Moorside Legal (NCP Parking) - Case struck out

Coupon-mad

OK so there are a few pieces of evidence you now need to add, attached to a Supplementary WS. Sounds like a plan.

Le_Kirk

6. The facts in this Defence Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. By contrast, the Claimant, National Car Parks Ltd (“NCP”), relies on a generic and incoherent cut-and-paste statement of case. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 3 and 7, as they do not set out the material facts necessary to establish a cause of action.

It is not a defence!

Savemethemoney67

Any advice on this guys, apologies in a rush today but will be making the time tomorrow to get it submitted to the court. If you want me to submit some images of their evidence vs mine let me know.

Supplementary Witness Statement

• 1. I, XXXXXXX, the Defendant in this matter, make this supplementary witness statement further to receiving the evidence and witness statement upon which the Claimant intends to rely.

• 2. I first draw the attention of the Court to the outcome of the original hearing held on 9 December 2025, at which the Claimant was ordered to serve copies of their witness statement(s) and evidence by 9 January 2026. Although these documents have now been served, this was not completed until 27 January 2026, leaving an inadequate amount of time for me to conduct a full and proper review of the Claimant’s evidence.

• 3. Notwithstanding the above, upon receipt of the Claimant’s evidence I was immediately drawn to several significant issues, which I now address below.

• 4. Exhibit SZ5, pages A25 and A26, which the Claimant’s witness acknowledges show their vehicle entering and later exiting the car park, clearly depict orange bollards separating the only entrance and exit to the site. In these images, there is no signage present on the bollards. However, the Claimant seeks to rely on pages A39 and A40 to demonstrate that there was clear signage at the entrance point, including signs affixed to the bollards.

• 5. In response, I will produce Exhibit 5, which contains a comparison of Google Street View images dated May 2019 and August 2022. These images show that between these dates the signs previously affixed to the bollards were removed. This is material, as it predates the alleged breach on 8 May 2024, and demonstrates that the evidence relied upon by the Claimant in this regard is inaccurate.

• 6. Further, within Exhibit SZ5, the Claimant includes images of signage on pages A28 and A29. These signs are visible in the May 2019 Google Street View images but are no longer present by August 2022, again calling into question the relevance and accuracy of the Claimant’s evidence.

• 7. Additionally, in relation to Exhibit SZ5, page A25, the Claimant relies on a large yellow sign at the entrance to the car park which refers to the possibility of a Parking Charge Notice totalling £100. This sign was removed between August 2022 and May 2023 and was the only visible signage at the entrance that detailed the PCN charge. Accordingly, it was not present at the time of the alleged breach.

• 8. With regard to the current signage at the location, I refer the Court to Exhibit 4 produced with my previous witness statement. This demonstrates the insufficiency of signage and shows that it is possible for a driver to enter the car park and exit on foot without passing any signage that clearly sets out the terms and conditions.

• 9. In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Claimant be required to provide the dates on which the photographs of signage within the car park were taken, as I dispute that these images are representative of the signage in place on the date of the alleged offence.

• 10. The Defendant further notes that the signage relied upon by the Claimant states that cash payment is accepted at the location. This is no longer the case and, to the best of my knowledge, was not the case on the date of the alleged breach. This further supports the conclusion that the signage relied upon may not have been present when I parked my vehicle.

• 11. The Claimant has also included a Notice to Keeper within Exhibit SZ6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a notice was properly served and successfully delivered.

Statement of Truth

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.

Savemethemoney67

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863301#Comment_81863301

I have checked and the one i submitted and did change to witness statements, I just have so many drafts now and copied the wrong one across onto here

Coupon-mad

Your supplementary WS looks good. 🙂

Savemethemoney67

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863627#Comment_81863627

thank you, just need to put the new exhibit together tomorrow and get it sent off. It undermines there evidence enough and with more time I’m sure there’s more I could say.

In terms of deadline they can’t complain given their own delay in serving the documents and if they do at the very worst I’d just argue for another adjournment so I can go through the evidence properly.

1505grandad

Suggestion para 4 - perhaps (clarify) the following sentence as it seems to refer to "Claimant's" vehicle:-

"……., which the Claimant’s witness (statement) acknowledges show their (the) vehicle entering and later exiting the car park, clearly depict orange bollards separating the only entrance and exit to the site.

Coupon-mad

@Savemethemoney67

Your hearing is tomorrow … but can I just suggest as a second 'preliminary matter' as well as Chan and Akande, definitely raise Mazur v Speechlys

A paralegal can't sign a submission. Search the forum!

Savemethemoney67

Another one bites the dust!

Thank you all for the help, i don't know why I ever had any doubts.

I missed the above but it mattered not as the hearing was about 5 mins and I barley had to say a word. Although the judge started by saying he had only read my defence, and not gone through my WS or reviewed any exhibits. The judge planned to work through the WS during the hearing, point by point but when he heard from me that I had only been served the complainants WS on the 27th JAN when they were ordered by the court to serve by the 9th JAN he had heard enough and struck out the claim.

I was very grateful that it was not the same judge after the last experience and walked out the court with a massive smile on my face, knowing they would now have to pay the cost of my parking.

Coupon-mad

Amazing how VERY different judges are and I am so glad you didn't get the previous judge again. Well done!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Did you ask for your costs?