Help with Witness Statement and should I go to court?

dainteej

no i submitted everything. sent in . yes apologies i put the defense spelling  in wrong . so i left out some bits especially what i didnt understand and as I was moving I couldnt get more advice from the forum for clarity I had to hurry and submit the defence before the deadline 

dainteej

i know my defence isnt great because honestly i had amd still had alot going on rushed to get it in and not spend time on it which is why i want ot ensure my WS is properly done

Coupon-mad

dainteej said:

I haven't received a letter yet just a witness statement form Gladstones which let me know that hearing date was allocated

I contacted the court to advise them I had not received the letters . I was told the hearing date is 2nd June and the deadline for WS should be 14 days before this date  

Defence :

 It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question

3. The defendant vaguely remembers the car being driven to the Lakeside Shopping Centre winter programme  and the shops being closed due to the a young child in the vehicle being violently ill and throwing up the defendant parked in a nearby bay to the nearest accessible toilet where the child could access toilets and changing stations . There was also a wait to receive assistance,  The defendant believed the  was parked  in a parking bay that was believed to be a parent and child parking bay. The car park itself  in question is free to use and there is no parking fee to be paid for its usage.

The defendant received a PCN for parking in an accessible bay. The accessible bay sign on the floor was not clearly visible due to being darkas well as the situation on hand .

The PCN was also not received by the defendant and the defendant only received solicitors letters with no photographic evidence or details of the alleged breach. There was also  no chance to appeal or  to even pay the fine if the appeal was rejected.

 The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'Adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

11. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

12. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

13. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

 

 

Conclusion

34. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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

So this is your main point and you'll need to get photos in the dark (not early evening, real darkness) to win your case:

"The defendant believed the  was parked  in a parking bay that was believed to be a parent and child parking bay. The accessible bay sign on the floor was not clearly visible due to being dark."

dainteej

ok thanks for that will have to try and go there in the dark one night

dainteej

Hello all thanks for your help on this i have drafted up the WS statement first draft please can anybody who is free please skim iver and let me know if ok

1.     In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-5) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows 

 

Facts and Sequence of events:

2.     It is admitted that on the material date 16th December 2023, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle LP64 BVK.  I am a regular visitor to the Lakeside Shopping centre however only visited this particular carpark on this occasion and had an incident occur with one of my children which required me to pull into an area close to the toilets to attend to her and also get assistance . I recall parking for a short period and that the site was quite dark as it was in the night after the shops had closed .

3.     At no time, neither on the alleged date of the offence nor later did I receive any PCN (Parking Charge Notice) or NTK (Notice to keeper). This matter was first brought to my attention on receipt of the Claim Form issued on DD MONTH YEAR. This lack of notification meant I had no opportunity to appeal the incident through the correct channels of recourse.

 

 

4.     Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Beata Uszta  of Gladstones Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As Beata Uszta does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

Inadequate Signage and Markings:

5.     The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place in the LOCATION without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.  

 

6.     Exhibit 1 provided by the claimant is a photograph of the inadequately sized and illegible parking sign taped to the pillar which can also be seen in Exhibit 2 to size and scale. This image shows the International Symbol of Access which by its usage infers this symbol would be in use to identify the designated bays. The sign is illegible from the bay and the text relating to the terms and condition that would form a contract are all fine print . In an urgent care situation the defendant was not able to see and it was not legible from the car to the pillar.

7.     Its also clear from Exhibit 3 that the parent and child parking is right beside accessible bay parking with signage pertaining to parent and child also on pillars in view of other bays. Signage and parking sign on pillar pertains to the parent and child parking stated that I can be a driver with children which I was at the contravention time

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government:

8.     The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

9.     I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

10.   (i) the alleged breach, and

11.   (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

12.   11.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

13.   12.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

14.   "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

15.   13.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

16.   14.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

17.   15.  With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

18.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

19.   In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

20.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

22     Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

23    In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

CRA Breaches:

24    21.  Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

25    22.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

26    23.  The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

The Beavis case is against this claim

27    24.  The Supreme Court clarified that 'the penalty rule is plainly engaged' in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 4) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

28    25.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 5) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

Conclusion

29      The claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed. The lack of adequate signage and markings and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the claim.

Coupon-mad

Re your point 4, you need the judgments in Chan & Akande as exhibits (search the forum for the wording & link to the 2 transcripts).

dainteej

ok updated it for that and included in exhibits . I need to submit it today via email and mailoff on Monday so let me know if all ok with this one I have here 

Facts and Sequence of events:

2.     It is admitted that on the material date 16th December 2023, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle LP64 BVK.  The defendant is  a regular visitor to the Lakeside Shopping centre however only visited this particular carpark Site 6  on this occasion and had an incident occur with one of my children which impaired my ability to drive further and required me to pull into the closest area accessible to a toiler and also get assistance . The defendant recalls parking for a short period and that the site was quite dark as it was in the night after the shops had closed .

3.     At no time, neither on the alleged date of the offence nor later did I receive any PCN (Parking Charge Notice) or NTK (Notice to keeper). This matter was first brought to my attention on receipt of the Claim Form issued on . This lack of notification meant I had no opportunity to appeal the incident through the correct channels of recourse.

4. There has been attempt at mediation and offer to settle the claim out of court but the Claimant has refused and demands a sum 100% more than the debt claimed which in itself has been highly inflated 

 

4.     Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Beata Uszta of Gladstones Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As Beata Uszta does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that

"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."

The same is true in this case. (See exhibit 1 CPMS v Akande judgment)

5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held that

"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract."

The same is true in this case. (See exhibit 2 CEL v Chan judgment)

 

Inadequate Signage and Markings:

5.     The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking  in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.  

 

6.     Exhibit 3 provided by the claimant is a photograph of the inadequately sized and illegible parking sign taped to the pillar which can also be seen in Exhibit 4 to size and scale. This image shows the International Symbol of Access which by its usage infers this symbol would be in use to identify the designated bays. The sign is illegible from the bay and the text relating to the terms and condition that would form a contract are all fine print . In an urgent care situation the defendant was not able to see it and the details within it as it was not legible from the car to the pillar that was not beside it but rather in front on the opposite side of the bay.   The details pertaining to the contract the claimant has stated was not legible and understood by the defendant.

7.     Its also clear from Exhibit 5 that the parent and child parking is right beside accessible bay parking with signage pertaining to parent and child also on pillars in view of other bays. Signage and parking sign on pillar pertains to the parent and child parking stated that I can be a driver with children which I was at the contravention time.  This multiple signs in the same area cause some confusion on the part of the driver that was looking to pull the car safely over while attending to the child

 

 

7. The Parking Invoice which Gladstones submitted that was sent to the registered keepers address refers to parking in SITE 1. There seems to be a difference in the site documented verses where the car was actually parked. On the Site Map submitted by Gladstones into evidence the location the car was parked is called Site 6 not Site 1 The sign pictures they show that is supposedly all over the carpark is in Site 1 not Site 6 . The understanding of the displayed “contracts”  in SITE 6 will be different from the “contracts”  displayed in SITE 1

 

 

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government:

8.     The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

9.     I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

10.   (i) the alleged breach, and

11.   (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

12.   11.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

13.   12.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

14.   "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

15.   13.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

16.   14.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

17.   15.  With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

18.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

19.   In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

20.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

22     Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

23    In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

CRA Breaches:

24    21.  Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

25    22.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

26    23.  The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

The Beavis case is against this claim

27    24.  The Supreme Court clarified that 'the penalty rule is plainly engaged' in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 6) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

28    25.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 5) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

 

Conclusion

29      There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

 

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.

 

Coupon-mad

You've still got duplicate para numbers

1505grandad

Also as it is a Preliminary matter should the following paras come before "Facts And Sequence etc":.

"  Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out"

dainteej

so Gladstones have come back with a supplementary witness statement after i submitted mine . this is less than the 14 days as well as I waited untill the last minute they basically refuted all of my WS points should i respond ?