Do I /can I submit evidence in response to receiving the claimants bundle?

Kid.Kadoo

They replied today stating they sent a supplementary witness statement 2 days ago- this is their supplementaey ws-

INTRODUCTION

1.

I have prepared this witness statement under the supervision of my principal. The matters to

which I refer are within my own knowledge, or based on information provided to me by the

Claimant, save where expressly stated to the contrary, and are true to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this

statement on its behalf.

2.

I make this further witness statement to supplement my earlier witness statement dated 12

November 2025 (Witness Statement 1), a copy of which has already been filed and served.

For ease, the defined terms in Witness Statement 1 shall be used in this witness statement.

REASONS FOR THIS SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT

3.

The Defendant’s evidence raises new points not previously raised, or at least not in any detail,

in her Defence. Since CPR 27.2 only excludes certain provisions (including CPR 31, 32 and

33), CPR 17.1 continues to apply and the Court must consider the Defendant’s conduct as an

application for permission to amend its statement of case in accordance with that rule. The

Court must also consider the following provisions not excluded by CPR 27.2:

• CPR r.1.1(2) - 2) “Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as

is practicable”

o (f) - “enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.”

o (a) - “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully

in proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence.”

• Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 held, at paragraph 18 (per Lord Sumption,

with whom Lords Wilson and Carnwath both agreed), “[Litigants in persons’] lack of

representation will often justify making allowances in making case management decisions

and in conducting hearings. But it will not usually justify applying to litigants in person a

lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court. The overriding objective

requires the courts so far as practicable to enforce compliance with the rules: CPR rule

1.1(1)[sic](f). The rules do not in any relevant respect distinguish between represented

and unrepresented parties.”. Indeed, Lord Briggs (dissenting – with whom Lady Hale

agreed) held (at paragraph 42), “Save to the very limited extent to which the CPR now

provides otherwise, there cannot fairly be one attitude to compliance with rules for

represented parties and another for litigants in person, still less a general dispensation

for the latter from the need to observe them.”.

4.

In the event the Court allows such an application, the Claimant responds to these new points

as below.

CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE

The Defendant lives at the address where the Car Park is located

5.

Paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 4 to 6 of Witness Statement 1 are repeated. Whether or not the

Defendant is a resident is irrelevant. The Car Park is private land. Motorists are only

permitted to use this land for parking strictly subject to the Terms and Conditions of the

contractual licence. 

The Defendant appealed online multiple times, which were refused. The Defendant emailed her lease

and provided the lease every step of the appeals process

6.

Paragraphs 11-15 of Witness Statement 1 are repeated.

7.

The Claimant has confirmed that it received the Defendant’s Subject Access Request and a

copy of the Defendant’s Directions Questionnaire. However, the Claimant did not receive

correspondence with a lease attached. Further, the Claimant has confirmed that no lease was

attached with the Defendant’s appeal.

The lease

8.

The lease provided by the Defendant, labelled “Evidence #1 – Lease”, fails to evidence that

the Defendant had an unfettered right to park in the Car Park.

9.

The Defendant is not named on the lease and she cannot therefore benefit from it. The

Defendant has provided ”Evidence #9 – lease titles and parties” which has the Defendant’s

name on it. However, the lease has a title number of REDACTED and the lease titles and parties

has title numbers REDACTED and REDACTED which are different to that on the lease.

Additionally, the address on the lease is (emphasis added) “203! REDACTED”, while the

Defendant stated that she is resident at (emphasis added) “201 REDACTED”. Therefore,

Evidence #1-Lease and Evidence #9 – lease titles and parties clearly relate to different

properties and/or different matters.

10.

Additionally, the Defendant has failed to provide evidence to show that she moved into the

property before the Claimant was engaged to manage the Car Park. The Defendant could

have easily supplied the correct lease.

11.

As such, the lease does not benefit the Defendant.

12.

Further, the lease contains a management clause at paragraph 3(6), page 7 of the lease, where

the lessee agrees to “comply with and observe any reasonable regulations…” which “may be

restrictive of acts… detrimental to [the property’s] character or amenities..”. Therefore, the

lease confirms that the lessee agreed to comply with reasonable regulations, which includes

the Terms and Condition

The Defendant gave a witness statement dated 9 November 2025

13.

The Defendant filed her witness statement on 9 November 2025. However, it was not served

on the Claimant until 19:16 on 12 November 2025, after the Claimant’s witness statement

had been placed in the post.

REDACTED ceased to manage the property and residence of the Defendant. The

Defendant refers to paragraph 8.2 of the Agreement

14.

The Claimant has confirmed that REDACTED continued to contract the

Claimant to monitor the Car Park.

15.

The Claimant refers to paragraphs 7-9 of the Claimant’s Skeleton Argument. Case authority

on appeal confirms that the Claimant’s authority does not need to be proved, because the

Claimant is pursuing the Defendant under its contract with the driver.

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).

16.

Witness Statement 1 and this supplementary witness statement have been prepared under the

supervision of my principal, an SRA-regulated solicitor. Both have been drafted and sent to

the solicitor to review and approve before being filed and served. The Court will note that a

witness statement is a statement of fact within the witness’s knowledge and where the facts

relied upon are outside the witness’s knowledge, the witness must state the source of those

facts.

17.

The Law Society’s Guidance confirms that a witness statement can be signed by anyone

setting out statements of fact. Further, CPR 22.1(6) permits a legal representative to sign a

statement of truth on a statement of case on behalf of their client and a witness statement

must be signed by the maker of the statement. A legal representative is defined in CPR 2.3 as

including the solicitors’ employees.

18.

Neither drafting a witness statement nor giving evidence to the Court (either in person or via

a witness statement) can constitute the reserved legal activity of the conduct of litigation. As

such, it is denied that the Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable. 

ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; Jopson v Homeguard [2016]

19.

The Claimant repeats paragraph 8 of Witness Statement 1 and refers to paragraphs 10-11 of

its Skeleton Argument. Parking charges are not intended to represent loss, and are not penal.

20.

The Defendant’s statement that “it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC

67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine

back in play” is patently false. Jopson says no such thing.

21.

It should also be noted that the case of Jopson was heard in the County Court and is not a

binding authority, whereas Beavis was heard in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court takes

precedence. Jopson also related to a momentary stop on an access road, which is not the case

for this Claim, and the judgment in Jopson stated that the factual circumstances were quite

different from those in Beavis.

22.

In Jopson, the right to park had been specifically granted under the terms of a lease. This

Claim concerns the Defendant parking in the Car Park and she has failed to evidence that a

right to park has been specifically granted to her.

Gladstone’s Solicitors

23.

Paragraphs 6-7 above are repeated.

24.

The Defendant has provided a screenshot. However, it fails to confirm the Defendant’s name

and whether it relates to this PCN.

The Defendant has suffered distress and wasted time

25.

The Defendant has failed to provide any medical evidence to show that she suffered distress

or that any distress suffered was caused by the Claimant (which is denied). The Defendant

has also failed to provide any evidence to show that any distress suffered resulted in loss or

damage.

26.

Paragraph 11-15 and 21 of Witness Statement 1 are repeated. Paragraphs 6-7 above are also

repeated. The Claimant confirmed that it did not receive a copy of a lease from the Defendant

and the Defendant failed to respond to the pre-legal contact made by BW Legal. The

Claimant was left with no option but to issue legal proceedings. Following the issue of the

Claim, BW Legal made further attempts to resolve the matter amicably. However, the

Defendant did not provide a copy of the lease until serving her witness statement and she did

not respond to BW Legal’s settlement attempts. The Defendant has failed to evidence an

unfettered right to park in the Car Park and the Defendant allowed for the matter to escalate.

Costs

27.

The Defendant cannot counterclaim and request costs simply for the time spent on the matter.

A counterclaim for “time” is no cause of action and is not a valid counterclaim.

28.

This Claim was allocated to the Small Claims Track, given its value, in which costs are not

usually awarded save for limited exceptions such as travel, loss of earnings to attend the

hearing, court fees and fixed legal costs. Even where costs are awarded, CPR 46.5 only

allows for £24.00 an hour by way of litigant in person costs.

29.

The Defendant’s appeal to the Claimant was short in content. The Defendant did not respond

to other correspondence sent to her by BW Legal, leaving the Claimant with no option but to

issue legal proceedings. Further, the Defendant failed to respond to BW Legal’s settlement

attempts following the issue of the Claim. As such, the Defendant could not have spent much

time on the matter.

30.

The Defendant has stated (without evidence) that her usual day rate is £180.00 a day. The

national minimum wage is £12.21 an hour, which for an 8-hour day would equate to a total of

£97.68 for one day’s earnings. The Defendant is claiming £900.00, which equates to more

than 9 times the hourly national minimum wage. This is wholly unreasonable.

31.

Further, CPR 27 (PD – para 7.3(1)) states that the maximum award for loss of earnings for a

full day off work to attend the final hearing is £95.00. The hearing has been listed for 1 hour

on 16 December 2025 and the Defendant does not therefore need to attend Court for the

entire day.

32.

The Defendant has requested costs for stress. However, the Defendant failed to provide any

medical evidence to show that she suffered stress or that any stress suffered was caused by

the Claimant (which is denied). The Defendant has also failed to provide any evidence to

show that any stress suffered resulted in loss or damage.

33.

The Defendant has again referred to trespass. Paragraph 23 of Witness Statement 1 is

repeated and paragraphs 14-15 above are repeated.

Coupon-mad

Load of crap. You should take proof of your daily or hourly rate of pay to the hearing though,

Kid.Kadoo

@Coupon-mad do you have any rebuttal to their case law arguments??? Everything looks very intimidating to me and I'm not sure how to come back to all that.

Coupon-mad

There's not much wrong with their case law arguments. Concentrate on your rights under your lease. The case turns on that question.

Kid.Kadoo

I'm unsure why I have been told to use any of this case law referenced from my side then, if none of it applies, according to them??

Kid.Kadoo

They go on about beavis, but even parkingprankster (whose argument i used) said that beavis doesn't apply to residential parking??? They say this is patentlu wrong???

Coupon-mad

Kid.Kadoo said:

I'm unsure why I have been told to use any of this case law referenced from my side then, if none of it applies, according to them?

It's not that it doesn't apply to your case. They are just picking arguments with your wording and understanding of Jopson.

I think they are right to say this:

The Defendant’s statement that “it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play” is patently false. Jopson says no such thing.

I kind of agree (but they've written it in an intimidating way, deliberately to make you doubt yourself). I don't think it does say that in so many words but Jopson is still relevant to residential cases and is well worth including.

They also say you have introduced new defence points not raised earlier, but I doubt it? Try to see right through this as a bullying WS which you can ask the judge to disregard because it was filed & served too late and appears to have been signed by a paralegal, who is neither a solicitor nor a 'witness'.

Car1980

The Defendant is not named on the lease and she cannot therefore benefit from it.

No lease ever has a name on it. It's tied to property, not a person.

A lease is created when the property is built and before anyone has purchased it.

Kid.Kadoo

So, we've been back and forth now, and i set out for them to pay my costs which I set at £790 for 4x 8hr days plus £70 court fee and not including a day's wages for attending court. 

Last email I stated that of they want to go on about the £24 litigant in person cost, then my costs will increase to £838 to reflect this.

They have now come back offering me £250. I'm sure I have a pretty solid case of them not being allowed to even be in my residential carpark in the first place and have a good chance of winning in court.... Would it be wrong of me to now negotiate back again for more money? Say, split the difference and call it £520?

Or should I stick close to my original costs number? 

Or should I do something else entirely?

If we go to court I stand to win a lot more from them.

Coupon-mad

I'd go back with £620 to keep negotiations higher.