Letter of claim: CE LTD response to claimant

Coupon-mad

Your WS must be due then. What deadline?

Scott Wilson left CEL in the Winter, so his template WS dated October is just hearsay and said nothing. IGNORE THAT ONE.

Concentrate on demolishing the new WS. Show us screenshots.

Forget all of this which doesn't help your case:

As part of my evidence exhibits

Email chain with GP practice (presumed land owner) - I have indicated I contacted the GP, however how do I refer to the GPs POV in these emails of, "We do not get involved with the company to negotiate PCN’s as a general rule, they are entitled to charge you if you have not followed the rules. I am sorry that on this occasion I am unable to help as you will need to appeal the decision."

Secondly, the GP indicated parking enforcement began on the 1st of the month, however I had previously parked in-between this and the contravention date, without registering my car or receiving a PCN.

Follow-up FOI email - I asked for information on initial signage, changes to signage, when the active enforcement began and a contractual agreement of CEL role to enforce, pursue charges as a creditor, and take legal action on behalf of CEL and not the GP practice.

I have had no response to this FOI - is my contact here suitable to be reference as evidenced, as CEL WS do not provide their relationship to the landowner.

You should be using some exhibits from the recommended cases and evidence in the 'WS and exhibits' section of post 2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Your evidence should include things like a page putting the ParkingEye v Beavis case yellow & black (prominent terms) sign next to CEL's image of their wordy sign!

Show us that too.

Adrian1999

1. image 1 - (red arrow) misspelt defendants name

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Adrian1999

I have re-order the images to follow the logic order upon entry of the car park. The numbering reflects the original order in the WS bundle. Image 4, where the white van and red car is, roughly where I parked, and with image 2 resembles how easily the signs can be blocked from view by cars.

1)

4)

2)

3)

This shows how every parking sign can easily be blocked by cars parking (Green squares). I believe the the Red square is where I parked, with the yellow line as a route into the GP.

The new WS statement bundle provided this POC as an exhibit

Adrian1999

My pictures of how we would drive into the car park

green arrow is new signage, differing from claimant exhibit

I think I will retake this to get the spaces where the green arrow points too

The Claimant bundle does not provide a clear and readable image of this sign - my bundle with this image would be the only readable sign for the court.

Adrian1999

In terms of PoC wording using 'breach' instead of 'breached' (see image), is Chan and Akande applicable here?

I will also utilise parkingeye vs Beavis

Adrian1999

claimants evidence pack page numbering stops on the statement of truth page, which is page 8. No page numbering exists between pages 9 to 49 of exhibit evidence...

Edit: I guess this is not pivotal as the exhibits are referenced.

Adrian1999

here is my draft witness statement

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF XXXX (SMALL CLAIMS TRACK) AT XXXX CLAIM NO: XXXX

Between

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (claimant)

V

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of XXXXX (Defendant)

1. I, XXXXXX, am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Are in support of my defence against the claim brought by Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), and are true to the best of my information and belief.
2. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my evidence clearly and respectfully.
3. This witness statement supports my Defense already filed and served and responds to the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) and evidence.
4. For completeness, I exhibit the Claimant’s earlier witness statement dated XXXXXX (XX1) to evidence the sequence of documents served. I initially drafted my witness statement with reference to that document, but this statement has been updated to address the Claimant’s later witness statement and evidence bundle, and I do not rely on XX1 for substantive proof of the alleged parking event.

A. Facts of the matter and sequence of events

1. I, confirming as the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, attended The XXXXX on XXXXX as a patient for a medical appointment.
2. The Claimant’s case states that the vehicle entered the site at 08:52 and exited at 09:20. The total time on site was therefore approximately 28 minutes.
3. I received a postal Parking Charge Notice dated XXXXX alleging that I failed to comply with the site’s parking terms.
4. I contacted the GP practice about the matter. The email correspondence confirms my attendance/appointments and provides context (XX2).

B. Patient context and notice of change

1. I was a historical patient at this GP surgery at a time when the parking restrictions now relied upon by the Claimant did not exist, and visited and returned as a patient in December 2023, prior to the incident date.
2. Between the introduction of any new requirements and the incident date, I parked in the GP surgery car park on XXXXXX without any incident and without any knowledge that new parking requirements had been introduced (XX2).
3. Accordingly, on XXXXXX, I genuinely held an honest and reasonable belief, to me, that no change to the parking arrangements had occurred or been brought to my attention, until the receipt of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
4. This is a medical site used by patients (including elderly and vulnerable individuals). Adequate and accessible notice of any change is important. Especially so for new patients joining during this transition, of whom could have been affected by unclear or inadequately communicated changes.

C. The PoC are generic and the Claimant is put to proof

1. The PoC are brief and generic, asserting a parking charge for breach of terms without clearly pleading the precise term allegedly breached and the specific conduct said to constitute the breach.
2. I maintain the Claimant is put to strict proof of (i) the contractual terms relied upon, (ii) that those terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists at the material time, and (iii) that the Claimant has standing/authority to sue in its own name.

D. Signage: legibility, complexity, and the need to refer to multiple signs

1. The Claimant does not provide clear, contemporaneous driver-perspective images demonstrating that the key terms were visible and legible to a driver at the material time. Many images appear to be close-ups that do not show the approach, viewing distance or whether signage was obscured.
2. My evidence shows that the entry signage directs motorists to refer to other signage for the full terms and conditions (XX3). This adds complexity and reduces the likelihood that key terms are properly brought to attention at the point of entry.
3. My evidence also shows a complex layout with multiple sub-sections and varying font/background colours, which undermines information hierarchy and clarity (xx3). The instructions on how to comply are presented separately from the core terms and from the consequences of failing to obtain a valid permit.
4. In my submission, this complexity and lack of clear prominence is particularly problematic at a medical centre car park where users may be unwell, anxious, elderly, or otherwise vulnerable.

E. Signage can be obstructed by parked vehicles

1. Signage can be blocked by parked vehicles due to its placement behind or adjacent to bays. This is demonstrated by my site/layout and approach evidence (XX4 – XX5) and is consistent with the Claimant’s own photos which show signage at distance and/or behind vehicles.

F. Standing/authority and commencement uncertainty

1. The Claimant relies on an appointment/authority document in its evidence bundle. It records a commencement date as “TBC”, which does not clearly evidence when enforcement began or whether the alleged contractual regime was operational on the material date.
2. I put the Claimant to strict proof by way of a full contemporaneous signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier, including any site plan/schedules and express authority permitting the Claimant to issue and pursue parking charges in its own name and through the court system.

G. Amount claimed and added sums are disputed

1. The PoC seek an inflated sum beyond the headline charge. I dispute the recoverability of any add-on sums and put the Claimant to strict proof that such sums were clearly offered, adequately prominent, properly incurred, and legally recoverable in this track.
2. If the Claimant relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (XX6), I note that Beavis turned on clear and prominent signage and the transparency of the charge term. By contrast, the signage relied upon here is not shown to be comparably prominent, clear, and accessible (for comparison, see the Beavis-style example sign at xx7).
3. I do not overstate reliance on authorities beyond their relevance. My primary case is factual: the Claimant has not proven adequate notice of any changed parking requirements and has not proven that a clear contract was formed on the material date.

H. Conclusion

1. For the reasons above and those pleaded in my Defence, I respectfully ask that 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: _______________________________

Name: xxxxxxx

Dated: ________________________________

Exhibits

xx1 – Earlier Claimant witness statement dated XXXXX (for timeline/context).

xx2 – Email correspondence with GP practice confirming appointments and relevant context.

xx3 – Photographs of signage (Image 1 and Image 2) highlighting complexity, legibility and the need to refer to further signs for terms and conditions.

xx4 - Annotated site plan / layout demonstrating signage locations, potential obstruction by parked vehicles, and on foot approach into the GP surgery.

xx5 - Approach/entry images (demonstrating driver sightlines of site layout, signage placement and potential obstructions)

xx6 – Beavis comparison material (if relied upon in argument).

xx7 – ParkingEye v Beavis example signage image (for prominence comparison).

Adrian1999

Here is my exhibits (via dropbox)

Regarding the parkingeye v beavis case, what material and how should I exhibit it? Would it be using the judgement summary? and both copied into the exhibit and a link to find it, or?

Adrian1999

I have made an amendment to section D

D. Signage: legibility, complexity, and the need to refer to multiple signs

1. The Claimant does not provide clear, contemporaneous driver-perspective images demonstrating that the key terms were visible and legible to a driver at the material time. Many images appear to be close-ups that do not show the approach, viewing distance or whether signage was obscured.
2. My evidence shows that the entry signage directs motorists to refer to other signage for the full terms and conditions (XX3). This adds complexity and reduces the likelihood that key terms are properly brought to attention at the point of entry.
3. My evidence also shows a complex layout with multiple sub-sections and varying font/background colours, which undermines information hierarchy and clarity (XX3). The instructions on how to comply are presented separately from the core terms and from the consequences of failing to obtain a valid permit.
4. The signage relied upon by the Claimant, which uses this complex layout, may misdirect attention: “PAY VIA JUSTPARK” is prominent and appears directed at paying users, while “THE XXXXX” reads as a location label rather than an instruction. The patient-registration requirement is therefore not clearly signposted as the key condition for patients parking free of charge.
5. This lack of clarity is also reflected in the wording of the PCN (NEW XX), which states the alleged contravention as: “payment not made / permit not obtained in accordance with notified terms”. This is broad and does not clearly identify the specific obligation allegedly breached.
6. Accordingly, I dispute that the relevant terms were adequately “notified” or sufficiently prominent to form a clear contract, and I put the Claimant to strict proof of the terms in place at the material time, where and how they were displayed, and how the patient-registration requirement was brought to motorists’ attention.
7. In my submission, this complexity and lack of clear prominence is particularly problematic at a medical centre car park where users may be unwell, anxious, elderly, or otherwise vulnerable.

Exhibit 3

New exhibit xx

Adrian1999

The only email I can find for Swansea county court is an enquiries one..

enquiries.swansea.countycourt@ justice .gov.uk