.
3.3. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), the court ruled that a brief stop for a legitimate reason does not amount to parking in the contractual sense. My case aligns with this ruling, as I stopped momentarily, made an inquiry, and left immediately after receiving a response.

---

4. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (Penalty Charge)

4.1. A parking charge must reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius [2014] (Glasgow Sheriff Court). In this case, no actual loss was suffered by the claimant, as I was only present for four minutes and did not occupy the space in a manner that prevented other customers from using it.
4.2. The charge imposed is disproportionate and punitive, designed to generate revenue rather than compensate for any genuine loss. Such excessive penalties have previously been deemed unfair under consumer protection laws.

---

5. Conclusion

5.1. Based on the above points, I submit that the claim is without merit and should be dismissed due to the following:

• Unclear and inadequate signage, preventing a valid contract from being formed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking).
• Failure to allow a reasonable grace period, in breach of the BPA and IPC Code of Practice.
• Application of the de minimis principle, as a four-minute stop does not amount to parking (Jopson v Homeguard).
• Unfair contract terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• Lack of genuine pre-estimate of loss, making the charge disproportionate.

5.2. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claim as it is legally unsound and unenforceable.

---

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed: ______________________
[Your Full Name]
Dated: [Insert Date]

Gr1pr

On a quick glance 

4 died a death 10 years ago with the Beavis case in the Supreme Court,  in 2015

Statement of Truth , out of date by a few years

Its not a grace period either,  its the consideration period 

Coupon-mad

Did you get the WS bundle in?

Umkomaas

ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius [2014] (Glasgow Sheriff Court)

If there's ever a reason not to blindly allow AI to produce anything where facts are involved, especially in a legal case. 

Glasgow Sheriff Court my Jim Royle! 🤷‍♂️ 😄