Witness Statement Stage

Coupon-mad

Remove the bit about going round the corner!

Should I delete the bit in paragraph 2 about having little recollection of events?

No. Because it says 'save as stated below'.

Guy_Incognito2025

Thanks both for your notes, 

Is the below ok, or still too detailed / too brief?

"For many years, the car park belonged to a Wickes and Halfords, which allowed one hour free parking for customers. Upon the stores' closure in early 2023, the parking terms changed to allow 10 minutes free parking. Although the defendant is the vehicle's registered keeper, they were not the driver on the day of the alleged 'offence'. The defendant's partner was using the car and parked in the car park to visit Wickes, not realising the store had just closed down and that new parking terms had been implemented. According to the PCN, he entered and left the car park in just over 12 minutes, which would surely be covered by a grace period. (NB - The terms have since changed again, and there is now no longer a free period."

Gr1pr, it is DCB Legal claiming on behalf of Euro Car Parks.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do. It'll be discontinued by Xmas.

Once the defence is safely submitted, get some revenge on the parking industry. This is your one chance to change the law. This month only. You and your partner can do separate responses (not word for word copies please).

To be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) motorists have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be a SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that people trust. The sector is crying out for an independent and impartial appeals service - not two involved in a race to the bottom - that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. 

b).  THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY THE VULNERABLE PAY. DRAS MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY ALWAYS PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE. THEY OFFER NOTHING, NO LEGITIMATE OPTION TO KEEP CASES OUT OF COURT.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We will discuss it further in a few days or at the weekend on that thread if you want more focus.

Gr1pr

Remove the legal word offence,  no offence was committed and there was a recent strike out due to someone using it in their original defence,   to be clear, it's not an offence,  with or without quotation marks  !

Brief is good, less detail is good, putting it in more legal terms is good too

I think that it still needs reworking,  but I wont be doing it,  no offence, lol

Guy_Incognito2025

Hi all, 

I am just filling out the directions questionnaire and have a question.

If i wasn't the driver, should i put the person who was driving down as a second witness, so that they may back up my argument?

i.e. would the judge want to hear from the person who was driving the car, or would my presence alone be sufficient?

Thanks.

kryten3000

No.  The driver should not attend any hearing where they are not the Defendant. In some rare situations judges have decided to find the driver liable and effectively make them the Defendant during the hearing. You want to avoid any possibility of this.

This is highly unlikely to get to a hearing as DCB Legal will throw in the towel before you reach that stage, probably after the mediation call (where you will offer them £0).

Guy_Incognito2025

Hi all, I now have a hearing date for May, while my witness statement is due this week. Please find my WS below and let me know your thoughts.

A few things to note:

1. I have referenced Mazur in the first part but am aware that judgment has been appealed. Does that weaken that line of defence, especially if there's a chance it could be overturned before my hearing date?

2. I don't have any photos of the signs in the car park (either while Wickes/Halfords were still operational or after they had closed down) as that was a few years ago and there are new signs from a new parking operator there now. So, I can't illustrate my point about the signs installed immediately after the shops' closure being similar to the signs that were there before, or that there weren't any separate warning signs alerting drivers of the change in terms. 

3. I haven't received the claimant's witness statement yet, so I don't know what is said in it.

Euro Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

V

XX (Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXX

Witness Statement of Defendant

1. Introduction

1.1 I, [name], of [address], am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and this account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

1.2 I confirm I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the event: XX February 2023.

1.3 I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly, and I respectfully ask the Court to take this into account.

2. Unauthorised person conducting litigation

2.1 The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)[1] confirms that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity that must be carried out by authorised persons.

2.2 The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) register for the firm representing the Claimant. Per Mazur, supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. The POC are therefore defective as they appear to have been verified by a person not authorised to sign statements of truth in proceedings.

3. Response to the claim

3.1 The first correspondence I received in relation to this was a letter dated XX January 2025, from DCB Ltd demanding £170. I never received a PCN or any other letters prior to that. I then tried to retrace my whereabouts two years prior and can confirm that my partner was driving the vehicle on that day.

3.2 For many years, the retail park where the car park is situated contained a Wickes and a Halfords, and the parking terms allowed one-hour free parking for customers. My partner entered the retail park on that day to visit Wickes, as he had done many times before, only to find that the store had just closed down. He then spent a short period of time searching for an alternative store that stocked what he was looking for, before leaving the retail park. He did not realise, and had no reason to believe, new parking terms had been implemented upon the stores’ closure, as this change was not adequately brought to his attention. There were no warning signs at the entrance to, or anywhere in the car park, alerting drivers to the fact there had been a change in the parking terms. Any new signs that had been installed were similar in appearance to the previous signs, giving drivers no reason to believe the terms had changed. This constitutes a "concealed pitfall or trap."

3.3 According to the PCN, which I received over email on XX May 2025, my partner drove into and out of the retail park within 12 minutes 28 seconds. Although unaware of the changes to the parking terms at the time of the event, I later learnt that when the new parking terms were implemented following the closures of Wickes and Halfords, they still allowed free parking for 10 minutes. This would mean my partner was only inside the retail park for 2 minutes 28 seconds longer than the free parking period, which should be covered by a grace period. NB – These are no longer the terms as there is now an Aldi on site and the car park is managed by a different company (ParkingEye). The new ParkingEye terms once again allow free parking for customers, for up to 1 hour 30 minutes.

3.4 The PCN does not meet the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 requirements as it fails to provide evidence of the period parked. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record from the Claimant to show that the vehicle was parked. POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the PCN to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012. The Claimant’s PCN simply claims that the vehicle “entered XXX Retail Park - XXX at XXX and departed at XXX on XX/XX/XX”. The Claimant uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the retail park to calculate their length of stay. It does not provide any direct evidence of the alleged violation. It is not in the gift of the Claimant to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of the ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the Claimant cannot definitively state the period of parking and therefore confirm that my partner overstayed the 10-minute free parking period.

3.5 Also of note is that the PCN fails to indicate the date on which it was posted and only states an issue date. Under 8.1.2 of The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024, Note 2 specifies that “... parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)”

4. Amount claimed and added sums

4.1. The Claimant is seeking £170 for the PCN, which includes "damages.” In accordance with the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the £100 industry cap is intended to cover all operating costs. Regarding the added £70 fee for the PCN, I rely on the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC in the initial Beavis hearing, who held that the parking charge itself was intended to cover the costs of the automated letter-chain and generate a profit. Adding £70 per ticket is an attempt at "double recovery" and an abuse of the court process. As held in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), inflating a parking charge with ‘admin costs’ appears penal. Since the Claimant has provided no breakdown of costs or an explanation of how this sum had been calculated, it can only be viewed as a punitive charge for the Defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

4.2 Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, 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 (paragraph 4(5)).” Late fees (unknown to drivers and 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 Code of Practice, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

4.3 The Claimant has added in an “interest rate” which is clearly an attempt to seek more funds from the Defendant.

5. My costs

5.1 I request the following costs for my attendance at the hearing: 1 day of paid annual leave at the rate of £XX, plus the cost of covering parking fees at the Court.

6. Conclusion

6.1 This claim is an utter waste of court resources and 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.

6.2 For the reasons above, I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim.

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: xx

Date: xx

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Use Mazur anyway and no worries because you will get your Notice of Discontinuance by the end of the week! This'll give DCB Legal a prod.

Show us their NoD when it arrives please (not the email itself).

Guy_Incognito2025

Thanks for your response. Should I add a link to the Mazur ruling, and if so, is this the right one:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html ?

Another forum poster linked to this in their WS: https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/ but that just looks like a blog to me?

That person also attached a transcript of part of HHJ Moloney's judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. Should I do this too and should I provide links or attachments to any of the other cases/documents I've referenced?

Coupon-mad

I'd provide links as footnotes which saves on pages and is handy for any judge but it won't get to a hearing!

Yes you have the right Mazur link.