UKCPS/Moorside Legal - Small Claims Court

andy26599

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82027608#Comment_82027608

Hearing fee deadline is 29th June. Fingers crossed they don't pay it. This has been the bane of my life and it wasn't even me who parked there lol, I'm just better at this sort of stuff than my wife.

Gr1pr

In that case you have no liability under POFA 2012, because you weren't driving and UKCPS didn't comply with Pofa2012 requirements in order to transfer liability from the driver to the non driving keeper

andy26599

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82027615#Comment_82027615

No what I mean was, my wife was driving her car, she's the only registered keeper, I'm just prepping everything on her behalf as I am better at this than she is.

andy26599

Just re-sharing this to a new page so it can be seen.

Please see draft Witness Statement for comments if you would be so kind. Ignore page numbers and formatting for now.

Table of Contents  Page

Witness Statement of Defendant  5

Exhibit MR-01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment 11 

Exhibit MR-02 - Parallel Parking v Anon. 15 

Exhibit MR-03 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 16 

Exhibit MR-04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 17 

Exhibit MR-05 – Lack of Signage upon Entry at time of Alleged Contravention 19

Exhibit MR-06 – Lack of Signage in Car Park at time of Alleged Contravention 20

Exhibit MR-07 – Signage near to Disabled Bays 21

Exhibit MR-08 – New Signage Installed upon entrance Since Alleged Contravention 22

Exhibit MR-09 – Close up of New Sign 23

Exhibit MR-10 - ParkingEye Limited v Beavis.  53  

Exhibit MR-11 – The Beavis Case Sign for Comparison 54

CLAIM NO: xxxxxxxx

UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

V

xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement of Defendant

1.       I am xxxxxx, (xxxxxxxxxxxxx) and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. This Witness Statement is made in support of my defence to the Claimant’s claim against me. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.       In my statement, I shall refer to (Exhibits MR1 – MR11) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.  The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

4.  A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held 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'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit MR-01)

5.  Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit MR-02)

6.        Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit MR-03)

7.        Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit MR-04)

8.        The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Facts and Sequence of events

9.      It is admitted that on the material date of 8th January 2024, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxxx.

10.   I was a member of Total Fitness xxxxx at this time and had been for a number of months prior attending approximately 3 times per week in that time. The car park is free to use for members. On the date of the alleged contravention it was much busier than usual, a consequence of the large numbers of new members who join in January of each year. Upon arrival, the car park was full, with the exception of a couple of spaces at the front of the gym designated as disabled bays.

11.   Prior to the alleged contravention, I requested and was granted express verbal permission by the landowner (or an authorised representative) to park in that location. I was not informed of any parking enforcement in force at the time of the request. I relied on that permission in good faith when parking my vehicle. I provided my name and car registration details to the staff in the event that I would be required to move my car. As the defendant I cannot be held responsible for the reception staff failing to properly ensure that my details would be taken, passed on to other staff, nor for them to fail to inform me of parking restrictions or enforcement that contradicted their permission to park where I had been permitted to do so.

12. At the time in question (the evening of January 8th 2024) it was dark and there was a distinct lack of signage in the car park, either upon approach to the gym (See Exhibit MR-05) or in the car park itself at the time (See Exhibit MR-06) and signage near to the disabled parking bays in question (See Exhibit MR-07).

13. Subsequently, at some point between the date of the alleged contravention and todays date, a number of signs have since been installed. (See Exhibit MR-08 and Exhibit MR-09), however these were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention. Subsequently, no Contract could have been entered into at the time of the alleged contravention.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

14.    The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

15.    I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

16.            The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen, on the basis that the car park at Total Fitness Gym in Wrexham is free to use for members and guests and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines, which were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

17.    This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

18.    The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

19.    Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

20.    Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

21.    With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

22.    The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

23.    In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

24.    This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

25.    Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

26.    In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

The Beavis case is against this claim

27. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which

must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test,

given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit MR-11) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach, notwithstanding that the signs there currently, were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

28. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a

'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing

directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them

with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.

(See Exhibit MR-10) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

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.

Defendant’s signature

Coupon-mad

Yes, everyone emails the bundle to their local court hearings or enquiries email (look on CourtFinder). Cc in Moorside of course and their email address is either on their letters or kicking around this forum if you search.

Remove all this (below) and remove your early paragraphs from 3 through to para 8:

"Exhibit MR-02 - Parallel Parking v Anon. 15 

Exhibit MR-03 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 16 

Exhibit MR-04 - Another Badly Pleaded Parking Claim 1. 17 "

Nope. That's old. You should instead be exhibiting Chan and Akande and also HHJ Moloney's first Cambridge judgment in Beavis

See the WS by @JackR1 as a good example with those transcripts (just don't also copy his stuff about Smith or Edward if you are the admitted driver, as those two are about lack of keeper liability).

And the best actual 'case law' about rights to park for residents is the binding judgment in Duchess of Bedford House. Google to find that transcript and search this forum again to copy wording already written about it in other WS this past year.

Le_Kirk

As @Gr1pr writes, use courtfinder and the Moorside email in my list is LitigationTeam@MoorsideLegal.co.uk

andy26599

Amended as above @Coupon-mad: Your final comments would be appreciated.

Table of Contents  Page

Witness Statement of Defendant  1

Exhibit MR-01 - Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan Judgment 6 

Exhibit MR-02 – CPM v Akande 11

Exhibit MR-03 - Lack of Signage upon Entry at time of Alleged Contravention 14

Exhibit MR-04 – Lack of Signage in Car Park at time of Alleged Contravention 15

Exhibit MR-05 – Signage near to Disabled Bays 16

Exhibit MR-06 – New Signage Installed upon entrance Since Alleged Contravention 17

Exhibit MR-07 – Close up of New Sign 18

Exhibit MR-08 – Parking Eye Limited v Beavis.  19  

Exhibit MR-09 – The Beavis Case Sign for Comparison 21

CLAIM NO: xxxxxxxxxx

UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

V

xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement of Defendant

1.       I am xxxxxxxxx, (xxxxxxxxxxxx) and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. This Witness Statement is made in support of my defence to the Claimant’s claim against me. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.       In my statement, I shall refer to (Exhibits MR1 – MR09) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

3.  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.

4.  I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training and Dyslexia. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Defective Particulars of Claim

5.  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 “the defendant parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage”. However, the Claimant provides no information on the specific terms said to have been breached, the conduct that allegedly broke those terms, or how any contract was formed on the basis that no signs were visible at the time of the alleged contravention. This absence of essential detail fails to justify the claim and has also made it difficult for me to respond to it effectively in my defence.

6.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent and persuasive Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The POC seen here in my case are far worse than the ones seen on the below Appeals).

7. The first persuasive Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (See Exhibit MR-01) 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”. 

8.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) (See Exhibit MR-02) 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.

Facts and Sequence of events

9.      It is admitted that on the material date of 8th January 2024, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx.

10.   I was a member of Total Fitness xxxx at this time and had been for a number of months prior attending approximately 3 times per week in that time. The car park is free to use for members. On the date of the alleged contravention it was much busier than usual, a consequence of the large numbers of new members who join in January of each year. Upon arrival, the car park was full with the exception of a couple of spaces at the front of the gym designated as disabled bays.

11.   Prior to the alleged contravention, I requested and was granted express verbal permission by the landowner (or an authorised representative) to park in that location. I was not informed of any parking enforcement in force at the time of the request. I relied on that permission in good faith when parking my vehicle. I provided my name and car registration details to the reception staff in the event that I would be required to move my car. As the defendant I cannot be held responsible for the reception staff failing to properly ensure that my details would be taken, passed on to other staff and parking enforcement, nor for them to fail to inform me of parking restrictions or enforcement that contradicted their permission to park where I had been permitted to do so.

12. At the time in question (the evening of January 8th 2024) it was dark and there was a distinct lack of signage in the car park, either upon approach to the gym (See Exhibit MR-05) or in the car park itself at the time (See Exhibit MR-06) and signage near to the disabled parking bays in question (See Exhibit MR-07).

13. Subsequently, at some point between the date of the alleged contravention and todays date, a number of signs have since been installed. (See Exhibit MR-08 and Exhibit MR-09), however these were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention. Subsequently, no Contract could have been entered into at the time of the alleged contravention.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

14.    The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

15.    I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

16.            The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen, on the basis that the car park at Total Fitness Gym in xxxxx is free to use for members and guests and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines, which were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

17.    This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

18.    The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

19.    Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

20.    Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

21.    With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

22.    The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

23.    In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

24.    This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

25.    Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

26.    In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

The Beavis case is against this claim

27. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which

must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test,

given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit MR-11) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach, notwithstanding that the signs there currently, were not in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

28. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a

'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing

directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them

with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.

(See Exhibit MR-10) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

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)

Defendant ( had to take one day of Annual Leave to attend the Court Hearing

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Travel Expenses

Roundtrip mileage costs for: 1) Site visit of Total Fitness xxx to inspect signage and take photographic evidence 2) Attending the Hearing at xxxxx County Court

- 11 miles × £0.55 per mile = £6.05

Subtotal: £6.05

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

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 15 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, examining the Claimant’s evidence, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £24/hour.

- 15 hours research + preparation × £24/hour = £360.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £360

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £101.05

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £461.05

andy26599

Question, as I will be attending with my wife, can I also claim my costs at £95 per day as well as I'll be taking the day as leave as well.

1505grandad

Just wondering which WS you used for yours.

Check you exhibit numbers - for instance you do not list Nos. 10 and 11 (stated in paras 27 and 28) and in one para you state No. 8 as a sign but the list at the top refer to this as the Beavis case.

andy26599

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028640#Comment_82028640

Good spot. I've changed MR numbers to match now.

I've used a mish mash of different ones tbh. Bulk of it came from one I found on here using the search and then I've amended that with the one @Coupon-mad mentioned above as the one I used had old case studies in it.