DCB Legal Smart Parking Claim

freidafrog

@Coupon-mad indeed they had not read it or sent it to me. Date for service of witness statement is 10/06/2026.

They are struggling with the witness statement other than to say that they weren’t the driver on the day the ticket was issued.

They have obtained all the data held in respect of the original parking charge, times in out etc. by FOI request to Smart Parking. Interestingly Smart omitted what data they held for what was actually paid for (10 mins before while the driver of my friends vehicle and I tried to navigate what app they wanted us to use and 3 mins after the expiry of the paid time)

Such a long time has passed that my friend really doesn’t have a lot to say in the witness statement.

I only have a good recollection of events as I have my own successful POPLA appeal from the same date and car park to refer to.

Coupon-mad

"Such a long time has passed that my friend really doesn’t have a lot to say in the witness statement."

Yes they do!

Have you not gone back to the resources pinned at the top of the forum and re-read the WS and exhibits list in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread? The bit underneath the red capitals sub-heading shouting at everyone: 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' is your friend's stage.

The recent WS by @JackR1 (April 2026) includes HHJ Moloney's transcript as well as Edward, Smith, Wilkinson, Chan and Akande. Worth a read and to crib from.

But the claim will be discontinued before the hearing fee payment deadline, anyway.

freidafrog

A WS is in the process of being drafted. How and when can my friend expect to receive a WS from the claimant?
It’s a little difficult to comment their WS when they haven’t got anything from the other side to respond to or rebutt

Coupon-mad

No WS will arrive because they'll discontinue.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82008024#Comment_82008024

The deadline set by the court is on page 2 of your friends court order, that is the deadline for both parties, so both parties COULD submit them on the last day in the last hour, meaning that neither side gains an advantage

But

Because they will discontinue before the hearing fee is due, they wont submit theirs at all, just the N279 discontinuation document by email

When is the hearing fee deadline ?

freidafrog

Hearing fee is due by 4pm on 16/07/2026

It’d make a big difference to these claims if the courts insisted on payment up front prior to folk having to waste their time drafting WS that will never see the light of day in a court room.

freidafrog

I appreciate that this will likely discontinue, but would you kindly review this draft? Just in case they decide to run it?

The referenced exhibits are contained in the pages at the end. A table of contents will be added prior to para. 1

1.  I, XXX of XXX, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

3.  I am a litigant in person, and I have never received any legal training, formal or otherwise. I have done my best to present my evidence truthfully and in a clear manner, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Outline of circumstances

4. I confirm that on 05/06/2021 I was the registered keeper of a XXX. I confirm that on that date I was present in the vehicle when it entered a car park on Tower Road, Newquay but I was not the driver. 

5. On the date in question, I had gone to Newquay as we were in the area on holiday. We went to the town as it was my friend’s birthday. My friend’s vehicle entered the car park at the same time as my own vehicle. They also received a PCN from Smart Parking Ltd in respect of their vehicle, it is my understanding that they received the PCN to their address. They made an initial appeal to Smart Parking Ltd that was rejected (which my research indicates is nearly always the case). They then made a successful appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Lands Appeals) that was successful and Smart Parking Ltd stated that they did not wish to pursue the Parking Charge Notice.

6. An occupant of my vehicle and an occupant of my friend’s vehicle made their way to the ticket machine and as far as I was aware made payment for parking at the site. I was not present when this took place so will have to rely on the court hearing evidence from Mr XXX who was the person who made the payment in respect of my friends’ vehicle. Mr XXX will also confirm that I was not the driver of my own vehicle on the day the Parking Charge was issued. I am aware that 2 x parking tickets were purchased via the RingGo app in respect of my vehicle. An initial 2 hours that was later extended via the app by 1 hour. Total parking time purchased was 3 hours.

As no witness statement has been received from the claimant, I request that they provide details of parking tickets purchased for my vehicle to assist my defence case. I have made efforts to obtain my own proof of this but have been unsuccessful. 

7. As mentioned, I have not received any witness statement from the claimant that details the evidence against me. I am therefore forced to base my defence on their vague particular of claim that alleges the following:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (c) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle XXX at Tower Road, Newquay.
2. The Date of the contravention is 05/06/2021 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the sign (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2021, Schedule 12.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 

1. £170.00 being the total PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

8. The vehicle was registered to my previous address XXX. I have made a freedom on information request to Smart Parking LTD where I requested all data held in respect of my vehicle. I produce exhibit XXX Notice To Kepper (NTK) in respect of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Number XXX. This NTK was provided as part of my FOI request as I did not receive the original due to moving house. From a review of Exhibit XXX I can see that when my vehicle was captured entering the car park at (time) XXX there is a person sat in the passenger seat. This person is me. I know this as I recall on the day I was wearing a grey top with a dark gillet over the top. This is clearly visible in the image on (exhibit) XXX.

Whilst I do not have an image of me wearing the gillet on the 5th June 2021, I produce an image of me taken at 12:27 on 5th June 2021. The image contains the exif data that shows location and time stamp. In that image I am wearing the grey long sleeve top that can be seen in the image on the NTK (exhibit XXX. I produce this photo as exhibit XXX, Image with exif data from 5th June 2021.

9. I do not recall the exact date that I was made aware of the PCN that was issued in respect of my vehicle, but I believe it was sometime near the end of July 2021. At this time I contacted SmartParking Ltd and informed them of my current address.

In light of the successful POPLA appeal for their own PCN, Mr XXX assisted me in submitting a challenge to the PCN via e-mail. This e-mail explained that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle but not the driver. It also pointed out that the NTK was not POFA compliant. This e-mail was sent to Smart Parking Ltd on 4th August 2021. Smart Parking Ltd advised that they had referred the case to a debt recovery company and that there was no avenue for appeal.

10. In addition, my FOI request to the Data Protection Officer at Smart Parking Ltd specifically asked for details of 2 x parking tickets that were purchased in respect of my vehicle on 5th June 2021. Smart Parking Ltd failed to provide details of tickets purchased (i.e how long parking was actually paid for in respect of my vehicle) in their response. In the interests of transparency, they provided the following documents in response to my request:

. NTK issued on XX/06/2021 (exhibit XX

. Parking Gateway Cover Sheet for ticket XXX (Not exhibited as I deem it not to assist my case or undermine the case against me, although I retain a copy for review if the court requires)

. A stock image of the sign detailing Smart Parking terms and Conditions. (Exhibit XXX)

. AN excel spreadsheet titled Debt Information Sent Via Portal (Not exhibited as I deem it not to assist my case or undermine the case against me, although I retain a copy for review if the court requires)

Defective Particulars of Claim

10. The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that:

 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (c) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle CP10 UOU at Tower Road, Newquay.
2. The Date of the contravention is 05/06/2021 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the sign (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time

The POC is vague in that it does not specify the exact location where the alleged contravention took place, it merely states “Tower Road, Newquay” or how any contract was formed. The POC fails to detail what time my vehicle was on the site that was not actually paid for. I assert that 3 hours of parking were paid for in respect of my vehicle.

Tower Road, Newquay is approximately 0.3 miles long and has a number of car parks along it’s length. This lack of detail suggests this claim is made by someone with limited knowledge of the case and forms part of a bulk litigation. If the claimant cannot accurately state the location of the alleged contravention, I question the accuracy of the rest of their claim.

This lack of detail does not support the claim and the lack of any witness statement served by the claimant has made it difficult for me to make any response in my defence.

 

11.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim.

12. The first Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (click for link) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 that “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract”. 

13.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.

 

The Claimants Authority to Issue Parking Charges

14.  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 reliant upon written landowner authority. The Claimant has not provided any witness statement or evidence for me to formulate a defence. Therefore, I respectfully request that the claimant discloses the contract, its schedules, images of the signage at the entrance to the car park and signs within the car park (taken at the time of the alleged contravention) and a verified site boundary map. 

I also request that they provide details of any grace period that has been agreed by the landowner.

My research of similar cases brought by this claimant indicate that they will likely rely on a digital stock image of the sign detailing the terms and conditions at the site and an unverified aerial view to prove the Claimant had the legal authority to operate on this specific land on 5th June 2021.

15.  It is my understanding that the burden of proving the specific terms of that alleged contract to the Court lie solely with the claimant. Until the points outlined in paragraph 14 are provided the claimant cannot even attempt to prove that a binding contract was ever formed. Without legible evidence of the terms, the Court cannot conclude that any such contract exists. In the absence of both a visible Landowner Agreement and legible evidence of the contractual terms, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action.

16. Permitting a Claimant to proceed based on a mere 'assertion' that a landowner agreement exists would set a dangerous precedent. The Court is invited to draw an adverse inference that no such authority exists.

No Valid Contract Formed

17. 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 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 

18.  Looking at Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) and section 62 of the CRA, which require fair, open dealing and good faith. Based on the complete absence of any evidence detailing signage at the location that they will rely on to prove that a contract was formed. The Claimant is therefore required to prove their case with photographs of signage that they rely on to form a contract. The photographs should show the signs that were in place at the car park on 5th June 2021 when the alleged contravention occurred

19.  The absence of any signage at the site approach and entrance used by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is particularly significant under Sections 62–68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ), contractual terms must be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. Additionally, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), the Claimant is contractually obliged to 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…”.

I request that the claimant provides evidence of how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

To assist the court I produce exhibit XXX, Google Street View Image of entrance to Tower Road Car Park dated May 2018. This image shows the entrance to the car park and I assert that it would be impossible for a driver to review the signs and enter into any contract before they had already been captured by the on site ANPR cameras. i reserve the right to review this assertion in the event that the claimant provides an image of the signage at the entrance dated on or near 5th June 2021 that is inherently different from the image exhibit XXX which I refer to.

Keeper Liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

20.  As previously stated, I confirm that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXX on XX June 2021 and deny any liability.

21.  The Claimant states in their POC:

“The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the sign (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time”

“In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2021, Schedule 12.”

22.  I have never been identified as the driver, nor has any other person. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the I was driving at the time of the alleged breach. Only the driver as the person who could have potentially seen and accepted any terms on the signage could possibly be the party accepting any contract.

23. There is no legal requirement for me as registered keeper to name a driver in a private parking matter, and no such presumption exists in law.

24.  If the Claimant wishes to pursue me as the driver, then the claimant has to prove on the balance of probabilities, that I was in fact driving. It is not enough to speculate or assume. As I have stated, I was not the driver and this is supported by the witness statement of Mr XXX  who was present on the XX June 2021. I assert that this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that I was not the driver, and therefore supersedes the balance of probability test required in these Civil Court proceedings.

25.  In April 2023, HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward (VCS Limited V Ian Mark Edward | PDF) that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.

26. If as the POC states the Claimant seeks to pursue me as the keeper then they must meet the strict requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the keeper. ( Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )

27.  However, the Parking Charge Notice issued by the Claimant on XX/06/2021 (XXX 1 Parking Charge Notice Number XXX) does not include any of the mandatory requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. For the following reasons:

• The notice to keeper does not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full, as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

• The notice to keeper does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

• The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Smart Parking LTD. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

28.  The claimant has omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (b) (e) and (f). The claimant has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.

So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver.

29.  Private parking firms inability to invoke ‘keeper liability in cases of non-compliance with POFA, has been tested on appeal in private parking cases including in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court (Exhibit XXX /04), on appeal re-claim number C0DP9C4E, HHJ Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable without the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Excel's claim was dismissed.

30.  The Claimant’s failure to invoke POFA 2012 is indicative of their practice at the time. In June 2021, the Claimant’s notices—including the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued in respect of my vehicle (Exhibit XXX /01) —were issued on a driver-liability-only basis. The Claimant is among a group of operators that at that time,  chose to bypass the statutory requirements of Schedule 4.

31. My research into a number of the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper issued at the time of my own confirms this was a systemic choice. Without exception, Smart Parking Ltd NTKs from this period omitted any mention of POFA 2012 or keeper liability. 

32. The above demonstrates that at the time of the alleged contravention, the Claimant was issuing NTKs where only the driver could be held contractually liable.

33.  Bringing a claim with the full knowledge that the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability have not been met constitutes unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). This has resulted in a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, forcing the me to contest a claim that the Claimant and their solicitors knew, or ought to have known, had no prospect of success from the outset. I feel this tactic is designed to scare people into paying unjustified and over inflated parking charges and costs through the threat of court action that is in my limited legal understanding, unenforceable.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

34.  According to 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. ( Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )

35.  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 conditions.

36.  There is no mention on the Claimant’s own signage as to how much any PCN issued in respect of a breach of terms will cost. The NTK issued in respect of my vehicle (exhibit DC/01) stated that “if payment of £60 is not paid within 14 days of the date of the notice the discount period expires leaving £100.00 to be paid. If full settlement is not made within 28 days of the date of this notice an additional £10.00 administration charge will be levied”

The POC for this case claims the following amounts:

Amount Claimed £232.64

Court Fee £35.00

Legal Representatives Costs £50.00

Total £317.64

This is clearly more than the total of £110 as outlined in the NTK (Exhibit XXX /01)

37.  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).

38.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely inflated and disproportionate sum; it is denied that the amount sought is recoverable, and I assert that 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'.

39.  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.

40.  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.

41.  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

42.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide vague details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in my defence.

43. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

44.  Moreover, the Claimant has neither identified the driver nor complied with the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to pursue me as the registered keeper. The Claimant’s attempt to imply keeper liability despite issuing a non‑POFA Notice to Keeper is legally unsound.

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

46. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Unreasonable Conduct by Claimant(CPR 27.14(2)(g))

47.  As an alternative to striking out the claim, I respectfully request that the Court consider a determination that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant is professionally represented by a firm of solicitors specialising in private parking litigation and cannot claim ignorance of the statutory requirements governing their own industry. In their POC they state that they are pursuing me in my capacity as keeper, yet the Claimant has failed to mention or reference the POFA in their NTK that they intend to rely on. As previously stated, I am yet to receive the claimants witness statement. This has left me in the position of defending this claim on the basis of the limited detail held in respect of said POC and the NTK that I have obtained via FOI request in order to defend this claim.

48.  As Schedule 4 of POFA provides the sole statutory mechanism in English law to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is knowingly asking the Court to grant a remedy for which they have provided no legal authority. The Claimant has demonstrated a complete disregard for the law and caused an unnecessary waste of the Court’s resources by ignoring the specific issues their own failure to comply with POFA raised in my Defence. No reasonable litigant, let alone a specialist professional, could genuinely believe this position to be viable.

49.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms or any explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a  “debt recovery” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

50.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading evidence, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

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.

 

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings / annual leave (Capped)

Claimant had to take one day of Annual Leave in anticipation of attending the Court Hearing set for XXX August 2026

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Travel Expenses

1) Hand deliver hard copy of Witness statement to XXX County Court (16 miles total)

2) Attending the Hearing at XXX County Court (16 miles total)

32 miles x £0.45 per mile = £14.40

Subtotal: £9.45

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

I estimate that I have spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement.

If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I respectfully seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £19/hour.

12 hours preparation x £19/hour = £228.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £228.00

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £104.45

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £332.45

freidafrog

Deadline for WS submission is 10/06/2026.

Once a final WS draft is agreed, my friend and I will submit our WS’s by midday on 10/06/2026.

Coupon-mad

It's not a FOI, it was a SAR that you sent.

Don't exhibit their sign or NTK, and don't quote their POC. Takes up too many pages and helps them not you.

But they'll discontinue, as you know!

freidafrog

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82019528#Comment_82019528

thanks @Coupon-mad

They thought they’d exhibit the NTK due to the image showing my friend who was the RK in the passenger seat. Combined with the exhibit image taken on the day with exif data seemed helpful.

Noted on other points, thank you.

I take it the rest reads well….?