Civil National Business Centre Claim form help

emmy_lou_2

 Coupon-mad Thank you 🙏 
Ive been doing my research on here and reading examples of other WS, they all sound so professional! Im a little nervous how Im going to get something like that down on paper !
 

Le_Kirk

emmy_lou_2 said:

 Coupon-mad Thank you 🙏 
Ive been doing my research on here and reading examples of other WS, they all sound so professional! Im a little nervous how Im going to get something like that down on paper !

Those were given as examples of style and format, so all you have to do is copy one (or combine a couple) and adapt it/them to suit your circumstances and the defence that you submitted.

emmy_lou_2

We have now received their WS, the letter is signed informally by ‘Craig’ a paralegal  the witness statement is signed by a solicitor 

The Claimant, will not be attending the final hearing.

In the claimants Statement it is written 

12. The signage states that any breach of these Terms and Conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100, plus additional costs if unpaid.

Then 

in the ‘Schedule of losses’ the claimant is claiming  

Judgment for The Principal Debt of £80.00.

The additional costs of £70.00 or such other amount as the court considers fair and reasonable up to a

maximum of £70 given the circumstances of the case.

Any additional costs incurred by the Claimant to date.

The Claimant also seeks interest at 8% or some other such rate as deemed appropriate by the Court,

pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

this is their 1st exhibit My Partner has returned to the store to photograph the signs to use as his own exhibits 

This is on the way in 

This is at Car Park exit 

These are obviously recent photographs and the  ‘incident’ was December 2023 

They have photographic evidence showing his  Vehicle entering the carpark at  04:26 and exiting at 06:25; They have stated that the store opened at 6am, my partner is convinced that it opened at 5am ( early opening Christmas hours) ad it was the 23rd December.

He also has evidence on his banking app that he spent around £90 there on groceries for Christmas, and I know for sure that my partner would not have done the Christmas grocery shop,  gone through the till, returned to his vehicle,  filled the boot, returned the trolley, and left the car park in 25 minutes !  He is going to pop in the store to see if they can confirm the opening time, because I have searched Tesco websites, local facebook groups etc and I cannot find anything.  

Although he entered at 4.26, I’m assuming ‘stayed’ means parked ?? 

He thought he had ‘3 hours maximum stay’ 

Ive got a few days to get this Witness Statement done. Im hoping it will come together when I make a start. Thank you for your guidance so far,

 I am very grateful for any further advice or tips  

Coupon-mad

The PCN on the sign is £70.

emmy_lou_2

I would be grateful if someone can check out this WS for me please 🙏 

I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made, and I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, registration number xxxxxx 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, I will then state the source of my information, referring to reference numbers where appropriate. 

Throughout this statement I will refer to exhibits contained within this witness statement, identifying them by page/paragraph where necessary 

This statement is intended to stand as evidence in chief at the hearing.

I am a litigant in person with no formal training, and no formal legal representation I have done my utmost to present my case and supporting evidence clearly and truthfully . 

My defense is repeated, and I say as follows 

Preliminary Matter; The claim should be struck out 

2. As a preliminary point, I draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant’s Witness Statement, signed by xxxxxx of Gladstones Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32. These rules require that a witness statement must be made by a person with first-hand knowledge of the facts. Paragraph 18.2 of PD 32 further states that the statement should be written in the witness’s own words and explain how they have direct knowledge of the matters set out. 

---

2 / 9

In this case, xxxxxx had no involvement in the alleged incident and therefore cannot give evidence of fact. Her statement is effectively a solicitor’s argument presented under the guise of evidence, which falls short of the required standard. 

3. Given this non-compliance, I respectfully invite the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) for failure to adhere to the relevant rules and practice directions. 

26.The Claimant has also elected not to attend the hearing, ensuring this weak, second-hand evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination. 

27.I wish to draw the court's attention to the High Court ruling in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. (SW7)

28. 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.  

4.   I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to two very recent and persuasive appeal decisions which support the striking out of claims of this nature. Considering the Overriding Objective, I submit that this baseless claim ought properly to be dismissed. Bulk-issuing litigators are aware of the Practice Directions and yet persist in submitting vague, template-based pleadings. Where claimants continue to adopt this approach, they cannot reasonably be surprised when the Court exercises its powers under CPR 3.4 to strike out such defective claims, as has already been established in persuasive case law. 

5. The first relevant authority is the appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44). In that case, decided on 15 August 2023, HHJ Murch held that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD 16.7.5, as they did not set out the alleged conduct said to constitute a breach of contract upon which the claim was based. (SW 1). 

6. The second persuasive authority is Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30). In a judgment given on 10 May 2024, HHJ Evans confirmed that Particulars of Claim must set out the essential facts upon which the claimant relies to prove their case. (SW2). 

7. In my submission, this claim should have been rejected at the outset by the County Court Business Centre. The claimant, a legally represented parking company, has 

---

3 / 9

knowingly failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Particulars of Claim lack any meaningful detail, failing even to specify the alleged contractual term said to have been breached. Indeed, these PoCs are less specific than those already struck out in Chan and Akande, leaving no coherent factual basis for the cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim. Furthermore, it  states on the POC that ‘THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £80 for the PCN’ but as per the claimant’s photographic evidence in their witness statement the Parking Charge Notice is £70. 

Factual Background of the Visit 

8. The alleged incident occurred 2 years ago on the 23rd of December 2023, Due to the significant passage of time my specific recollection of the car park layout, signage etc. Is limited. However, my standard practice is always to comply with parking regulations, and I would not intentionally park for an extended period. 

9. I was already familiar with this car park having visited on previous occasions as my place of work was nearby. On all previous visits the car park has always displayed signs showing ‘3 hours of free parking’. 

10. On the 23rd December 2023 Tesco Extra Cowbridge Road Bridgend  opened at 5am, which is why. I entered the car park early, as shown in the Claimants' photographic evidence in exhibit GS3. 

11. Whilst researching this claim against me, I have made a copy of my card transaction found on my banking App for purchases I made at the store for £86.91 Which was very likely, for fresh groceries for the festive period shown in SW3 

12. It is highly improbable if the claimant says the store opened at 6amthat I was able to navigate around  a large store full of festive shoppers, choose my items to purchase, wait in, a very likely, long checkout queue, purchase  my items, bag my goods, return to my vehicle, filled my boot, return my trolley, queue to exit and  left the store by 06.25 ( as per claimants Exhibit GS6) 

13. Generally, the stores standard opening time is from 6am but comments made in local; newspapers and social media in December 2023 that Wales’ largest Tesco stores (extras) extended their early hours in the days leading up to Christmas and were open from 5am to manage customer flow. This evidence is difficult to verify as they are location specific during holiday periods. 

---

4 / 9

Site Details 

14. The entire duration of my visit was during the hours of darkness evidence as per the claimant's photograph of my vehicle (exhibit GS3) a fact that is critical to the matter of signage visibility. I do not recall ever seeing any other signage at the entrance to the site on my numerous visits to this store other than the ‘3 hours free parking’ 

15. I have trawled the internet for photographic evidence of historic signage for the carpark at that time and have added these in my exhibits (SW4)they range from 7 to as early as 3 years ago and not one to match the claimants in exhibit 1.  

16. I have also added photographs of the signage that is currently at the entrance of the sites car park and it does not resemble the sign in the claimants (SW5) 

17.In preparation for this hearing, I have revisited the Tesco site my own photographic evidence, reveals that the Claimant has built its case upon a foundation of misleading, inaccurate evidence, which calls their entire credibility into question. 

18. Included in the  Claimant's evidence bundle (Exhibit GS1i)is a photograph of a large, prominent, blue sign with ‘maximum stay during store opening hours and outside opening hours’ I can state with certainty, having personally inspected the site, that this sign does not exist.at the entrance to the site. 

19. I submit that the Claimant’s evidence does not demonstrate that the contractual terms were prominently displayed, legible, or accessible to drivers.  

20. Clear and adequate signage is a fundamental requirement for any alleged contract to be enforceable. 

21. The Claimant is therefore relying on a photograph of a sign that is not located at the entrance of this site, which is a grossly misleading representation of the facts to both me and to the court.

22.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. 

23. The Claimant's own photographic evidence of their signage provided in their Exhibit GS2, is not a fair representation of the conditions I faced.  

---

5 / 9

24.The benchmark for fair signage was established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. As shown in Exhibit (SW6) the sign in that case was large, prominent, and located at the entrance. 

25.Therefore, no contract could have been formed. 

Claimant's Conduct 

29.I note the Claimant's criticism that my defense is “ A generic defense found on the internet, which is either outdated inaccurate or not relevant to the facts of the case” and they further comment on my intellect that it is ‘doubtful that I understand the complexities of all references in established Case law,’  

30.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 defense.   

31. The reason my defence contains points that may be common to other defenses is that the issues in these private parking claims are very similar. 

32.The Claimant states in her evidence (12) that 'The signage states that any breach of these terms and conditions will results in parking charge of £100’ 

33.The Signage in exhibit 1 of the Claimants bundle reads “A Parking Charge Notice of £70’ and has described this as “The Principal Debt” 

34.The Claimant continues in her evidence to list the ‘schedule of losses ‘ and is claiming for the ‘Sum of £80 as “The Principal Debt’ 

35.These discrepancies at this stage are questionable and brings their credibility into question 

---

6 / 9

Conclusion

36.In summary, this claim is without merit. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Particulars of Claim are vague, the signage relied upon is inadequate, and the alleged breach has not been properly evidenced. In fact, the evidence I have provided demonstrates that no contravention occurred. 

37.The authorities I have referred to, including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande, make it clear that poorly pleaded claims such as this should not proceed. Furthermore, the attempt to impose unfair and disproportionate additional costs is contrary to government guidance and established case law. 

38. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the claim should be struck out or dismissed in its entirety. In addition, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), I ask the Court to consider awarding my costs, as detailed in the attached Schedule of Costs, on the basis that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in pursuing a meritless claim and has caused me unnecessary time and expense in defending it. 

39.For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. That was not the case in this instance, especially in low-light conditions with no illuminated signage or road markings. No agreement could have been formed. The signage must be read in order for you to enter a contract with the landowner and the fact that you must stop your vehicle before being able to read the sign means you have already broken any contract before being able to enter a contract. 

40.I submit that their evidence fails to show that the terms were clearly displayed and accessible, particularly in darkness. As per the guidance in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67,(SW8) adequate notice of terms is essential to enforceability.

41.In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106,(SW9) it was held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms if they had no reasonable opportunity to see them. That principle applies here.

42.In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, (SW10)the court held that terms must be presented before or at the time of contract formation — not after entry. In this case, signage was not visible or clear enough at entry. 

43.The 'red hand rule' from Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (SW11)further supports that any onerous or unusual terms (such as penalty charges) must be made extremely prominent, which they were not in this instance.

---

7 / 9

44.The Beavis case is distinguishable because in that situation, the signage was large, bold, and clearly positioned. That was not the case here, so the same principles do not apply.

45.In National Car Parks v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 854, (SW12) the court recognised that entering a car park alone does not constitute acceptance of terms where payment or clarity is absent. That also applies to my case.

46.Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant appear to be in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, and Practice Directions 16PD3 and 16PD7. They failed to clearly state all the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.

47.I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that: 

- No valid contract was formed.

- The signage was not sufficiently prominent or clear to meet legal requirements.

- The claimant’s evidence is inadequate and does not reflect the actual conditions on-site.

- No loss or legitimate interest justifies the charge being pursued.

- The Particulars of Claim are deficient and fail to meet the CPR requirements.

48. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract; there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

49.To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

---

8 / 9

50. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (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 deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. 

51.The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

52. 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

53. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White 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))'.

Statement of Truth:

---

9 / 9

54. 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:

Coupon-mad

Very good!

You've repeated this twice, so remove one:

"My defense is repeated, and I say as follows"

And go through finding all the words spelt 'defense' (USA spelling) & edit to defence.

Move 26, 27 and 28 up so that these come directly underneath the paragraph near the start, where you say that the signatory isn't a witness and can't be cross-examined.

That will then flow better.

emmy_lou_2

Will do ! Thank you so much 

1505grandad

An observation:-

"6. The second persuasive authority is Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande...."

"37.The authorities I have referred to, including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande,...."

Para 6 spelling is correct  -  no "s" on end  -  check the Judgment

emmy_lou_2

Thank you @1505grandad, will alter that now 

emmy_lou_2

This might be the silliest question ever, but how do I sign the Witness Statement ?