Civil Enforcement - DCB Legal - Witness Statement Stage

Coupon-mad

That's very good but add Mazur as a link on a footnote, which should help the judge.

Also, re the FOUR x added £70 (clear extortion) add in the stuff I now say about that in the newly-edited Template defence and provide (as another transcript exhibit) HHJ Moloney's judgment in Beavis,*

*found in a hyperlink here:

https://ukscblog.com/case-preview-parkingeye-limited-v-beavis/

1505grandad

"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)andCar Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30).In both cases, generic, "auto-fill" POCs were held to be defective. "

Not sure the above is relevant as (previous draft:-

"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'"

Coupon-mad

Agreed, if the POC states that.

Horizon_Dawn

@Coupon-mad & @1505grandad thank you for the quick responses - i have amended the witness statement below to try and reflect - apologies in advance I am new to all of this.

2. Preliminary Matter: Procedural Defects and Unauthorized Litigation

2.1 The Claim Form was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear on the SRA register for DCB Legal. The High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) [^1] confirms that litigation must be conducted by authorised persons; supervision does not legitimise unauthorised conduct.

2.2 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 like those in this claim were held to be defective.

3. Response to the Particulars of Claim

3.1 The Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 3 of the POC concerning "Payment Not Made/Permit Not Obtained In Accordance with Notified Terms".

3.2 These alleged breaches relate to a new vehicle registration requirement. I have been a member of Fulwood Leisure Centre for over 20 years. For the vast majority of this time, no registration was required

.3.3 At the time of the alleged breaches, the "new" terms were not adequately brought to my attention. Only one obscure sign was visible externally, and there were no notices inside the gym.

3.4 Since these PCNs were issued, the site has been "plastered" with much larger, prominent signs. I attach a photo of this new signage as Exhibit HA2. This retrospective increase in signage confirms the previous signage was insufficient to form a contract.

4. Distinction from Beavis and Unlawful Inflation

4.1 This case is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In Beavis, the signs were prominent and large. Here, the lack of prominence constituted a "concealed pitfall or trap."

4.2 I rely on the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC in the initial Beavis hearing (Exhibit HA3). HHJ Moloney held that the £85 charge itself was intended to include the costs of the automated letter-chain and generate a profit

.4.3 The addition of £70 per PCN (totaling £280 in "damages") is a clear attempt at double recovery and an abuse of process. As held in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), inflating a parking charge with "admin costs" appears penal.

5. Conclusion and Expenses

5.1 I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim on the grounds of defective pleadings and lack of clear signage.

5.2 I request costs for my attendance (1 day of paid annual leave) at the capped rate of £95.00, and Litigant in Person preparation costs due to the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

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 a false statement verified by a statement of truth without honest belief in its truth.

[^1]: Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB): https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

Exhibits to File:

• Exhibit HA1: Photo of original inadequate signage.
• Exhibit HA2: Photo of new, prominent signage.
• Exhibit HA3: Transcript/Judgment of HHJ Moloney QC in ParkingEye v Beavis.
• Exhibit HA4: High Court Judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.

Le_Kirk

You cannot use Chan & Akande as the POC does plead the breach.

Horizon_Dawn

@Le_Kirk thank you - I have removed Chan & Akande -

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) [^1] confirms that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity that must be carried out by authorised persons.

2.2 The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall, who does not appear on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) register for the firm representing the Claimant.

2.3 Per Mazur, supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. The POC are therefore defective as they appear to have been verified by a person not authorised to sign statements of truth in proceedings.

3. Response to the Alleged Breach

3.1 I deny the allegation in Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim concerning "Payment Not Made/Permit Not Obtained In Accordance With Notified Terms".

3.2 I have been a member of Fulwood Leisure Centre for over 20 years. For the vast majority of this period, there was no requirement for users to register their vehicles.

3.3 At the time of the alleged breaches (July 2024), the "new" registration requirement was not adequately brought to my attention. As shown in Exhibit HA1, only one obscure sign was visible externally, and there were no notices inside the gym.

3.4 Since these PCNs were issued, the location has been "plastered" with much larger, more prominent signs. I attach a photo of this new signage as Exhibit HA2. This retrospective increase in signage confirms that the original signs were insufficient to create a contract.

4. Distinction from Beavis and Unlawful Inflation

4.1 This case is fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In Beavis, the signs were prominent and large. Here, the lack of prominence constituted a "concealed pitfall or trap".

4.2 Regarding the "added £70" fees per PCN, I rely on the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC in the initial Beavis hearing (Exhibit HA3). HHJ Moloney held that the parking charge itself was intended to cover the costs of the automated letter-chain and generate a profit.

4.3 The addition of these arbitrary fees is a clear attempt at "double recovery". As held in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), inflating a parking charge with "admin costs" appears penal.

5. Conclusion and Expenses

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

5.2 I request costs for my attendance (1 day of paid annual leave) at the rate of £95.00, and Litigant in Person preparation costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g)).

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

Horizon_Dawn

Thank you @Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk and @1505grandad you have been very helpful. I did call the court today and there was no note of payment as of yet. But to stay diligent I have just now sent over my WS. I will keep you all posted

Horizon_Dawn

Good Morning all - I'm happy to say the famous words here! Another bites the dust! I have just received an email from DCB Legal stating they have been instructed to discontinue this claim and have provided the N279 form.

I am thankful of you all on this forum. What you do is amazing..I was nervous as it was a large amount they would push to proceed. But happy with the outcome.

Can I still request the cost schedule I put together or am I unable to?

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk @1505grandad you guys are amazing!

Nellymoser

Great news 🥳 please post picture here of your N279 form for @Umkomaas