Civil Enforcement Witness Statement

micramadness

Ah thanks, that was what my court document specifically asked me to include, word for word.

I have found the following though which was from this year

STATEMENT OF TRUTH:

41. 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.

Gr1pr

Thats the current, correct statement, regardless of old paperwork

Have a look at the following WS and replies, it may help

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6618777/letter-of-claim-ce-ltd-response-to-claimant/p4

Coupon-mad

"See Exhibit 03 for a series of claims struck out on this basis."

You can't exhibit all those as they amount to over 70 pages, I think.

Just exhibit the two Chan & Akande transcripts as a PDF, taken from the other link (Chan and Akande only) supplied on endless threads by @Le_Kirk

However I am concerned you should not rush this WS, so I would stop for now because the Scott Wilson template WS is NOT their final WS. He left the company so everything in that WS is hearsay and they won't rely on it.

If you have not yet received their proper WS, search the forum instead of working on this (your deadline can't be this week, am I right?).

Another poster worked on a WS in a similar CEL case only the other week which can be found by searching for:

Scott Wilson hearsay WS

micramadness

Thanks.

My deadline is Tuesday 17th for the evidence but I figure I need to have the WS tied up for that really. I am away Friday to Monday and have a busy day on Tuesday so do need to get this done asap.

There's nothing specific in the WS to my case so I had wondered.

Also, the case is being heard as a block list so I guess they may have more than one and are more likely to invest, do a relevant WS and attend this hearing.

Coupon-mad

"There's nothing specific in the WS to my case "

But the second WS will.

DO NOT RUSH TO EMAIL THIS.

So do the forum search I said, change the filter to NEWEST, find the one someone just did and copy from that.

You will need to replace your para 19 because you will get a WS very soon that does include photos.

You should also replace 23 onwards with the better wording that's in the recent one. Nobody quotes the DLUHC now. That's old.

micramadness

Thanks Coupon-mad, I'm looking at the Scott Wilson stuff and recent WS now.

In the meantime I have been looking at the signage and wonder if I have any chance of an argument there… I think the repeater signs around the car park have changed since my PCN because I think they use a different pay company. However, I suspect the entrance one is the same.

1000058821.jpg

1000058881.jpg

1000058822_redact.jpg

1000058883_redact.jpg

1000058828_redact.jpg

13 signage 1.jpg

My argument is that the entrance sign uses small type when a driver is negotiating the s bend at the top of the ramp. It also doesn't give any indication of maximum duration or charge (the £100 is v small).

I wanted to also say that the small type on the repeater signs is also difficult to read, especially when cars are parked in front but there are a lot of them and at least some are more accessible…

What do you think? worth pursuing?

Coupon-mad

Always talk about unclear signs. It's something that judges can easily determine & it's fundamental to the 'contract' argument.

CEL have wordy signs. Visual clutter.

micramadness

Hi all, I have been looking through the cases as advised -

Letter of claim: CE LTD response to claimant

CEL only court claim 2025

Help needed: Blue Badge holder parked in the appropriate bay at Costco's, Civil Enforcement Ltd

I have reworded the Witness Statement and await the updated witness statement of CE

I have the following from the courts - I am assuming the 'documents' to be sent by 4pm on the 17th are my exhibits?

IMG20260215003212.jpg

micramadness

This is my exhibit doc, some of the image quality has declined, I will try and redo it when I submit.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8cc1636slncdjhbvl5xfe/Combined-edited-copy_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=p5371w51j89j8vcwcakwzsvq4&st=mhrfa3nu&dl=0

micramadness

and this is my witness statement current draft, there are some additional cases mentioned I have not included as exhibits - do I need all of those..? as I will run out of pages on my evidence to submit electronically

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXX (SMALL CLAIMS TRACK) AT XXX on the XXX March 2026 CLAIM NUMBER: XXX

Between

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

V

XXX (Defendant)

Witness Statement of Defendant

1. I am XXX of XXX 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.

2. In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. 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.

Preliminary matter: Particulars of Claim (POC)

3. I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

4. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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' (see Exhibit 01). This is same in this case and I trust that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (see Exhibit 02).

5. I believe the Claim should be struck out. 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 and how. 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 of the case

6. It is admitted that I was the keeper of vehicle XXX on the date of the alleged incident, but I was not the driver.

Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper not PoFA compliant

7. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA). The PCN was received on 3rd January 2025, 16 days after the incident date and therefore outside the 14-day statutory timeframe under PoFA 9(4)(b) and 9(5) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4).

8. Additionally, under 8.1.2 of The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 (Single Code) Note 2 specifies that “... parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)”. The PCN offers only an Issue Date.

9. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that I (the keeper) was the driver under CPR 16.4(1)(a), the Claimant must clearly state the basis of the claim, but the POC does not specify whether the defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper. In the persuasive appellate decisions of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (2017) (see Exhibit 03) and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Edward (2023) (see Exhibit 04), the court held that a Claimant must prove that the Defendant was the driver if PoFA compliance is not met.

10. Since the Claimant has failed to identify myself as the driver, and has also failed to comply with PoFA, I cannot be held liable, as the keeper, for this charge.

11. I appealed the PCN on the grounds that it did not arrive within the statutory 14-day limit, but this was denied with little reference made to the subject of my appeal and incorrectly stated that the ‘ticket’ needed only to be issued within 14 days of the offence to be compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA (see Exhibit 05). However, the fact remains that the notice was received outside the statutory PoFA timescales.

No contravention occurred: payment was made

14. Payment of £1.70 was made on 18th December 2024 and was processed at 16:09. The vehicle in question was parked for an appointment at 16:00, which was not attended late, suggesting there was a delay in the payment processing system. On the date in question this payment covered a duration of two hours, more than enough for the Claimant’s stated exit time of 16:24 and total duration of 28 minutes. This is shown as highlighted in the Nationwide bank statement submitted for 20th December 2024 as MIPERMIT CHIPPENHAM (See Exhibit 06). Details of the date and time of the transaction have been provided by the bank who also confirmed it has approval code XXX and can therefore be checked by the Claimant.

15. Two vehicles were used by the Defendant's family at that time, I therefore assumed the registration for our other vehicle had been used against the payment. This would constitute a major keying error under the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (BPA Code) 17.4B and in such circumstances “It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20...”. This is also repeated in the Single Code F.3 (a).

16. The Claimant has responded to a Subject Access Request (SAR) for both vehicle registrations (see Exhibits 07 and 08) to clarify what term was breached and what error may have occurred. For the registration in question (XXX) the Claimant did not respond to multiple specific requests in the SAR and have therefore neither confirmed nor denied whether payment was received connected to the registration on the day in question. The Claimant has also not supplied a full (or partially redacted) PDT machine record or a full ANPR record as requested (see Exhibit 09). The Claimant did confirm that our other vehicle was not in XXX Car Park on 18th December 2025 and no parking charges have been issued (see Exhibit 10). However, they have failed to confirm whether they received any parking payments for that vehicle on that date. This means that we believe either a major or minor keying error was still possible and likely. Again, for the second SAR they have not supplied a full (or partially redacted) PDT machine record, as requested, which would enable us to establish what happened to our payment.

17. Without further information from the Claimant on the nature of the term breached and without a list of PDT payments and vehicles for that day I can only continue to assume a major or minor keying error occurred. BPA Code clarifies expected action for a minor keying error in 17.4A as follows “These are minor errors where up to one character has been entered incorrectly, or where the registration has been entered in the wrong order. If a typing error such as this leads to a PCN being issued and the motorist appeals, the PCN must be cancelled at the first stage of appeal.” The Single Code also lists minor keying errors as Exempt Circumstances under F.1 (h) where “Parking operators should take all reasonable steps to avoid issuing a notice to exempt classes of vehicle...”.

18. An appeal on the grounds of a Keying Error was not possible as there is no ability to appeal on new grounds once an initial appeal has been made (see paragraph 11). The rigid automated system available to the defendant to contact Civil Enforcement allowed only one reason for the initial appeal, a POPLA appeal on that initial ground or contact details limited to an automated payment phone line.

19. Given payment was made for parking, it appears that there are no measures in place to prevent entering a registration in error – for a car that didn’t enter the car park. This is contrary to the BPA Code 17.3 ‘Motorists, car park operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers all have a responsibility in ensuring that obvious and inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges.’ and Single Code 6.3 “Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors. This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying errors.” No such technologies are in place at XXX Car Park.

20. Correspondence with the car park owner on a separate later occasion, when I realised this was possible, followed the intention of the Code “I have sorted this for you and you shouldn't receive a fine for a simple mistake.” (see Exhibit 11). It was only due to timescales, not intent, that the current PCN was unable to be treated in the same manner “This PCN is now at a claim issued stage, which is not in our remit to cancel.” (see Exhibit 12).

21. Given that payment was made and more than exceeded the parking duration, coupled with requirements on operators regarding errors, I do not believe a breach the terms and conditions occurred.

Inadequate signage and lack of contract

22. The arguments by the Claimant all relate to a contract being entered into by visibility of the signage (their paragraphs 15-21). No exhibits have been submitted to show the contemporaneous signage.

23. The only signs that are visible at the entrance to the car park give no information whatsoever as to the nature of the Terms and Conditions, merely that Terms and Conditions apply. Specifically, the sign does not include clear indication of durations or charges. Even the text which provides additional limited information is very small and not clearly legible from inside a vehicle (see Exhibit 13). This is made more difficult by the extremely tight bend, on a ramp, that must be driven through to enter the car park, undisputedly taking much of the driver's attention (see Exhibit 14). This is further compounded in the dark as the entrance sign is not independently lit or reflective, as per the Single Code 3.1.2 NOTE 1 “In some circumstances, key information may include the maximum level of the parking charge that can be applied. Where parking is invited in the hours of darkness entrance signs must be visible to approaching drivers and hence may require lighting unless sited where there is sufficient ambient lighting in the vicinity.” and Appendix 1 and appears to blend into the similarly coloured wall upon which it is mounted (see Exhibit 15). There is also no legible information regarding personal data as per Single Code 3.1.2 NOTE 2, despite the presence of ANPR cameras.

24. The main signs which provide information relating to the Terms and Conditions are placed high and behind parked cars which makes the very small type illegible as you cannot get very close (see Exhibit 16). This breaches a number of requirements in the Single Code, including 3.1.3 (b)(f), 3.1.4, 3.2.6. The poor placement and legibility of these signs made it extremely difficult for anybody to be aware of or to comply with the parking rules.

25. Both the entrance sign and those displaying terms and conditions are wordy and use small print, this is in stark contrast to the highly visible, clear and legible signs seen in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (“the Beavis case”). (See Exhibit 17).

26. The signage and layout at Five Valleys Car Park did not offer a clear or readable contract to motorists. For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. No agreement could have been formed.

27. I submit that their terms were not clearly displayed and accessible, particularly in darkness. As per the guidance in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, adequate notice of terms is essential to enforceability.

28. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it was held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms if they had no reasonable opportunity to see them. That principle directly applies here.

29. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, the court held that terms must be presented before or at the time of contract formation — not after entry.

30. The 'red hand rule' from Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 further supports that any onerous or unusual terms (such as penalty charges) must be made extremely prominent, which they were not in this instance.

31. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

Amount claimed and added sums

32. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (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 [2015] UKSC67.

33. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html) (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) (see Exhibit 18) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) (https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html&query=(ParkingEye)+AND+(Ltd)+AND+(v)+AND+(Somerfield)+AND+(Stores)+AND+(Ltd)+AND+(.2011.) 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'.

34. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

35. Pursuant to Sch4 of POFA the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

36. The Claimant has added in an “interest rate” which is clearly an attempt to seek more funds from the defendant; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant.

37. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Claimant’s Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof

38. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Their Statement provides nothing specific regarding the facts of this case and the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim.

39. I maintain the Claimant is put to strict proof of (i) the contractual terms relied upon, (ii) that those terms were adequately brought to the attention of motorists at the material time, and (iii) that the Claimant has standing/authority to sue in its own name.

40. For the reasons above and those pleaded in my Defence, I respectfully ask that the Court dismiss the claim.

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:

Date: