DCB legal ltd solicitors court claim letter

Wolfie1111

Is this better then?

Le_Kirk

That is the correct SoT.

Coupon-mad

Please re-show the draft WS as we are on a new page now.

Wolfie1111

1. I am XXX, (ADDRESS) and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge

I am the registered keeper of the motor vehicle registration xxx xxxxx

I was not the driver of the vehicle on xx xxx xx, the date of the alleged parking event.

This Witness Statement is made from my own knowledge and belief and is true to the best of my information.

2. Driver identity and keeper position

The Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver of the vehicle.

I have never admitted to being the driver, and there is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.

Liability is denied in the absence of proof of driver identity or strict compliance with statute.

3. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

The Claimant purports to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) to pursue me as keeper.

The Claimant has not demonstrated compliance with the mandatory requirements of POFA, including but not limited to the provisions at paragraphs 4 and 9.

In the absence of such compliance, keeper liability does not arise.

In any event, even if (which is denied) the Claimant were able to demonstrate POFA compliance, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 expressly limits any recovery from a keeper to the amount of the unpaid parking charge as stated on the Notice to Driver.

The additional sums claimed are therefore statutorily unrecoverable, being neither unpaid parking charges nor sums specified on any signage.

4. Vague and defective Particulars of Claim

The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3–7.5.

The Claimant has failed to plead material facts, including:

a. the precise contractual term allegedly breached;

b. the manner in which the breach is said to have occurred;

c. the conduct relied upon to give rise to the charge.

The wording “Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions” is generic, vague, and legally insufficient.

I rely on the persuasive appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024). In both cases, the court held that private parking claims pleaded in generic terms, without clearly setting out the conduct relied upon or the contractual terms allegedly breached, fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 and are liable to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4. The Particulars of Claim in this matter suffer from the same defects.

5. No evidence of a lawful contract

I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver.

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the signage at the location was:

a. sufficiently prominent;

b. legible from a moving vehicle;

c. capable of forming contractual terms.

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention.

6. Consumer Rights Act 2015 – fairness and transparency

Pursuant to section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court has a mandatory duty to assess the fairness and transparency of consumer terms and notices.

Given the lack of clarity, prominence, and evidence of fair and open dealing, any term relied upon by the Claimant is unfair within the meaning of sections 62 and Schedule 2 of the Act and is therefore unenforceable.

7. Landowner authority and standing

DVLA keeper data is supplied only on the basis of prior written landowner authority.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim, including production of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner showing authority to issue parking charges and to litigate in its own name, together with the site boundary and dates of authority.

8. Unlawful added costs – abuse of process

The Claimant seeks to recover an additional £50 described as “legal representative’s costs”.

Such costs are not recoverable on the Small Claims Track pursuant to CPR 27.14.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court confirmed that the parking charge itself already includes the costs of operating the parking scheme.

In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), the High Court held that inflated administrative costs are penal and unrecoverable.

The additional sums claimed represent double recovery and constitute an abuse of process.

9. Conclusion

I was not the driver, and the Claimant has failed to prove driver identity.

The Claimant has not established keeper liability under POFA 2012 and, in any event, seeks sums expressly prohibited by statute.

The claim is vague, unsupported by evidence, and discloses no proper cause of action.

I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim 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.

Signed: ___________________________

Name: [Your full name]

Date: [date]

Coupon-mad

The Claimant seeks to recover an additional £50 described as “legal representative’s costs”.

Such costs are not recoverable on the Small Claims Track pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Oh yes they are!

Think again. Which added fake costs or damages are unrecoverable?

And you need exhibits. Looks like you haven't mentioned any. You should have Chan & Akande plus the others recommended in the NEWBIES thread.

Wolfie1111

I amend few parts here, hopefully its better now

Wolfie1111

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR FULL NAME]

I am [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS], and I am the Defendant in this matter. I am the registered keeper of motor vehicle registration [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. The facts set out in this Witness Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based upon my own personal knowledge, save where stated otherwise.

I was not the driver of the vehicle on [DATE OF ALLEGED EVENT], the date of the alleged parking incident. I have never admitted to being the driver, and the Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver.

Driver Identity and Keeper Position

The Claimant has failed to establish the identity of the driver. There is no legal presumption in English law that a registered keeper was the driver.

In the absence of proof of driver identity or strict statutory compliance enabling keeper liability, liability is denied.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

The Claimant purports to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue me as keeper.

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory provisions of POFA, including but not limited to paragraphs 4 and 9 of Schedule 4. In the absence of strict compliance, keeper liability does not arise.

Further and in any event, even if (which is denied) POFA compliance were established, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 expressly limits recovery from a keeper to the amount of the unpaid parking charge stated on the Notice to Driver or Notice to Keeper.

The additional sums claimed are therefore statutorily unrecoverable, being neither unpaid parking charges nor sums specified on any signage.

Vague and Defective Particulars of Claim

The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3–7.5.

The Claimant has failed to plead any material facts, including: a. the precise contractual term allegedly breached;

b. the manner in which the breach is said to have occurred;

c. the conduct relied upon to give rise to the charge.

The wording “Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions” is vague, generic, and legally insufficient.

I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023) (Exhibit A) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024) (Exhibit . In both cases, the courts held that private parking claims pleaded in generic terms, without clearly identifying the alleged conduct or contractual breach, fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 and are liable to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4. The Particulars of Claim in this matter suffer from the same defects.

No Evidence of a Lawful Contract

I deny that any lawful or enforceable contract was formed with the driver.

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the signage at the location was sufficiently prominent, legible from a moving vehicle, or capable of forming contractual terms.

In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (Exhibit E), the Court of Appeal confirmed that a driver cannot be bound by terms that were not adequately brought to their attention.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Fairness and Transparency

Pursuant to section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Court has a mandatory duty to assess the fairness and transparency of consumer terms and notices.

Given the lack of clarity, prominence, and evidence of fair and open dealing, any term relied upon by the Claimant is unfair within the meaning of sections 62 and Schedule 2 of the Act and is therefore unenforceable.

Landowner Authority and Standing

DVLA keeper data is supplied only on the basis of prior written landowner authority.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim, including production of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner showing authority to issue parking charges, to litigate in its own name, together with the site boundary and dates of authority.

Unlawful Added Costs – Abuse of Process

The Claimant seeks to recover an additional £50 described as “legal representative’s costs”. On the Small Claims Track, costs are recoverable only to the extent expressly permitted by CPR 27.14, and the Claimant has not demonstrated that this sum falls within any recoverable category.

This position is supported by the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit C) and the High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (Exhibit D).

The additional sums claimed amount to double recovery and are unsupported by statute, contract, or rule of court.

Exhibits

I refer to the following documents, which are attached to and relied upon in this Witness Statement:

Exhibit A – Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023)

Exhibit B – Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024)

Exhibit C – ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

Exhibit D – ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB)

Exhibit E – Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106

Exhibit F – Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Conclusion

I was not the driver, and the Claimant has failed to prove driver identity.

The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012 and, in any event, seeks sums not shown to be recoverable.

The claim is vague, unsupported by evidence, and discloses no proper cause of action.

I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim 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.

Signed: ___________________________

Name: [YOUR FULL NAME]

Date: [DATE]

Wolfie1111

Needs renumbering i believe 

Coupon-mad

You haven't corrected your incorrect statement that I quoted. Wrong costs, as I said.

Wolfie1111

Should i mention that part for additional 50 pounds or skip it?