Civil Enforcement - DCB Legal - Witness Statement Stage

Horizon_Dawn

Hi All, Firstly I have been working through the threads here and now at the stage of witness statement. I have a dispute resolution hearing date of the 12th March.

Some context - the gym i've attended for over 20 years had its car park resurfaced in 2024, to which a new registration submission machine was introduced. In the initial week,s there wasnt sufficient signage and I missed submitting my registration 4 times, which resulted in the PCNs. I was on a long holiday in Asia when the initial fines came through and when reaching out to the gym initially on my retur,n they firmly advised to discuss with the parking company and when contacting them they advised it was too late which resulted me fighting this case with the help on these threads. I hope everything I have done at this stage is correct (mainly my defence) I wanted some assistance and am struggling to figure out exactly what to include within my WS.

To highlight no payments are required for members of the Gym. So feel a little let down but do not want to pay for these fines. I appreciate these are fines and there shouldnt be excuses but being a full time worker and carer (at the time), with planning a wedding (now married) and the passing of my sister - (where DCBL had called me numerous times on the day of the passing even after advising them of the situation - REALLY PEEVED ME)

Claim Form below

I will follow with my defence below.

Photos have recently been acquired - Photos 1 - 3 were initally put down straight after resurfacing and photos 4-5 were newly introduced (most likley due the huge amount of complaints)

Photo 1.jpg

Photo 2.jpg

Photo 3.jpg

Photo 4.jpg

Photo 5.jpg

Horizon_Dawn

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not

comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts

necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of

action'. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the

allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability

for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the

Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,

there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable

consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver

breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the

test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for

prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and

paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of

fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this

Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the

limited information available, this case appears to be no

different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with

contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right

to amend the defence if details of the contract are

provided.However, the court is invited to strike this claim out

using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is

not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant

does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/07/2024,

24/07/2024, 28/07/2024, 29/07/2024 as alleged. Whilst the

Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied.

The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach

of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can

be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred

whatsoever.

3.1. The Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 3 of the

Particulars of Claim, concerning 'Payment Not Made/Permit Not

Obtained In Accordance with Notified Terms'. The alleged breaches

relate to a new vehicle registration requirement. At the time,

only one obscure sign was visible externally, with no internal

notice meaning the new terms were not adequately brought to the

Defendant's attention, thus no valid contract was formed.

3.2 The Defendant is a long-standing member of the Fulwood Leisure

Centre, having been a member for over 20 years. For the vast

majority of this membership period, there was no requirement for

users to register their vehicle registration. Since the time of

the alleged breaches, the Defendant notes that the entire

location, including within the gym itself, is now ‘plastered’ with

numerous, much larger, and more prominent signs, indicating a

clear acknowledgment by the Claimant and/or the landowner of the

previous inadequacy of signage. This retrospective increase in

signage further supports the Defendant's assertion that the

initial signage was insufficient to create a contract.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of

prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to

strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract

and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management

service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules

and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an

unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that

the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong

'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,

and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of

the charge itself. None of these requirements have been

demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v

Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to

paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v

Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding

unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision

was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'

further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to

£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters

and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of

Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust

enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents

(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last

Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from

motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the

added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit

being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits

reported 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'.

public consultation =

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-o

f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum

parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant

to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it

also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes

to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’

Schedule4 = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice

compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest

(the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be

disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material

documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly

prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR

27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,

opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk

parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.

Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after

discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the

small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states

(annotation 38.6.1):'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 b

contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved

unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Nellymoser

Others will be better placed to advise on this but you could check out the info in NEWBIES POST 2 - Small Claim, scroll to:

LETTERS ABOUT HEARINGS - WITNESS STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE TIME!

Horizon_Dawn

I have had a look at this but I'm confused as to include. When it states Beavis Case - Do i actually submit the case or just the image of the sign

I had drafted the below witness statement. The hearing is on the 12th March so I believe that I must submit my WS by the 26th Feb. Should I wait to see DCBL WS and how can I get my hands on this?

Witness Statement (Defendant name)

Claim No: XXXXXX

1.1. I, (defendant), of [defendant's address], am the Defendant in this matter.1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge and honest belief.1.3. I confirm I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the dates in question.

2.1. I have been a member of Fulwood Leisure Centre for over 20 years.2.2. Throughout this 20-year period, there was no requirement for members to register their vehicles.2.3. On the dates listed (23/07/2024–29/07/2024), I parked as I have done for two decades, unaware that a new restrictive registration system had been implemented.

3.1. At the time of the alleged breaches, the "new" terms were not adequately brought to my attention.3.2. As shown in Exhibit HA1, only one obscure sign was visible externally, and there were no notices inside the gym to alert members to the change.3.3. Exhibit HA2 shows the site as it appears now. The Claimant has since "plastered" the location with much larger, prominent signs.3.4. Following the logic of Lord Denning’s "Red Hand Rule" (as referenced in my defence), the more onerous a term, the more effort must be made to bring it to the consumer's attention. The retrospective addition of larger signs proves the original signage was insufficient to form a contract.

4.1. The Claimant is seeking £170 per PCN, which includes "debt collection fees."4.2. In accordance with standard MSE forum guidance and the Supreme Court in Beavis, the £100 industry cap is intended to cover all operating costs.4.3. I aver that adding £70 per ticket is an attempt at "double recovery" and an abuse of the court process.

5.1. No contract was formed due to the lack of clear signage and "concealed pitfalls" for long-standing members.5.2. I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim and allow my witness costs for attendance.

• Exhibit HA1: Photo of the "one obscure sign" that existed during the fines.
• Exhibit HA2: Photo of the current "plastered" signage to show the contrast.
• Exhibit HA3: (Optional) A photo of the gym interior/reception showing the lack of warnings for members at the time.

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.

Gr1pr

DCB LEGAL, Lawyers, not DCBL ( debt collectors. ) , not the same !

They have the same deadline as you, so should send it to you if they are going ahead with the hearing, so check the hearing fee deadline date and then check to see if they actually paid it !

Check who signed the claim form, because it may be significant in preparing your WS. ( Mazur ruling )

The court has access to the Beavis case, so very little is needed in regards to the Beavis

Horizon_Dawn

@Gr1pr thanks for the response. Understood will check if this is paid

Regarding the signing of the claim form are you referring to the N180? If so the below as provided

Gr1pr

No, not the N180 DQ document, but the name of the person who signed the Claim Form

Le_Kirk

We need to know who signed the original claim form the N1SDT.

Horizon_Dawn

Ah sorry yes was confused was looing all over on the form but spotted it as the below

Le_Kirk

Signed by Sarah Ensall who is not a solicitor, look for a witness statement that contains Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys

Horizon_Dawn

So I have had a loko through a couple of cases and have added the following below. I would be grateful if someone could have a scan and let me know there thoughts and whether I should include anythign further

1.1 I, (defendant name), of [defendant address], am the Defendant in this matter. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and this account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

1.2 I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my evidence clearly, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account.

1.3 I note for the Court that, at the time of writing, I have yet to receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement.

2. Preliminary Matter: The Claim should be Struck Out

2.1 The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation may conduct litigation

.2.2 The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear on the SRA register as a solicitor for DCB Legal. I aver that the Particulars of Claim (POC) were verified by a person not authorised to conduct litigation.

2.3 Furthermore, the POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and 16PD3. I rely upon the persuasive appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30). In both cases, generic, "auto-fill" POCs were held to be defective.  

3. Facts and Sequence of Events

3.1 I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the dates of the alleged incidents.

3.2 I have been a member of Fulwood Leisure Centre for over 20 years. For the vast majority of this time, no vehicle registration was required.

3.3 On the material dates, I parked as I have done for two decades, unaware of a "new" restrictive registration system. At the time, only one obscure sign was visible externally, and no notices were placed inside the gym to alert members.  

4. Lack of Contract and Distinction from Beavis

4.1 In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that "adequate notice" of terms is essential. My case is fully distinguished from Beavis. In Beavis, the signs were large, prominent, and yellow/black.

4.2 Here, the signage was a "concealed pitfall or trap". Per Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, a driver cannot be bound by terms they had no reasonable opportunity to see.

4.3 Since these PCNs were issued, the location has been "plastered" with much larger signs (Exhibit HA2). This retrospective change is a clear admission by the Claimant that the original signs were inadequate to form a contract.  

5. Unlawful Inflation and Abuse of Process

5.1 The Claimant seeks £170 per PCN. Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) limits keeper liability to the amount of the unpaid parking charge only.

5.2 The addition of arbitrary "debt fees" is an attempt at double recovery. I rely on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where HHJ Hegarty held that inflating a PCN with admin costs "would appear to be penal".  

6. Conclusion

6.1 I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim on the grounds of unauthorised litigation, defective POCs, and a lack of clear signage for a 20-year member.

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.