DCB legal claim form

Gr1pr

Correct, but it is what it is, so comply with the court order in the correct order, don't mess it up by not doing so

If they aren't going to continue, they may discontinue before the WS deadline

Sparky1056

Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Between:

[CLAIMANT]

and

[*************]

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF **********

I, ******** , of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement from my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence.

1. On [DATE], I parked my van in the car park located at [LOCATION].
2. Before parking, I observed the signage displayed at the entrances to the car park and a large overhead billboard. These signs prominently stated that 24-hour parking was available for £2.50.
3. Based on the clear and prominent information displayed, I understood that the parking charge applicable to my vehicle was £2.50.
4. I paid £2.50 for parking and left my vehicle in the car park for approximately three hours.
5. Upon returning to my vehicle, I discovered that a Parking Charge Notice had been issued.
6. The reason stated for the Parking Charge Notice was that the minimum parking tariff for a van had not been paid and that the applicable charge was £5.50.
7. I subsequently discovered that the alleged higher charge for vans was contained only within the small print of the parking sign and was not displayed on the large entrance signs or overhead billboard.
8. I believe that the signage was misleading and inadequate to properly communicate the alleged contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant.
9. The information displayed at each entrance and on the large overhead billboard was the information most likely to be seen and relied upon by motorists entering the site. This signage clearly stated that parking was available for £2.50.
10. In my view, a reasonable person would conclude from the prominent signage that the applicable parking charge was £2.50 and would not expect materially different charges to be contained within small print.
11. I did not deliberately underpay for parking. I paid the amount that I genuinely believed was required based on the prominent signage displayed throughout the site.
12. At all times I acted honestly and in good faith. Had the alleged higher charge for vans been clearly displayed on the entrance signage and billboard, I would have either paid the additional amount or chosen to park elsewhere.
13. During correspondence with the Claimant’s solicitors and during mediation, I offered to pay the difference between the amount paid (£2.50) and the amount allegedly due (£5.50), namely £3.00.
14. I made this offer because I recognised that there may have been a shortfall in the tariff paid, although I maintain that this arose solely because of the misleading and inadequate signage.
15. My offer was made in an attempt to resolve the matter reasonably and to compensate for any actual loss suffered.
16. The Claimant declined to accept this offer and has instead pursued a substantially larger sum.
17. Attached to this witness statement are photographs showing the signage displayed at the entrances to the car park and the overhead billboard. These photographs accurately represent the signage that I relied upon when deciding to park and pay £2.50.
18. I respectfully submit that the signage was insufficient to clearly communicate the alleged contractual term requiring vans to pay a higher tariff and that no fair and transparent contract was formed on the terms now asserted by the Claimant.
19. I therefore ask the Court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

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

Singed ***********
Dated ***********

Does this look like an ok witness statement to use, are there any technicalities in either the original claim form, or parking/contract law and signage I can use to add to any of these points? Sorry I’m really not familiar with the law and technicalities of it, I’ve just wrote out what happened from my point of view.

Any pointers would be greatly appreciated from those who understand it better.

Thanks!

Gr1pr

The Statement of truth is around 5 years out of date, so definitely no to that part ! The story itself may be OK, but lacking Exhibits etc

Your WS + Exhibits bundle should also include Exhibits, numbered with your initials and a number, like ABC01, ABC02 etc

The 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad has excellent advice on what to include etc, so look at the example by mse member JackR1 , to see the format, layout and correct statement of truth too

Sparky1056

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82039357#Comment_82039357

what do you mean it’s 5 years out of date?

Ok thanks for the feedback, I have 4 exhibits to add to the bundle with my initials. 3 pictures of every entrance to the car park and 1 of the big overhead billboard. These will be labelled with my initials and 01,02,03,04.

Gr1pr

I mean that the Justice Department binned that very short SoT just after the pandemic, do anyone using it now has failed to comply with the latest newer version that replaced it, any WS on here within the last 5 years will have the correct version so I hope that you are not looking at examples from 5 to 10 years ago ? You definitely did not lift it from the JackR1 example I mentioned yesterday

As well as your Exhibits, you probably need some of the recommended Exhibits in the newbies sticky thread

Add your Exhibit numbers into your WS, because the WS above doesn't mention any

Sparky1056

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82039392#Comment_82039392

Ok thanks for that, to be honest I used ChatGPT to write it. I’ve looked at Jackr1’s statement but it seems to be referring to the claimants WS and pulling it apart, I’ve not yet received DCB’s WS.

I believe they also stated the breach in my original claim form ‘minimum van charge not met’.

Sorry if I’m getting this wrong, I’ll have a proper read this evening when I’m home to try and understand more.

Gr1pr

The good thing about the JackR1 WS bundle is that it shows you the layout and formatting, introduction of the Exhibits etc, plus it has the correct SoT at the end, regardless of the targeted content

Maybe if you asked chatGpt to tell you who is playing in the world cup on Friday night, it might give you the Qatar information, not USA 19th June 2026, you certainly wouldn't look at a 4 year old TV guide, seems like ChatGPT gave you an old SoT that was actually replaced with a longer version over 5 years ago whichit ignored

Its OK using AI as long as you proof read the contents, so like a detective uses ABC, Accept nothing, Believe nothing, Check everything

Coupon-mad

"I’ve looked at Jackr1’s statement but it seems to be referring to the claimants WS and pulling it apart,"

Well yes a small part of it does … but think about it and read it better … why would we have referred you to that one?

Your version is only your story (nothing more) and completely misses a challenge against landowner authority even though it was in your defence. For example, you don't know that the PPC had authority to charge more for vans. Was that even an agreed term of the landowner contract? And your draft doesn't even challenge the added £70 extortion.

You've overlooked the importance of using that one as your base, including the section with the extra wording & exhibits you need, including HHJ Moloney's transcript link, which is vital in all cases.

Sparky1056

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82039652#Comment_82039652

Yeah see this is where I don’t understand all the contract and technicality of it, this is the first time I’ve been in the position. So unsure what from JackR1’s WS applies to my case and what doesn’t.

I said in my defence that upon closer inspection of the small print, there was a van minimum charge. So I would say there is authority to charge more? It was more that the signage was misleading and inadequate?

I also admitted in my defence to ‘parking the van’ so can I use the POFA part as being just the registered keeper?

I don’t know about the £70 extortion, is that added fees on top of the parking charge?

Is this the HJ moloney transcript?

‘43.  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'.’

Gr1pr

PPofa2012 goes into the nearest bin when the driver is revealed, so in your case, as the van driver, a witness who was there, your testimony as the driver defendant carries more weight

A typical pcn is £100, the extra £70 is a spurious non existent debt collection charge, regularly thrown out in court when objected to , so yes , added fees, probably added interest too, so extortionate, or scammery

Please note, I have never been in your position but years of helping people and learning from other cases improves knowledge, hence why we point you at relevant topics and can criticise incorrect statements etc

AI cannot replicate our knowledge and experience