Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track

casper82 · 13 March at 12:53AM

alright, this is my altered version based of the suggestions earlier, and based on the pictures, and footage I'd taken today.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: *******

Between

Horizon Parking Limited (Claimant)

and

******* (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF *******

I,*******, of [address], am the Defendant in this matter. I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle referred to in the claim. The facts stated in this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

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

Key Points Summary

The Defendant respectfully draws the Court’s attention to the following key points:

The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to identify the specific contractual term allegedly breached, contrary to the principles confirmed in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande.
The alleged parking terms were not clearly visible or readable at night. Photographs taken during a site visit under similar conditions demonstrate that the signage is difficult to see from a vehicle and obscured by glare from overhead lighting.
The alleged restriction of 15 minutes outside store opening hours is an unusual and onerous term that was not prominently displayed.
When attempting to leave the site the Defendant experienced difficulty starting the vehicle due to a depleted key-fob battery, which caused an unavoidable delay and amounts to frustration of any alleged contract.

For these reasons the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be dismissed.

Preliminary Matters – Defective Particulars of Claim

The Particulars of Claim state only that the Defendant’s vehicle was “parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage”.
The Claim Form does not identify:

the specific contractual term allegedly breached
the conduct which allegedly constituted the breach.

This generic wording fails to properly particularise the claim and has made it unnecessarily difficult to understand the case being advanced.
In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan, HHJ Murch held that Particulars of Claim which fail to set out the conduct relied upon for breach of contract do not comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. A copy of that appeal judgment is attached at Exhibit PN-1.
In Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande, HHJ Evans confirmed that Particulars of Claim must set out the essential facts relied upon to establish the cause of action. A copy of that appeal judgment is attached at Exhibit PN-2.
The Particulars of Claim in this case provide no clear factual basis for the alleged breach and do not identify the specific contractual term said to have been broken. They are materially similar to the defective pleadings criticised in the above appeal judgments.

Background and Events of 5 November 2023

On ******* I drove to the Tesco customer car park at Packhorse Road, Gerrards Cross intending to do some shopping.
The Tesco store closes at 16:00 on Sundays, as shown in Exhibit PN-3.
I entered the car park at approximately 17:03, as recorded by the Claimant’s ANPR cameras.
The entrance to the car park was open with no barrier or gate restricting entry.
It was already dark at the time, as sunset occurs early in November.
While driving into the car park I did not see any clear signage indicating that parking would be limited to 15 minutes outside store opening hours, which is an unusual restriction for a supermarket car park.
I therefore reasonably believed that the store might still be open and proceeded to park my vehicle and walk to the store entrance.
Upon reaching the entrance I discovered that the store was closed.
I immediately returned to my vehicle with the intention of leaving the car park.

Vehicle Could Not Be Started

When attempting to leave the car park my vehicle would not start.
This was due to the battery in the vehicle key fob being depleted, which has previously occurred with this model of vehicle.
As a result I experienced difficulty unlocking and starting the vehicle.
With no immediate solution available I was temporarily unable to leave the site.
A photograph of the vehicle key and battery condition is provided at Exhibit PN-4.
This issue caused additional delay before I was able to leave the car park.
The circumstances were outside my control and amount to frustration of any alleged contract.
The Claimant’s ANPR cameras record my vehicle exiting the site at 18:21, which reflects the time taken to deal with the unexpected vehicle issue rather than any intentional overstay.

Signage and Visibility

I did not see any clear signage explaining the parking terms when entering the car park.
In preparation for this hearing I revisited the site and took photographs and video recordings under similar night-time conditions to those present on the date of the alleged event.
These photographs demonstrate that the signage relied upon by the Claimant is difficult to see and read when entering the site at night.
Exhibit PN-5 shows the view when entering the car park from the perspective of a driver.
Exhibit PN-6 shows the sign visible only at distance when approaching the parking area.
Exhibit PN-7 shows the parking sign positioned directly beneath a bright overhead lamp.
The glare from this lamp obscures the text and makes the signage difficult to read at night.
Parking companies frequently rely upon clear daytime photographs of signage when presenting their evidence.
However, the Defendant’s photographs show the actual conditions present at the time of the alleged event, namely:

darkness
artificial lighting
glare from overhead lamps
rain on the windscreen.

These real conditions significantly reduce the visibility and readability of the signage.

Lack of Opportunity to Read the Terms

After parking, I walked from the parking area to the Tesco store entrance.
Exhibit PN-8 and PN-9 show the pedestrian route from the parking area to the store entrance.
These photographs demonstrate that there are no clear signs displaying parking terms along this route.
As a result I had no reasonable opportunity to read or understand the parking terms before leaving the vehicle.
The circumstances are consistent with the principles established in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, where the Court held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms that they did not have a fair opportunity to see and read.

Onerous Parking Term

The alleged parking term limiting parking to 15 minutes outside store opening hours is an unusual and onerous restriction for a retail supermarket car park.
Such a term would require particularly clear and prominent signage in order to form part of any contract.
The signage at this site does not meet that standard.
The signage at this site is materially different from the clear and prominent signage considered in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
In that case the parking terms and charge were displayed in large lettering on a bright yellow sign clearly visible to motorists.
An example of that signage is provided at Exhibit PN-12 for comparison.

Video Evidence

A video recording was also taken during my site visit under similar lighting conditions.
The video demonstrates the visibility of the signage when entering the car park and confirms that the terms are not readable from a moving vehicle at night.
The video recording is provided as Exhibit PN-10.

Conclusion

I respectfully submit that:

the signage was not sufficiently visible or readable at night
the parking terms were not adequately communicated
the Particulars of Claim are defective
the circumstances of departure were outside the driver’s control.

For these reasons I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

*******

Date:

Exhibits

PN-1 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan – Appeal Judgment

PN-2 Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande – Appeal Judgment

PN-3 Tesco Gerrards Cross Sunday opening hours

PN-4 Vehicle key battery photograph

PN-5 Driver’s-eye view entering car park

PN-6 Sign visible only from distance

PN-7 Sign positioned beneath bright lamp causing glare

PN-8 Pedestrian route from parking area

PN-9 Absence of parking terms near store entrance

PN-10 Video showing signage visibility at night

PN-11 Additional night visibility photograph

PN-12 ParkingEye v Beavis signage comparison

Coupon-mad · 13 March at 1:02AM

How do people keep finding & using the five year out of date Statement of Truth?!

Is AI giving you that wrong SoT or did you read a six year old thread?

And I haven't even seen the signs but surely another key point is that the signs said the Tesco PCN level was £70 yet the Claim Form said £80 PCN plus imaginary damages or 'contractual fee'.

casper82 · 13 March at 1:19AM

yes it's the AI ;),
yeah you're right, I forgot about these important points, which I've now updated into my WS as:

Lack of Landowner Authority

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had a valid contract with the landowner authorising it to:

issue parking charges at this site;
pursue legal action in its own name.

It is well established that a parking operator acting merely as an agent cannot bring a claim in its own name without proper authorisation from the landowner.

The Defendant notes that the Claimant has not produced any unredacted landowner contract demonstrating such authority for the relevant period.

The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof that it had the necessary standing to issue parking charges and to bring this claim.

Inflated and Unlawful Additional Costs

The Claimant seeks to recover £253.19, including:

£80 described as the parking charge
£70 described as contractual costs
additional interest.

The signage at the site indicates a parking charge of £70, yet the claim form refers to £80, which is inconsistent and unexplained.

The additional £70 appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the Supreme Court confirmed that the parking charge itself already includes the operational costs of running the parking scheme.

The additional sums claimed therefore appear to be unreasonable and unrecoverable.

The Defendant respectfully submits that these additional charges represent an attempt to artificially inflate the value of the claim.

Coupon-mad · 13 March at 1:27AM

Yes that's good.

casper82 · 13 March at 1:27AM

and I also removed the SoT

casper82 · 13 March at 1:31AM

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

1505grandad · 13 March at 9:50AM

"and I also removed the SoT "

Just checking - you mean you substituted the out of date SoT with the full current one?

casper82 · 13 March at 1:49PM

Hello @1505grandad this is the new one I believe ?

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.

Gr1pr · 13 March at 1:52PM

That's correct, so use it for any WS

casper82 · 13 March at 1:55PM

thank you @Gr1pr for your prompt reply, I am going to send it to the court now via email, and to Gladstone

Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track

Comments

Statement of Truth

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free