Fighting parking fine, at stage, after the defence submitted

maxim024

Thank you for confirming, I was just worried that email may not be enough and that I would have to print it out and send physical copies.

Gr1pr

Not these days, especially not in the big courts 

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/bristol-civil-and-family-justice-centre

I would think that you need e-filing

maxim024

Interesting thing what I noticed and will go for it.
A witness statement is filed and signed by Claimant's solicitor "on behalf of the Claimant"

So in legal practice what I researched,

The Claimant's witness statement is provided by Ms X, who states she is a Paralegal employed by "name of the solicitors company". She is not an employee of the Claimant company.  

Ms. X openly admits that the matters in her statement are "based on information provided to me by my client". This means her entire statement is hearsay; she has no direct, personal knowledge of the signage, the site, or the events of that evening.  

The Claimant has also given notice that they will not be attending the final hearing. This means their hearsay evidence cannot be tested, and I am denied the opportunity to cross-examine their witness.  


I'll let you know how it go.

Gr1pr

So check the Mazur thread regarding that aspect,  because you might be using that recent ruling in your WS

maxim024

Thank you so much for that!

Is there any chance I could pass you my draft WS so far on private message just to hear your opinion
I would be glad to post it entirely here on this topic after the actual hearing.
Just concerned that as a normal citizen are browsing these forums as well are the people from those *solicitors" companies in order to upgrade their scams or be aware 

Gr1pr

I dont review witness statements,  private or otherwise,  other than checking a few basic facts that are in them, such as the correct parking company,  correct legal company,  correct statement of truth 

The rest is your content as a witness who knows the case,  I am neither , I dont know your case, wasn't involved or present,  I just replied to your post with some information you may have missed

Post it on here , suitably redacted,  if you want opinions on it,  including any typos or errors etc

maxim024

Okay, here it is:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

Xxxxx (Defendant)

____________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxxx____________________________________

I, xxxxx, of [address xxxx|, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter and I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxxx, on the date of the alleged event. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own direct experience unless otherwise stated.

On the evening of xxth xxx 2024, I drove to the SGS Wise Campus to attend my son's college performance. The Claimant’s evidence confirms my vehicle entered the site at 19:18 and exited at 20:51. The entire duration of my visit was during the hours of darkness.

I was familiar with this car park, having visited the college before. On all previous occasions, parking was free of charge. I had no reason to believe that this had changed and was not actively looking for signs imposing new financial obligations.

Inadequate Signage and No Contract Formed

I am a Blue Badge holder and have a disability which affects my mobility, a copy of my badge is shown in Exhibit DR6. My priority upon arriving at any car park, especially at night, is to navigate safely and find a suitable and accessible parking space. It is not reasonable to expect a disabled person to leave their vehicle to walk around a large, poorly lit car park searching for signs which may or may not be present.

Upon entering the car park at night, I did not see any clear or illuminated signage at the entrance to indicate that the terms of parking had changed and that a payment was now required. The responsibility is on the Claimant to make any new or unusual terms clear to all motorists, including disabled drivers, which they failed to do.

The Claimant's evidence bundle contains various photos of their signage in Exhibit GS2 [cite: 384-418]. The majority of these are taken in daylight and are not representative of the conditions I faced.

The Claimant has, however, included one photograph taken at night, on page 54 of their evidence bundle. This photo clearly shows that the sign is positioned on a grass verge away from the road, is not illuminated, and the small text detailing the contractual terms is entirely illegible from any reasonable distance, let alone from a moving vehicle. This photograph, supplied by the Claimant, supports my position that no clear contract was offered.

As shown in Exhibit DR1, the sign in the benchmark case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 was large, prominent, and used bright, contrasting colours to make motorists aware of the parking charge. The signage at the SGS Wise Campus is of a far inferior standard and is incapable of forming a contract, particularly in darkness and for a disabled visitor.

The Claimant's Lack of Standing (Locus Standi)

I contend that the Claimant has failed to prove they have the legal standing to bring this claim, a point I raised in my initial defence.

[cite_start]The Claimant's evidence in Exhibit GS1 includes a contract for parking management [cite: 148-181]. This contract is between UK Car Park Management Ltd and a party named "South Gloucestershire & Stroud College".

[cite_start]To prove that this party had the authority to grant such a contract, the Claimant has also provided a copy of the Land Registry lease for the site, also within Exhibit GS1 [cite: 225-377]. This lease clearly states that the land is leased to a different legal entity entirely: "FILTON COLLEGE FURTHER EDUCATION CORPORATION".

The Claimant has provided no documentation whatsoever to demonstrate a legal link between the actual tenant on the lease ("Filton College Further Education Corporation") and the party they hold a contract with ("South Gloucestershire & Stroud College"). They have therefore failed to prove a valid chain of authority from the landowner, and I believe they have no right to bring this claim.

Unenforceable Additional Costs

[cite_start]The Claimant is claiming the sum of £100 for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and an additional, separate sum of £70 in costs. This was threatened in their correspondence as potentially rising to £170. I submit this is an abuse of process.

As detailed in the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the parking charge itself is held to be a deterrent and already incorporates the business costs of the parking operator. This is shown in the excerpts provided in Exhibit DR2.

The additional £70 claimed by the Claimant is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is an arbitrary sum and an attempt at double recovery. I believe it is an unconscionable and unenforceable penalty.

Hearsay Evidence from the Claimant's Witness

The Claimant's witness statement is provided by Xxxx xxxxx, who states she is a Paralegal employed by xxxxx Solicitors Limited [cite: 42-43]. She is not an employee of the Claimant company.

[cite_start]Ms. Xxx openly admits that the matters in her statement are "based on information provided to me by my client". This means her entire statement is hearsay; she has no direct, personal knowledge of the signage, the site, or the events of that evening.

The Claimant has also given notice that they will not be attending the final hearing. This means their hearsay evidence cannot be tested, and I am denied the opportunity to cross-examine their witness.

Response to Claimant's Allegations on Conduct

I note that at paragraph 23 of their witness statement, the Claimant dismisses my defence as a "generic and template defence sourced from the internet". They also made this allegation verbally during the mediation process.

As a layperson with no legal training, I have had to research the relevant legal principles to defend myself against a professional litigant. The reason my defence contains points that may be common to other defences is that the issues in these private parking claims are themselves very similar. The points raised in my defence, such as the Claimant's lack of standing and the inadequate signage at this specific site, are directly relevant to the facts of my case.

It is ironic that the Claimant makes this criticism, as their entire operation appears to be based on a high-volume, automated process, often referred to as a "robo-claim" system. The templated letters [cite: 450-529], the generic witness statement signed by a paralegal with no case-specific knowledge, and the business model of pursuing thousands of identical claims all point to a heavily automated system, which I noted in my original defence.

Furthermore, I wish to draw the court's attention to the recent High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2023] EWHC 523 (Ch). This case clarified that it is unlawful under the Legal Services Act 2007 for a paralegal to have day-to-day conduct of litigation without meaningful, active supervision from a qualified solicitor.

[cite_start]The Claimant's witness, Ms. Xxxxx, is a paralegal who states, "I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal". Given the high-volume 'robo-claim' nature of this litigation, I question whether the supervision provided is meaningful or merely a formality. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the conduct of this litigation has been actively supervised by a qualified solicitor in a manner that is compliant with the law as clarified in the Mazur ruling.

Conclusion

In summary, the Claimant has failed to prove their case. They have not demonstrated the legal standing to bring this claim; their signage was inadequate to form a contract in the hours of darkness, especially for a disabled visitor; their additional charges are an unfair penalty; their evidence is hearsay from a paralegal whose supervision is questionable; and they are not attending the hearing to answer for these failings. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety.

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.

Signed: _________________________ xxxxx

Date: [Date of signing]

troublemaker22

Excellent work though I think you’ve missed the point about Mazur. The case decided that it is unlawful for an unqualified paralegal to conduct litigation even when supervised by a solicitor. You should reword to state that and also that the poor quality of the paralegal’s work makes it clear that there has been little or no actual supervision by a solicitor so that (unlike in the Mazur case) actual prejudice has been suffered. 

maxim024

Thank you, I have made a final version and it states the following:
(Just to note, final version that I have sent is properly numbered, just this extraction copy paste is not showing properly numerated)

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL

​CLAIM No: [REDACTED]

​BETWEEN:

​UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

​-and-

​[REDACTED] (Defendant)

​WITNESS STATEMENT OF [REDACTED]

​I, [REDACTED], of [REDACTED], will say as follows:

1. ​I am the Defendant in this matter and I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number [REDACTED], on the date of the alleged event. The facts and matters set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own direct experience unless otherwise stated. This statement is intended to stand as my evidence in chief at the hearing.

​Factual Background of the Visit

1. ​On the evening of 29th February 2024, I drove to the SGS Wise Campus for the sole purpose of attending my son's college performance. The Claimant's ANPR evidence confirms my vehicle entered the site at 19:18 and exited at 20:51. The entire duration of my visit was therefore after sunset, during the hours of darkness, a fact that is critical to the matter of signage visibility.
2. ​I was already familiar with this car park, having visited the college campus on previous occasions for similar events. On all prior visits, parking was provided free of charge for college visitors. I therefore held a reasonable expectation, as a regular visitor attending an official college event, that the parking arrangements remained the same. Consequently, I had no reason to be actively searching for discreetly placed signage indicating that new financial obligations or onerous contractual terms had been introduced.

​The Claimant's Misleading and Inaccurate Evidence

1. ​In preparation for this hearing, I have revisited the SGS Wise Campus site under the same night-time conditions to document the car park as it truly is. My own photographic evidence, which I will refer to as Exhibit DR4, reveals that the Claimant has built its case upon a foundation of misleading, inaccurate, and even fabricated evidence, which calls their entire credibility into question.
2. ​The Claimant's evidence bundle at Exhibit GS2 includes a photograph of a large, prominent, yellow "PAY & DISPLAY" sign. I can state with certainty, having personally inspected the site, that this sign does not exist. It is not present anywhere in the car park. The Claimant is therefore relying on a stock photograph of a sign that is not located at this site, which is a grossly misleading representation of the facts to both myself and to the court.
3. ​Furthermore, the site map provided by the Claimant at Exhibit GS3 is demonstrably out of date and factually incorrect. As shown in my own evidence at Exhibit DR6, which includes a recent satellite image from Google Maps, the layout of the car park has changed significantly. A new building, the 'Bristol School of Art', now occupies an area shown on the Claimant's map as a drivable road and parking bays. The Claimant's map is therefore an inaccurate and unreliable representation of the site and cannot be trusted to show the true placement of signage in relation to the actual layout a driver would experience.

​Inadequate Signage and No Contract Formed

1. ​The Claimant has comprehensively failed to comply with the strict requirements for signage laid out by their own accredited trade body, the International Parking Community (IPC). The relevant sections of the IPC Code of Practice, which govern the Claimant's operations, are included in Exhibit DR3.
2. ​My photographs in Exhibit DR4 show that there are no clear contractual signs at the entrance to the car park. This is a direct breach of the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 1, 'Entrance Signs'), which states that operators "should display entrance signs" where a car park has a defined entrance. Without clear entrance signs, a driver is not given the "Consideration Period" required by the Code to read and accept any terms.
3. ​The Claimant's own photographic evidence of their signage, provided in their Exhibit GS2, is not a fair representation of the conditions I faced. The majority of their photographs were taken in broad daylight, which is irrelevant to an alleged contravention that occurred entirely at night. The one photograph they have supplied that was taken at night is distant and blurry; on its own, it proves my point that the signage is small, unlit, and utterly unreadable from a vehicle.
4. ​Furthermore, the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 1, 'Contrast and Illumination') explicitly states: "If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting." My photographs show the site is poorly lit and the small signs that do exist are not illuminated, making them impossible to read in the dark from a moving vehicle.
5. ​Crucially, the Code of Practice also states that where terms change for regular visitors (such as introducing charges to a previously free car park), the operator "should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply". The Claimant failed to do this, meaning a regular visitor like myself was given no fair notice of the fundamental change in terms.
6. ​I am a Blue Badge holder and have a disability which affects my mobility; a copy of my badge is shown in Exhibit DR5. The IPC Code of Practice (Part 10) states operators have a "duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to assist disabled people". The Claimant's failure to provide clear, illuminated entrance signage is a particular failure in this duty, as my priority upon arrival is to safely navigate and find an accessible bay, not to embark on a search for poorly placed signs.
7. ​The benchmark for fair signage was established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. As shown in Exhibit DR1, the sign in that case was large, prominent, and located at the entrance. The actual signage at the SGS Wise Campus is the opposite: hidden, small, and not visible upon entry. Therefore, no contract could have been formed.

​The Claimant's Lack of Standing (Locus Standi)

1. ​The Claimant has failed to prove it has the legal standing to bring this claim, a point I raised in my initial defence. Their own evidence on this matter is fundamentally contradictory and inadequate. The official copy of the Land Registry lease provided by the Claimant legally names the tenant as "FILTON COLLEGE FURTHER EDUCATION CORPORATION". However, their parking contract is with a different entity, "South Gloucestershire & Stroud College". The Claimant has provided no evidence to resolve this discrepancy and has therefore failed to establish a clear and unbroken chain of authority to operate on the land, let alone issue legal proceedings in their own name.

​Unlawful Conduct of Litigation & Hearsay Evidence

1. ​The Claimant's case is being conducted by a paralegal, [REDACTED], who admits her knowledge is "based on information provided to me by my client". Her evidence is therefore entirely hearsay. The Claimant has also elected not to attend the hearing, ensuring this weak, second-hand evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination.
2. ​I wish to draw the court's attention to the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. This case confirmed that it is unlawful for an unqualified paralegal to have day-to-day conduct of litigation, as this is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. The lack of proper solicitor oversight is evident from the poor quality of the Claimant's case, which relies on a photo of a non-existent sign, an outdated map, and contradictory evidence regarding their legal standing. This has caused me actual prejudice in forcing me to defend a baseless claim.
3. ​A further clear example of this lack of professional oversight is found at paragraph 24 of the Claimant's own witness statement, where [REDACTED] falsely alleges that my Defence "does not contain any admissions or denials". This is patently untrue, as my Defence contains numerous explicit denials. This demonstrates that the Claimant's representative has not even read my Defence with due care and attention.

​Claimant's Conduct and Unenforceable Additional Costs

1. ​I note the Claimant's criticism that my defence is an "internet template". As a layperson with no legal training, I have had to research the law to defend myself against their high-volume, automated "robo-claim" system, which is itself based on templates. It is ironic for a professional litigant, whose business model relies on mass-produced claims, to criticise a member of the public for researching a robust defence.
2. ​The Claimant is claiming the sum of £100 plus an additional £70 in costs. As detailed in the Supreme Court judgment excerpts provided in Exhibit DR2, the parking charge itself already incorporates the operator's business costs. The additional £70 is therefore an unenforceable penalty and a clear attempt at double recovery.

​Conclusion

1. ​In summary, the Claimant has come to court with a case built on misleading evidence, including a non-existent sign and an outdated map. They have failed to prove they have the legal standing to be here. Their actual signage on site is woefully inadequate and in breach of their own Code of Practice, meaning no contract was formed. Furthermore, the case has been conducted unlawfully by an unsupervised paralegal presenting only hearsay evidence, and the costs claimed are an unenforceable penalty. For these numerous and serious failings, I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety.

​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.

​Signed:

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

​Date: 06.10.2025

Car1980

Some additions you may wish to consider:


The Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 allows statutory compensation for each late invoice (£40 - £100 depending on the amount of the invoice) for business to business invoices only. If businesses were intended to be alllowed to add sums to invoices to individuals a) there would be legislation allowing such, and b) the legislation that exists wouldn't specifically exclude business to individual invoices. Trying to insert additional contractual sums would seem to be an attempt to circumvent a) the only limited costs the small claims track is intended to offer, and; b) the intentions of law makers who specifically saw fit to legislate that late payment charges are solely the domain of Business to Business.

The figure of £70 is maintained whether or not a Parking Charge Notice is paid 29 days or 5 years after it was issued and is regardless of whether 1 or 10 follow up letters are sent by unconnected third parties. It is simply not a genuine reflection of any loss, especially as the sum is claimed to have been magically incurred on the stroke of midnight on day 29.

The Defendant acknowledges that the court will have seen variation of the defence previously, based on Martin Lewis’s Money Saving Expert web forum advice, just as they will have seen Gladstones' templates multiple times also. It has been edited to suit, understood and is a properly pleaded case. Use of the internet is of no impediment in this day and age, completely standard for litigants in person and obviously Gladstone's make use of the internet themselves instead of relying on "dusty textbooks".