Napier Parking - BW Legal Defence Paragraph

barge09

Today I received their WS and a Skeleton Argument against my defence, mostly claiming it was copied and pasted from the internet but they also claim that the following is incorrect or misleading:

(a) References to the "new" statutory Code of Practice. This does not exist;

(b) Reference to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd Chd [2011] EWHC 4023(QB). This was fact specific, and prior to the Supreme Court's leading 144 page judgement considering parking charges in Beavis in 2015;

( c) Accusing Appeal Judges in County Court appeal cases such as HHJ Saffman, HHJ Parkes and HHJ Simpkiss of flawed judgements; and

(d) Referencing Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), whether or not it applies (see below)

I will continue to use other WS to put together my own but any additional thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

(b) is funny, given the fact that HHJ Moloney - in the first Beavis hearing - considered ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd and referenced that the £85 PCN already more than covers the pre-action letter chain.

And your WS will say that because you will use the new words about HHJ Moloney and will exhibit that transcript.



barge09

I had already admitted being the driver (as I thought I had a ticket albeit for the wrong car park due to lack of signage) - does the inflated cost still apply even though I am the driver rather than the registered keeper?

barge09

Any feedback on the below would be really appreciated - as a reminder I parked and paid for a ticket. However, turns out that the car park which looks like one big car park, split into a different code. There is no clear entrance to this part of the car park - only thing is a machine and terms and conditions in small print which was at least 15 spaces from where I parked.



Witness Statement

1.  I, XX of XX, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

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 truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

No Valid Contract Formed

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract term was breached. However, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and something of value given in return — which was not present here. Under section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 

5.  Looking at Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) and section 62 of the CRA, which require fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant is known to use unclear and potentially unfair terms and notices.

6.The absence of any signage at the site approach and entrance used by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is particularly significant. Under Sections 62–68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consumer Rights Act 2015), contractual terms must be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. Additionally, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), the Claimant is contractually obliged to comply with the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. Section 19.2 of this Code states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance…” (Exhibit XX image of the site entrance with no clear established entrance from Google Maps September 2024).

8. I would also like to draw the attention of the Judge to Exhibit XX which is an image of the car park entrance taken in April 2026, the image shows a new sign has been erected, stating “private land”. Google Maps images show this sign was not in place in September 2024 (Exhibit XX) and therefore would suggest it has since been put in place due to unclear signs and other cases like this being pursued by the Claimant. Most importantly, evidently there was not a clear entrance in May 2023.

7. Not only has the Claimant failed to comply with their own applicable Code of Practice, but they have also misled the court by asserting that an entrance sign was present when it was clearly not.

9.  The misleading and inaccurate signage map (page 4 of Exhibit RS‑1 of the Claimant's witness statement) raises concerns regarding the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence and their adherence to the required standards. Without clear, accurate, and consistent evidence demonstrating the location and visibility of contractual signage, the Claimant cannot prove that the terms were effectively communicated. As such, no contract could have been formed with the driver.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

10.  In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)

11.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

12.  Also, the PCN on the Claimant’s own signage was £100 (Exhibit RS-1of the Claimant’s witness statement), whereas the Claimant claims £115.44 for the PCN in the POC.

13.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (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 UKSC67 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf).

14.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

15.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(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'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

16.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

17.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conclusion

18.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. The Claimant’s own evidence shows an inaccurate and misleading site plan. Without clear and reliable evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise. I paid for a parking ticket for the day and had no reason to believe it was for a different car park due to the lack of clear signs.

19.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

20. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices, unreliable and misleading evidence, and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Unreasonable Conduct by Claimant(CPR 27.14(2)(g))

23.  In the alternative to striking out the claim, I respectfully invite the Court to determine that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant is professionally represented by a firm of solicitors specialising in private parking litigation and cannot claim ignorance of the statutory requirements governing their own industry.

24.  Further, the Claimant has submitted misleading evidence, including an inaccurate and demonstrably false “Signage Location Plan” purporting to show signage at the site entrance where no such sign existed masking the Claimant’s breach of their own Code of Practice. My recent photographs, site visit, and Google Streetview image all confirm Napier Parking Limited have added signage to the site to try and distinguish the area is separate to the rest of the car park (arguably this is still unclear to someone visiting for the first time), clearly showing this was missing and was required to establish the entrance when I parked in 2023.

26.  Additionally, the Claimant has inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a £60 “debt recovery” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

27.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading evidence, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

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.

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings / annual leave (Capped)

Defendant had to take one day of Annual Leave to attend the Court Hearing

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Travel Expenses

Roundtrip mileage costs for: 1) Site visit of XXX to inspect signage and take photographic evidence 2) Attending the Hearing at XXX County Court

- 80 miles × £0.45 per mile = £36.00

Subtotal: £36.00

Litigant in Person Costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g) – If Awarded)

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, examining the Claimant’s evidence, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £24/hour.

- 12 hours research + preparation × £24/hour = £288.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £288.00

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £131.00

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £419.00

1505grandad

A heads-up - Napier are IPC AoS members not BPA.

Coupon-mad

The costs schedule must be a separate signed & dated document. A separate page attached to your email.

The WS must be signed & dated under that Statement of Truth.

And near the start of your WS you need to tell the judge the fact that the two car parks were not delineated clearly, which looks like a deliberate or negligent trap:

"the car park which looks like one big car park, split into a different code. There is no clear entrance to this part of the car park"

And state that you paid a fee and entered into a contract with the other company on site, which had the more prominent signs, including an entrance sign. Attach proof. State that as such, you cannot be bound by another (unknown) contract not seen, and the lack of delineation of bays is squarely the fault of the Claimant.

barge09

Thanks do the Exhibits need to be on the same document as the WS or should be separate attachments?

Le_Kirk

Add them on the end of your WS as a new page(s) with their own references, usually your initials with a number say barge09_001, 002 etc. If you send as separate attachment, is there a risk they may get lost?

barge09

Hello. I have a court date within 2 weeks, I'm sure previously read that I should contact the court to see if they have paid the fees but can no longer find this information. Can you confirm if I should do this and what I should be asking?

Le_Kirk

What does the Notice of Allocation state (usually on page 2) about deadline for paying fees and for submitting witness statements (WS)? You can call the court where the hearing is due to be held once the deadline for fee has passed but do NOT miss your deadline for submitting your WS.