Got a claim form from CNBC

Gr1pr

You definitely dont want to miss court order deadlines,  one person did recently and proved very costly for them 

abuhafs

Could you point me to a case where the parking notice was non existent / hardly visible? I have video evidence of driving in to the area and nothing visible to state restrictions. Need a WS with a similar issue.

I did search but can't see any similar WS.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

When you search, change the "Sort by" from Best Match to Newest and make sure you are searching threads.  For us to advise, we would have to do the same as you and search the forum.

abuhafs

Please kindly let me know if I've done this correctly. Likely many errors but I'm rushing last minute.. :(

Table of Contents

1. WITNESS STATEMENT

2. PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

3. FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

4. UNFAIR TERMS, LACK OF STANDING, AND INADEQUATE NOTICE

5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON INDUSTRY CONDUCT

6. CLAIMANT’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL FAILINGS

7. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

8. STATEMENT OF TRUTH

9. EXHIBITS

National Parking Control Limited
(Claimant)
V
— —

(Defendant)

1. WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
   1.1 I am xxxxxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

1.2 In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-06) 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:

1. PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

2.1 As a preliminary matter, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by a representative of National Parking Control Limited, 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 the claimants representative does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non- compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests 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.

2.2 I draw to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

2.3 A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part

2.4 On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch 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 and in view of the CEL vs Chan judgment followed by many other cases where District Judges have taken the same view, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
2.5 I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.
2.6 On the 6th of November 2024 the defendant had visited family members living in the residential area of Guardian Way breaching no parking restrictions. The defendant had entered the residential area which had no visible signs stating parking limits or restrictions.

2.7 I was occupied in the visit with my children in the visiting house. During this short period, the I did nothing to breach parking rules.

2.8 There were no signs or warnings to state parking restrictions in view from the point of entering the residential area to the parking point. Any claims of breaching terms is clearly incorrect and without reason. Clear evidence of entry point and surroundings are shown with no parking signs in view of anyone driving into the area.

2.9 I tried to seek explanation for the parking claim by asking the residents, who have also mentioned that the claimant is very frequently issuing visitors parking fines incorrectly and had been challenged by many defendants.

2.10 Any signage that may have been present was either too small to notice or too high up for a driver in their car or on foot to be able to read. Claimant failed to provide clear evidence of where the signage was placed (how high up, where it was located in the site).

2.11 I draw you to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority

2.12 A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part

2.13 On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch 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 and in view of the CEL vs Chan judgment followed by many other cases where District Judges have taken the same view, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

2.14 I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

3.FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Date of the Incident: On Wednesday, 06 November 2024, I had entered Guardian Way for visiting family.
No visible signage: while driving into Guardian Way I did not notice any visitors or parking restrictions signage at the entrance.

Definitely no clear signage at visiting point: Immediately after parking for visit, I had not seen any clear visible sign in the area during visit stating that parking is prohibited or restricted.

3.1 Any signage, if present, failed to meet the standards of clarity and prominence required by law and guidance. I was not given a fair or transparent opportunity to review or accept any contractual terms.
3.2 The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and insufficiently particularised, failing to specify the exact conduct alleged to constitute a breach of contract. This aligns with concerns raised in persuasive judgments, including:

• Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref: E7GM9W44), where HHJ Murch held that similar
  Particulars of Claim did not comply with CPR 16.4;
• CPMS v Akande (Ref: K0DP5J30), where HHJ Evans ruled that Particulars of Claim must outline the basic facts relied upon.

3.3 As in those cases, the Claimant here has submitted boilerplate particulars, omitting details of the specific signage, alleged contract terms, or precise breach. On this basis, I respectfully request that the Court consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.

4 UNFAIR TERMS, LACK OF STANDING, AND INADEQUATE NOTICE

I deny that any contract was formed or that the Claimant had authority to offer or enforce such terms. I put the Claimant to strict proof of:

• Their legal authority to operate and litigate on that land;
• The exact signage allegedly relied upon;
• Evidence that the signage was prominent, well-lit, unambiguous, and visible from where I stopped.

5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON INDUSTRY CONDUCT
5.1 This case reflects a wider trend of exaggerated, bulk-issued parking claims by private operators.
Private Operators routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per 5 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.
5.2 The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (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.
5.3 "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."
5.4 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.
5.5 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.
5.6 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.
5.7 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');
• 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."
5.8 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.
5.9 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.
5.10 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).
5.11 Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (see Exhibit 9).

6.CLAIMANT’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL FAILINGS

6.1 I anticipate the Claimant may rely on a witness statement from a legal assistant or paralegal, which would constitute hearsay based on second-hand information and lacking direct knowledge.
This contravenes:
• CPR 32.2; and
• Practice Direction 32.18.2, which require witnesses to distinguish between personal knowledge and second-hand information.
6.2 The use of such generic witness statements undermines the credibility and procedural validity of the Claimant’s case.

1. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
   7.1 I maintain that I did not park in breach of any terms, that no contract was formed, and that the signage was not visible or wholly inadequate.
   7.2 The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Claimant fails to meet legal requirements, as it does not clearly specify the alleged breach or how any contract was formed. Combined with the lack of clear and prominent signage, this renders the alleged breach ambiguous and unenforceable.
   7.3 Given the unclear and non-compliant signage, the PCN’s failure to articulate a valid breach, and the Claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof, I respectfully request that the Honourable Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety.
   7.4 I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.
   7.5 I further request the Court to award:
   a) My standard witness costs under CPR 27.14;
   b) Travel costs to and from Court (£30);
   c) Printing, postage, time, and stationery costs related to defending this claim (£40);
   d) Time taken off work (5 hours £15.60 = £78).
   I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable
   behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.
2. 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.

Defendant’s signature:

Le_Kirk

I don't think you can use Chan & Akande as you didn't put them in your defence and the POC quite clearly states the reason as being "not having an E-permit or displaying a permit".

abuhafs

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81856414#Comment_81856414

Should i replace them with the paragraphs on my Defence i submitted previously? Apologies, i really don't know what i'm doing. Just trying to use someone elses template to try and make it work.

Also, would the court require evidence of the costs i'm trying to recover? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes attach a simple signed & dated list of your costs such as £95 for a day off work plus £24 per hour of time spent on each stage.

Remove all this:

1. PRELIMINARY MATTER: THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

2.1 As a preliminary matter, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by a representative of National Parking Control Limited, 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 the claimants representative does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non- compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests 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.

2.2 I draw to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

2.3 A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part

2.4 On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch 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 and in view of the CEL vs Chan judgment followed by many other cases where District Judges have taken the same view, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
2.5 I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

and remove all this:

2.11 I draw you to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority

2.12 A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part

2.13 On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch 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 and in view of the CEL vs Chan judgment followed by many other cases where District Judges have taken the same view, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

2.14 I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

And remove this AND remove 7.4:

3.2 The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are vague, generic, and insufficiently particularised, failing to specify the exact conduct alleged to constitute a breach of contract. This aligns with concerns raised in persuasive judgments, including:

• Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref: E7GM9W44), where HHJ Murch held that similar
  Particulars of Claim did not comply with CPR 16.4;
• CPMS v Akande (Ref: K0DP5J30), where HHJ Evans ruled that Particulars of Claim must outline the basic facts relied upon.

3.3 As in those cases, the Claimant here has submitted boilerplate particulars, omitting details of the specific signage, alleged contract terms, or precise breach. On this basis, I respectfully request that the Court consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.

And remove this

5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON INDUSTRY CONDUCT
5.1 This case reflects a wider trend of exaggerated, bulk-issued parking claims by private operators.
Private Operators routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per 5 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.
5.2 The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (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.
5.3 "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."
5.4 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.
5.5 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.
5.6 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.
5.7 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');
• 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."
5.8 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.

abuhafs

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81856790#Comment_81856790

Thank you. I've made those changes. Hope its okay

National Parking Control Limited
(Claimant)
V
xxxxx

(Defendant)

1. WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
   1.1 I am xxxxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

1.2 In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-06) 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:

1.3 On the 6th of November 2024 the defendant had visited family members living in the residential area of Guardian Way breaching no parking restrictions. The defendant had entered the residential area which had no visible signs stating parking limits or restrictions.

1.4 I was occupied in the visit with my children in the visiting house. During this short period, the I did nothing to breach parking rules.

1.5 There were no signs or warnings to state parking restrictions in view from the point of entering the residential area to the parking point. Any claims of breaching terms is clearly incorrect and without reason. Clear evidence of entry point and surroundings are shown with no parking signs in view of anyone driving into the area.

1.6 I tried to seek explanation for the parking claim by asking the residents, who have also mentioned that the claimant is very frequently issuing visitors parking fines incorrectly and had been challenged by many defendants.

1.7 Any signage that may have been present was either too small to notice or too high up for a driver in their car or on foot to be able to read. Claimant failed to provide clear evidence of where the signage was placed (how high up, where it was located in the site).

1. FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Date of the Incident: On Wednesday, 06 November 2024, I had entered Guardian Way for visiting family.
No visible signage: while driving into Guardian Way I did not notice any visitors or parking restrictions signage at the entrance.

Definitely no clear signage at visiting point: Immediately after parking for visit, I had not seen any clear visible sign in the area during visit stating that parking is prohibited or restricted.

Any signage, if present, failed to meet the standards of clarity and prominence required by law and guidance. I was not given a fair or transparent opportunity to review or accept any contractual terms.

1. UNFAIR TERMS, LACK OF STANDING, AND INADEQUATE NOTICE

I deny that any contract was formed or that the Claimant had authority to offer or enforce such terms. I put the Claimant to strict proof of:

• Their legal authority to operate and litigate on that land;
• The exact signage allegedly relied upon;
• Evidence that the signage was prominent, well-lit, unambiguous, and visible from where I stopped.

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.
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).
Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (see Exhibit 9).

1. CLAIMANT’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL FAILINGS

4.1 I anticipate the Claimant may rely on a witness statement from a legal assistant or paralegal, which would constitute hearsay based on second-hand information and lacking direct knowledge.
This contravenes:
• CPR 32.2; and
• Practice Direction 32.18.2, which require witnesses to distinguish between personal knowledge and second-hand information.
4.2 The use of such generic witness statements undermines the credibility and procedural validity of the Claimant’s case.

5. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
5.1 I maintain that I did not park in breach of any terms, that no contract was formed, and that the signage was not visible or wholly inadequate.
5.2 The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Claimant fails to meet legal requirements, as it does not clearly specify the alleged breach or how any contract was formed. Combined with the lack of clear and prominent signage, this renders the alleged breach ambiguous and unenforceable.
5.3 Given the unclear and non-compliant signage, the PCN’s failure to articulate a valid breach, and the Claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof, I respectfully request that the Honourable Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety.
5.4 I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.
5.5 I further request the Court to award:
a) My standard witness costs under CPR 27.14;
b) Travel costs to and from Court (£30);
c) Printing, postage, time, and stationery costs related to defending this claim (£50);
d) Time taken off work (1 day = £78).
I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable
behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

6. 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.

Defendant’s signature:

abuhafs

I don't have anything in the exhibits. Any advice on what to put? I have a video of entering the area with no clear or visible signs. This i can make into pictures for evidence but anything else worth putting in or leave out? As time is short for me. Thanks again

1505grandad

A heads-up - make sure that you state the correct name of the claimant in the WS - see claim form.

You are still quoting the Chan case.