Excel Parking / DCB Legal - Witness Statement advice please!

Scrutney2

Hello Forumites!

Firstly, thanks to Coupon-Mad and others for putting so much time and advice into this forum!

Unfortunately I only found it after I had used Excel Parking’s ‘appeals’ process having received a PCN for inadvertently entering my old car reg instead of my wife’s, which I was driving when I paid for my parking.

I’d really appreciate your thoughts on what to focus on for my Witness Statement, which has to be submitted this coming Monday (22nd Sept). I’ve included the Claimant's Witness Statement (redacted) below.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

I used the template letter for my Defence so it was mostly boilerplate (as noted in their WS, lol) - but the particular defence for my case was as follows:

3. Referring to the POC: 

Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied: The issue date of the PCN is 17/10/2024. Paragraphs 3 and 4: While the Defendant admits to inadvertently recording the wrong registration plate, the £3.20 parking fee was paid in full, so the Claimant suffered no financial loss.

The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss.

My initial thoughts are along these lines:

• The Claimant suffered no financial loss, as I paid the parking fee in full.
• The MPC ‘appeals’ process is deceptively designed to coerce the uninitiated vehicle Keeper into admitting to being the Driver in order to make pursuing payment easier:
• Ref. Claimant's Exhibit 6: The ‘Appeal Reason’: ‘I had a Pay & Display ticket but may have entered the wrong or incomplete vehicle registration number’ is a preset option on the appeal form, suggesting that this is a legitimate reason for appeal with some prospect of success - if this is not the case it is deceptive. Under what circumstances would this reason be upheld, and why wasn’t mine?
• The amount claimed is extortionate and completely unjustified.
• Ref. Claimant's Exhibit 2: can these be considered clear signage?

I would appreciate your thoughts on the best approach to take, as well as any relevant cases or references to support my Statement.

Claimant’s Witness Statement (redacted):

Scrutney2

Here is the POC (forgot to redact in the original post):

Coupon-mad

LOL!

These (below) are points to make at the hearing not in your WS otherwise Excel will reply and put them right.

Shhhh... these are points for you to observe to the judge at the hearing:

- They refer to and rely upon as 'undeniable' the CoP 2024 'major keying error' clause ..  but they attach proof that they FAILED TO COMPLY with it. Ooops. The rejection letter doesn't offer the mandatory £20 settlement!

- there are only two pics of signs in the actual car park. One is illegible as it is so high on a wall, even their employee hasn't managed to make it readable!

- Neither of them match the t&cs on the desktop close ups of what Excel say those signs say. Nope! The one on the wall (that you can't possibly read) has six icons on the right but the mock-up version has seven. The entrance sign has three icons but the mock-up is different and has more pictograms.

As for your WS, use the recent ones by @Char27 or @Feyla

but add these brand new points to it (if it was a DCB Legal claim signed by Sarah Ensall):

 The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements were paralegals. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The witness statement of an Excel employee cannot paper over the fact that the claim form is defective for want of properly verified PoC.

The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance. Should the hearing actually take place, I will contest the Right of Audience of any self-employed third party advocate. In parking cases, these reps hold varying levels of qualification and typically rely upon 'supervision' arguments (e.g. "DCB Legal supervise me and I'm a solicitor agent"). The Speechlys  judgment - relying as it did upon submissions by both the SRA and the Law Society - helpfully clarifies that those arguments won't wash, not even if the judge is familiar with the advocate and has seen/heard them in parking cases before.

Scrutney2

Thanks @Coupon-mad! 

The POC was indeed signed by Ms. Ensall, so I can use that... And keep the others up my sleeve!

I will try to draft the WS and post it here tomorrow.

Car1980

Their particulars are faulty. You did not "park without payment of the tariff for the vehicle on site". You did pay the tariff for the vehicle on site - it was a vehicle, it was on site and you paid money for
the hire of the land it was resting upon. You may have breached the contractual term "You must enter the VRM of the vehicle when paying", but that is not what they are claiming.

The onus is on the Claimant to state their claim. 

The term "the payment is invalid" is a nonsense. A sum of money transferred from one account to another, and kept by the recipient cannot be invalid by definition as it has been accepted. A contract may stipulate no cheques, as it is onorous on the recipient to cash, but they cannot walk to the bank, cash the £2 cheque and then state the cashed payment was invalid and demand £100 because they were paid "wrongly". 

THE TIME THEY HAVE SPENT ON THE CLAIM AND WITNESS STATEMENT IS LONGER THAN THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO CROSS REFERENCE THE VRM AND THE BLOODY PAYMENT. Also known as office admin, also known as cashing up at the end of the day like most shops in the country.

They are conflating paying for a physical vehicle, the owner of which has agreed a contract to hire the land and exchange consideration, with a "registration plate"; a non-physical entity. A mere identification mark and absurd as requesting a vehicle's colour for their records and demanding £100 because you described a dark red car as "burgundy" instead of "claret."

Plus their arguments are no different from this case: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce83n7j7p6po.amp and it is highly likely chunks of the exact same witness statement were submitted there.

Also worth pointing out that the T&Cs apparently allow Excel to demand to see a "valid ticket" 3 months after the event and demand £100 if you don't produce it. Just because there is a term it doesn't mean it is fair and enforceable.

Also worth pointing out the "strike out the defence" section at the end is pasted into every one of their statements to no avail and is highly patronising to the defendant and shows a great deal of contempt of the fairness of the judicial process. 

Also include the transcript about his non-attendance from other week and include that (VCS and Excel are the same company)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625532/vcs-crash-and-burn-at-southampton-county-court-bristol-airport-case/p1

Scrutney2

Thanks @Coupon-mad and @Car1980 for your suggestions! Here is a first-draft WS - I welcome any and all feedback. I am officially a Forumite now, so I can edit this post as I make changes.

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, (NAME), of (ADDRESS), will say as follows:

I make this statement in support of my Defence dated 15/03/2025. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

1. Introduction

1.1 I am the Defendant in this claim and the Driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX on the date of the alleged incident.

1.2 This statement sets out the events and circumstances relevant to the parking charge notice (PCN) issued by Excel Parking Services Limited (the Claimant) concerning an alleged parking contravention at County House Car Park on 09/10/2024.

2. Circumstances of the Alleged Incident

2.1 I paid the required parking fee of £3.20 in full upon entry and exited the car park within the allotted time period, as evidenced by Exhibit 1.

3. Examination of Claimant's Evidence

3.1 Appeal Process

The reason submitted by the Claimant for not engaging further with the ATA’s appeals service is denied, as is the suggestion that I did not believe the Parking Charge had been issued incorrectly.

It should be noted that the ‘Appeal Reason’ (‘I had a Pay & Display ticket but may have entered the wrong or incomplete vehicle registration number’) is a preset drop-down selection on the appeal submission form, which creates the impression that it might be considered a legitimate reason for appeal with some prospect of success. See Exhibit 2.

 The Claimant’s subsequent denial of the appeal and pursuit of this claim under the stated POC, suggests that this was never the case. I respectfully submit that the main purpose of the ATA appeals process is to determine the Driver of the vehicle where only the Registered Keeper is known, to make pursuing payment of the Charge easier and to give a false impression of fairness and due process. I chose not to engage further with the process because I had no confidence in its fairness or impartiality.

3.2 Payment Validity

The Claimant’s suggestion that the failure to enter the VRM of the vehicle on site renders my payment ‘invalid’ is, frankly, preposterous. Full payment for the parking session was duly transferred from the Defendant’s account to the Claimant’s account and was subsequently retained by the Claimant.

3.3 Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]

The Claimant refers to Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] where the judgement relied on signage being obvious, and the penalty for breaching specific terms clear. Here are some references to signage from the judgement:

Para 100: “The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it” and “They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there.”

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85”

Para 199: “What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

Para 287: In so far as the criterion of unconscionableness allows the court to address considerations other than the size of the penalty in relation to the protected interest, the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable

Exhibit 3 shows the sign that was the subject of that case, in which the penalty charge for breaching specific terms is prominently displayed.

3.4 Additional Charge

The Claimant refers to the added £70 as being a result of my non-payment of the original Charge. County House Car Park must contain no more than 30 parking spaces – it would have been the work of five minutes for the Claimant to use its ANPR technology and check entry times against payment records to see that the fee had been duly paid, thus allowing its Company resources (as well as my own and those of the Court) to be better spent.

4. Reiteration of Defence Points

4.1 I reiterate my core defence points already submitted to the Court:

4.1.1 No Contract Formed/Inadequate Signage: the Claimant has not provided adequate evidence of prominent, clear, or unambiguous signage that could have formed a legally binding contract for a charge of £170. Without such proof, no contract was agreed.

4.1.2 Disproportionate Charge and Penalty: The charge of £170, particularly with added 'debt fees', is an unconscionable penalty and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss incurred by the Claimant or landowner.

4.1.3 Lack of POFA 2012 Compliance: The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. My Defence details specific areas of non-compliance.

4.1.4 Consumer Rights Act 2015 Breaches: The Claimant's terms and notices, if any existed prominently, would likely breach the fairness and clarity requirements of the CRA 2015.

5. Unreasonable Conduct

5.1 The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements were paralegals. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The witness statement of an Excel employee cannot paper over the fact that the claim form is defective for want of properly verified PoC.

5.2 The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance. Should the hearing actually take place, I will contest the Right of Audience of any self-employed third party advocate. In parking cases, these reps hold varying levels of qualification and typically rely upon 'supervision' arguments (e.g. "DCB Legal supervise me and I'm a solicitor agent"). The Speechlys judgment - relying as it did upon submissions by both the SRA and the Law Society - helpfully clarifies that those arguments won't wash, not even if the judge is familiar with the advocate and has seen/heard them in parking cases before.

6. Conclusion

6.1 For the reasons outlined in my Defence and further elaborated in this Witness Statement, I respectfully submit that the Claimant's claim has no merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

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.

 

EVIDENCE

Exhibit 1 - VAT Receipt

Exhibit 2 – MyParkingCharge appeal record

Exhibit 3 – Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] Sign

NOTES FOR HEARING

CoP 2024 'major keying error' clause

The Claimant refers to and relies upon the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 'Major Keying Error' clause, which gives the example “Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration” and stipulates:

“In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park”, and futher:

“It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.”

The appeal rejection letter did not offer the opportunity to settle for £20.

Signage evidence

At the time of entry (17:50) it was just before sunset and getting dark. The car park is in a secluded location surrounded by buildings and trees, so in the absence of adequate lighting visibility would have been poor. From the Claimant’s evidence it can be seen that the T&C sign is located high on a wall to the rear of the car park where there appears to be no artificial lighting, and not in the location indicated in their Exhibit 4. The terms and conditions cannot be read from the photograph in their Exhibit 2. In addition, the accompanying images to Exhibit 2 are not the same as the signs in the photographs (The T&C image has 11 sections, in the photo there are only 6; the entry sign image has different sections to those in the photo) so should not be admitted as evidence.

kryten3000

Defence is spelt with a c, not an s.  

The lack of offer of the £20 admin fee should also be mentioned in the Defence if you intend to rely on it later.

1505grandad

"1.2 This statement sets out the events and circumstances relevant to the parking charge notice (PCN) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited (the Claimant) concerning an alleged parking contravention at County House Car Park on 09/10/2024."

Is that the claimant  -  thread title says Excel

Scrutney2

kryten3000 said:

Defence is spelt with a c, not an s.  

The lack of offer of the £20 admin fee should also be mentioned in the Defence if you intend to rely on it later.

Thanks - autocorrect! I wasn’t aware of the £20 admin fee when I wrote my defence, unfortunately. Coupon-mad recommended saving it for the hearing.

Scrutney2

1505grandad said:

"1.2 This statement sets out the events and circumstances relevant to the parking charge notice (PCN) issued by Civil Enforcement Limited (the Claimant) concerning an alleged parking contravention at County House Car Park on 09/10/2024."

Is that the claimant  -  thread title says Excel

Nope! Copy/paste - will correct, thanks.

Scrutney2

Added 3.3 Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] and 3.4 Additional Charge - please let me know what you think!