DCB LEGAL SPS Witness Stage

Milliered

Hi all.

This is hopefully my final draft. Would appreciate it if some kind folk can have a look for me so I can get it sent tomorrow morning once I have found the correct email for Nuneaton Court to file.

Many thanks in advance

N THE COUNTY COURT AT [COURT]

Claim No. [CLAIM NUMBER]

BETWEEN:

SECURE PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Claimant

and

[NAME]
Defendant

DEFENDANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT

1. 
   I, *********** of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts contained within this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. In this statement I refer to exhibits attached to my evidence bundle. The photographs referred to are exhibited as
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 respectfully ask the Court to take this into account. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows.

Background

1. On [DATE], for the purpose of loading a pre-ordered takeaway ,i briefly stopped in the mouth of the junction off the Main Road to the access road at the Claimant’s car park located at [LOCATION] in a position that would not block any access to either the car park or the pavements for pedestrians. The vehicle was there for 9 mins and 38 seconds while I picked up and loaded a takeaway meal. The Main Road is a busy road with few spaces to stop and park without causing safety issues

2. Beyond the access road ,it leads into a residential car park.

3. I turned into the mouth of the junction and performed a 3 point turn in the junction to the position that the vehicle was stopped in. There is no entry sign whatsoever in this junction to advise of private land.

Lack of Contractual Signage ("No Contract Formed")For a private parking charge to be enforceable, the operator must strictly adhere to the consumer codes of practice—either the British Parking Association (BPA) or the International Parking Community (IPC). Both codes mandate that clear, readable signage must be placed at the exact entrance of the controlled land so a driver can see the restrictions before entering. 

In the UK, private parking tickets are entirely based on contract law. If there were no signs present where you were stopped, it is legally impossible for you to have seen, read, or agreed to any terms. Therefore, no contract was ever formed.

The Claimant is therefore in breach of the Code of Practice as there was no mandatory entrance signs.  This is a 'misleading omission' which breaches the transparency and 'fair and open dealing' requirements of the DMCC Act 2024 which the Competition and Markets Authority(CMA) regulates and has just warned the parking sector to comply with in full and reminded operators that the self-serving industry Code is not the law.

The CMA mentioned transparency of consumer notices in its response to the ASA's consultation in November 2022 about a code of practice concerning fixed term broadband and mobile phone contracts. It quoted CJEU authorities and the CMA's stance is that a term or notice MUST put a consumer in the position of being able to "evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it [the term or notice]"

4. On my return to the vehicle, a covert patrol attendant was taking photos of my vehicle.

When I asked him as to where the car park boundary was, he could not be specific and just waved his hand in the general direction of the front of my vehicle. The front of my vehicle was approx 3 feet from the Main Road.

This patrol attendant ,who had been hidden in his vehicle, didn't affix a NTD despite having ample time to do so.

5. I then took my own photos of the position of my vehicle in relation to the car park and any signage and these are shown.(Exhibit DW01 -DW04) There is a sign high up on the wall of the building with no terms displayed.The vehicle was stopped approx 8-10 ft short of this wall. There are then signs further into the car park with terms displayed on a wall about halfway in, approx 30 plus ft away. However this sign is lowdown and was partially hidden by a van that was parked in front of the sign(as shown in photos)

6. I have since took further photos to show the junction in daylight and without any vehicles and these clearly show that there are no signs whatsoever when turning off the Main Rd and entering junction/acess road and these are included as (Exhibit DW05 -DW07) so therefore no entry signs where the vehicle was parked.

7. All the Exhibit photos are accurate of the position of the vehicle at the time in relation to the car park, the junction/access rd,lack of signage and more recent photos to prove lack of entry signage at the start of the access road.

EXHIBIT PHOTOS DW01-DW04

a) DW01

b) DW02

c) DW03

d) DW04

EXHiBIT DW05-DW07

e) DW05

f) DW06

g) DW07

9. All photographs were taken by myself and truly represent the position of the vehicle in relation to the signage ,the junction and the car park and which will be relied on in court.

10.Based on where the car park boundary appears to start in line with the residential block(which has the first sign high on the wall with no terms) so i do not believe I was even parked within the car park boundary and was certainly not in a car parking space. Therefore, I believe this case should be dismissed. No entry sign to the car park was passed and so no contract could be entered.

At this point i have not received the Claimants Witness Statement and I believe the Claimant must be put to strict proof of

a) A copy of any written terms of the contract between the parties

b) A copy of the agreement by which the Claimant is authorised by the landowner to conduct parking operations on the land in question and dated

c) Clear photographic evidence in relation to the vehicle ,signage(including the entry sign that must be displayed at the actual entrance of the controlled land.

d) Details of the location where the agreement was made

e) A precise map verified by the landowner, outlining the exact boundary of the the site map, not just a mock up Google map

f) A detailed explanation on how the amount of the alleged debt is calculated under the agreement

The Claimants Authority to issue Parking Charges

11.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue. Under the DVLA KADOE agreement and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 9 - February 2024 (Clause 7), the right to manage this site and access my data is strictly contingent upon valid, written landowner authority. The Claimant has failed to disclose the contract, its schedules, or a verified site boundary map to prove the Claimant had the legal authority to operate on this specific land on 30th August 2025.

No Valid Contract Formed

12. The PoC claims a breach of terms on the signs(contract) Reason:UnAuthorised Vehicle.

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 ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 

The complete lack of an entrance sign also proves that the Claimant does not even contractually 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…” .

13. A further argument against this alleged parking incident can be shown in the case of PACE v LENGYEL.

A contract simply could not have been entered due to the wording on the Claimants own signage in the middle of the car park. The Claimant does not have the authority to sue ,only the landowner can do so.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

14. 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. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 )

15.  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 condition

16. The Claimant has not suffered any commercial loss whatsoever as the vehicle was neither in a car parking space or indeed even in the car parking area in question so therefore could not possibly have cost the Claimant any lost revenue so the costs being charged are exorbitant and penal'

17.  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).

18.  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'.

19.  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.

20.  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.

21.  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

22. As a member of the British Parking Association(BPA), the Claimant is contractually obliged to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The Claimant has failed in this respect by not ensuring that signage was prominently displayed at the entrance at all.

23.Furthermore,it is disputed as to whether the Claimant even has the authority to sue a motorist when a contract can not be entered into due to the wording on the signage and is more likely to be a charge of trespass rather than a parking charge.(PACE v LENGYEL)

24. The vehicle wasn't stopped in the car park, never went past any entry signs(as there weren't any)and never parked an a car parking space. So what offence has actually been caused?

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

26. I respectfully request the court to dismiss this claim due to all the issues raised within this statement

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 without an honest belief in its truth.

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings to attend court=£95

Subtotal = £95

Travel expenses= 20 miles x 0.45 =£9.00

Subtotal= £9.00

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

I reasonably estimate that i spent a minimum of 15 hours preparing my Defence and Witness Statement,having to research the relevant laws as best I can.

If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g),I seek the Litigant-in -Person rate of £24 per hour

15 hours x £24 =£360.00

Subtotal =£360

Total(excluding LiP costs); £104

if unreasonable behaviour proven:

Total (including LiP costs): £464

Milliered

Hi all

Would someone be kind enough to have a read through what I have drafted so far before I carry on please, just to make sure I am on the right path.I appreciate that you are all busy!

Many thanks

Milliered

Hello all

I appreciate people are busy.

Just wondered if someone would be able to have a glance over my part Witness Statement and advise me as to whether it looks ok so far.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes but change this:

"1. On [DATE], I parked my vehicle in"

To this

1. On [DATE], for the purposes of loading a pre-ordered takeaway, I briefly stopped in

(If it was a pre-ordered takeaway say that, and at the hearing, call it loading, not parking).

If you reversed in, say so. That means you had no opportunity to see any terms due to a missing entrance sign. It didn't even say this junction was private land.

Point out that you did not pass a sign so cannot be bound by any term which may or may not be notified in the actual car park.

Point out that the C is in breach of the Code of Practice as there was no mandatory entrance sign. That's a 'misleading omission' which breaches the transparency and 'fair and open dealing' requirements of the DMCC Act 2024 which the CMA regulates and has just warned the parking sector to comply with in full and reminded operators that the self-serving industry Code is not the law.

The CMA mentioned transparency of consumer notices in its response to the ASA's consultation in November 2022 about a code of practice concerning fixed term broadband and mobile phone contracts. It quoted CJEU authorities and the CMA's stance is that a term or notice MUST put a consumer in the position of being able to "evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it [the term or notice]".

If the lurking person didn't affix a NTD despite having ample opportunity to do so, say that too.

Then add your version of JackR's points about:

• pulling apart their WS, are their signage images undated or not all contemporaneous? Is the landowner authority not from the landowner or is it undated, old or unhelpful to them? Is the site map not verified by the landowner, just mocked up by the Claimant using Google maps? Say so.
• talking about HHJ Moloney's judgment in Beavis and attaching or linking to it (the Cambridge first instance decision in Beavis, not the Supreme Court one).
• Then sign & date the skeleton argument (it is not a skeleton defence do don't call it that) and sign & date the WS under a statement of truth.
• Email both TONIGHT as it's Friday. Goes to the local court, not the CNBC. You want to be able to say it went this week, not next.

Milliered

Hi Coupon-mad

Thank you for your reply and that is very helpful to be going on with.

I haven't received their WS or proof of their agreements etc with the Landowner so I can't respond to it unfortunately so have struggled with JackR1 WS .

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Well just copy the other things I said to include! I thought you said they had done a WS late, so maybe I muddled up your case with another.

Add what I said to add. Job done.

Email it all tonight. Your skelly is done, just sign & date that and save it as a PDF (and compress it for email size) and bung Jack's stuff underneath what you wrote earlier, add a statement of truth and sign & date that. Done.

You could also do a costs sheet if you have had to take a day off work to attend and/or have incurred costs. Travel costs count too.

Milliered

Hi all.

Have finished drafting my WS. Unfortunately I never got to finish it before midnight to send it and only just finished. Paragraph 13 needs to be linked to Pace but not sure if I have worded it right anyway!

I know there is probably a lot to chop and make you folk wonder why but can it be looked over please and advised on so I can get it sent later today if possible. I will have Saturday night now to get it finished.

Milliered

Good morning all

Thank you to Coupon-mad for your helpful advice yesterday.

I have added a load more to the WS in the early hours and would be very grateful if it could be checked over to see if I have butchered it or missed out important info.

I haven't had chance to check alll the links work and I don't know how to embed/compress files so will be having help from a relative this evening in order to get it sent .

Many thanks in advance, it is really appreciated

MrJenkinsEsq

There is a sign high up on the wall of the building with no terms displayed.The vehicle was stopped approx 8-10 ft short of this wall. There are then signs further into the car park with terms displayed on a wall about halfway in, approx 30 plus ft away.

I've got this wrong in the skeleton. I think I said the terms sign was 10ft away not the small one on the wall. Check and fix the skeleton if I've got that wrong.

Milliered

Hi Mr JenkinsEsq

thanks for getting back to me.

Yes,i am aware that needed correcting,i had noticed it and was going to rectify before sending but thank you for taking the time to read through and point it out.

I also haven't taken out para 4 yet as you have advised me to. I assume everything else in the skeleton is ok once this is done?

Do I also add all the links when sending it?

What is your opinion on my WS?

Many thanks