Civil Enforcement Witness Statement

1505grandad

Opening post - " I found this forum after submitting my defence which was regrettable,……"

Should we check what the actual Defence filed stated?

micramadness

Is that directed to me or someone else?

Coupon-mad

We must see the original defence to help you properly because the WS must be consistent.

micramadness

Yep, no problem. As I said I hadn't read this forum so it doesn't include all the points it should have. I thought it was worth including everything I can in the WS and hope it is read, I figured nothing to lose to include more ... Very happy to receive your advice though.

Defence - Summary

Document Status: Issued

Claim number: XXX

Defendant: XXX

Defence

1. I initially appealed the PCN as it was not received within 14 days of when the car was parked. The incident date was 18.12.2024,
   the notice was received on 03.01.2025. This appeal was refused, with no justification and no opportunity to appeal further.
2. I was not the driver on the day in question. I was unable to tell the company after the initial appeal above as the only contact details provided are an automated payment telephone number or online payment form.
3. I know the driver and they have evidence they paid for parking on the day in question, there was no loss of earning for the parking company.
4. The driver does not have the ticket any longer so we are unable to check the registration entered for the payment. There is a chance there was an error entering the registration, or the registration for their other car was entered - which did not enter the car park on that day. We would be willing to provide details to enable the company to check whether the other car entered the
   car park, and whether a ticket for parking was bought on that day and time. The BPA Code of Practice classifies any error in the
   registration number entered as a 'keying error' with a maximum charge of £20 admin fee which I am willing to pay.
5. If the above is the case this means there are no measures in place to prevent entering a registration in error, for a vehicle that didn't even enter the car park.

We have been unable to communicate any of this with the PCN company as they do not have any contact details other than automated or payment services, as detailed in 2.

Amount Paid

Amount paid£1.70

Date paid18/12/2024

Payment Details

Paid using parking machine in the
car park

micramadness

I'm going to tidy up my exhibits now but am on holiday and will be travelling tomorrow. I am also busy on Tuesday so will submit my evidence and WS as is.

I'd be grateful for any comments or advice if anyone casts their eye over stuff this afternoon. Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Good WS!

But the deadline for the WS is on 4th March so you could wait. And just file & serve your exhibits for this month…but I would NOT include either of these images:

Not only are they undated but the parking fees are different, so must relate to different years? But the main reason not to exhibit those is that they show the terms and can be read if the judge zooms in. Don't give them that! Make CEL show what they purport was the contract.

You are right that you don't have to exhibit Thornton v Shoe Lane or Vine v Waltham Forest because those are well known 'reported' cases and easy for a judge to locate.

Add to the end of para 3, this addition:

…using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities. The first appeal case below was against this same Claimant in 2023 but they continue to use the same POC template, which I respectfully suggest may be a contempt of court.

And change 'offence' in para 11 to 'event' or 'incident'.

Your draft goes from para 11 straight to para 14.

According to your signage pics, £1.70 didn't cover up to 2 hours but the driver was only there 28 minutes so remove the sentence about their payment covering 2 hours.

Remove para 34 which is just padding.

Where you talk about the Scott Wilson WS at the end, name him and say that he is known to have left the Claimant's employment in late 2025, so his sparse Witness Statement is hearsay. If the Claimant submits a fresh witness statement with new allegations and evidence not disclosed earlier (despite the SAR), you reserve the right to add a supplementary Witness Statement before the hearing and will claim fixed attendance costs and indemnity costs due to the wholly unreasonable conduct in litigating this vexatious claim.

micramadness

Many thanks Coupon-mad.

I will probably hold off on submitting the statement as you have confirmed what I suspected about the deadlines. Although given your advice about the WS can I still submit another before the 4th March deadline?

The photos were all taken recently, and only 2 days apart so I think they put the prices up! Shall I date my photos given that they are not contemporaneous with the event? I also put those larger ones in for comparison to Beavis, but I guess the entrance sign is enough for that.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Your photo of the unreadable sign on a pole is good, plus the entrance sign.

1505grandad

An observation - perhaps the following heading should be amended/deleted as the Chan an Akande cases are included?:-

"No contravention occurred: payment was made

14. Payment of £1.70 was made on 18th December 2024 and was processed at 16:09."

In fact (sorry for my usual pedanticness) but I wonder if the Chan and Akande cases should be included in view of the following statement and the clear explanations as to what happened on the day in D and WS:-

" 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."

micramadness

Thanks 1505grandad.

I see your point. I have reworded as follows:

"Potential terms breached: Payment was made

12. In the Claimant’s response to the appeal, referred to in in paragraph 11, it became apparent that the contravention may have been that no payment was received, although this was followed by “It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they adhere to the parking terms.” which suggests that other terms may also be involved."

and later I have reworded the SAR sentence you highlighted.

"15. Subject Access Request (SAR) for both vehicle registrations to attempt to clarify what term was breached and what error may have occurred (see Exhibits 07 and 08). The Claimant responses to both requests lacked vital information."

I believe this is the only indication CE gave that lack of payment was the problem, and was still somewhat indirect (in my opinion). I guess the information should still have been in the POC regardless?