Wembley retail Park small claims trial

Harry_Harry

Hello All,

I have followed the advice of the newbies forum and it seems we are going to court on 5th May. BW Legal or uk parking patrol limited have submitted their witness statement as have I. The alleged offence is 29 mins overstay in a retail park with a lidl, macdonalds, currys', carpet shop and jd sports and max stay is 90 mins. I was accompanying my mother who is disabled and have mentioned this too but they dont seem to care. Little nervous about this now.

If I paste both my witness statement and their witness statement, can anyone help me with winning points please. They said I have used online templates which are not relevant to this case however I disagree.

Thanks in advance for your help

Coupon-mad

Your winning point will be that the Equality Act 2010 and the industry Code of Practice both mean that disabled people and their carers are entitled to more time. Making 'reasonable adjustments' of time are required by law AND this is reflected in the Code of Practice.

The Claimant cannot be heard to justify the fixed time limit by saying they didn't know about the disability of an individual. That's not a defence for them - a fixed time limit is indirect discrimination of the disabled population 'at large' and they have to anticipate that shoppers may need more time and proactively put in place a well communicated mechanism to extend or waive the time limit.

Have the right clauses in the industry CoP to hand. Google it. Search it for 'disabled' and 'blue badge' as keywords.

Also read the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers & Public Functions which is statutory (it's in law) not just guidance. Search it for three things:

• reasonable adjustments
• indirect discrimination
• tours*
  

*the tours example is the one that confirms that 'more time need' IS a statutory requirement of the EA. Not just bunging in some blue badge bays and saying 'we have made physical adjustments'!

Show us your WS.

We don't need to see the BW Legal one (it's a template we've seen before!) but who signed it? A solicitor? Or an employee of the parking firm, who I assume is UKPPO?

Harry_Harry

Thanks @Coupon-mad for quick reply. Not sure if it is the best witness statement but please see below. I think the signage is hard to read especially when driving and not in drivers sight. Bushes were covering most of the signs and small font and so much writing too. I got some street view pics from google. Their pics they provided have no time stamps and I think the signs have been updated and obstructions such as bushes cut since. Can i say they have not provided the photos of the signs at the time of offence? Also the signs are not visible at night. Any fighting points would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WILLESDEN

Claim No:

Between:

UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

Mr H (Defendant)

───

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR

I, , of am the Defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1. INTRODUCTION

1. I am the Defendant and was the driver of the vehicle on the material date.

2. I make this statement in support of my Defence already filed.

2. BACKGROUND AND EVENTS

1. On 04 February 2024, I visited Stadium Retail Park, Wembley.

2. I was accompanying my elderly mother, a Blue Badge holder with mobility impairments, requiring additional time for access, walking and general assistance.

3. The visit involved multiple stores within the retail park, including Lidl, McDonald’s, JD Sports, Currys and another retail store.

4. This is a large retail park and not a short-stay location. It is normal consumer behaviour to visit multiple stores, queue, and move between premises.

3. UNREALISTIC TIME LIMIT

1. The permitted stay at the site is approximately 90 minutes, which is insufficient for a reasonable visit involving multiple stores.

2. A visit involving shopping, queues, and assisting a disabled passenger would reasonably exceed this time.

3. This creates a situation where customers are effectively set up to exceed the time limit despite acting reasonably.

4. This is not a short-stay facility but a destination retail park intended for longer visits.

4. INADEQUATE SIGNAGE AND NO CONTRACT

1. I deny that any contract was formed between myself and the Claimant.

2. Upon entering the site, there was no clear or prominent signage setting out the parking terms, maximum stay, or parking charge.

3. The signage present was:

• Small in font

• Dense with excessive wording

• Positioned away from the driver’s line of sight

• Not readable while driving or before parking

1. As shown in Exhibits EX1–EX4, the signage:

• Is partially obscured by bushes and surrounding clutter

• Competes with other signs such as speed limit signage

• Is not positioned to be reasonably seen or understood upon entry

1. The driver could not reasonably have been expected to stop at the entrance and read detailed contractual terms presented in such a manner.

2. There was no prominent entrance sign clearly stating key terms such as the maximum stay or the parking charge.

3. The key terms were not prominently displayed in large or clear text and were not sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver before parking.

4. Important contractual terms must be clearly brought to the attention of the consumer before any agreement can be formed, which did not occur in this case.

5. The adequacy of signage is also dependent on where a vehicle is parked. There are areas within the car park where no signage is visible from a parked position, or where signage is easily missed due to poor placement.

6. The positioning of signs is inconsistent and inadequate, meaning that a driver cannot reasonably be expected to see and understand the terms from all parking locations.

7. Furthermore, visibility is affected by environmental factors including weather conditions, surrounding obstructions and lack of illumination. In darker conditions, the signage is poorly lit or not visible at all.

8. As such, the signage fails to meet the requirement of being clear, prominent and legible at all material times.

9. I did not see, read, or agree to any such terms.

10. I note that signage at the site has since been changed and visibility improved, including trimming of hedges. This supports my position that signage at the time was inadequate.

5. ANPR TIMINGS ARE MISLEADING

1. The Claimant relies on ANPR images showing entry and exit times.

2. These times do not represent actual parking time.

3. They include time spent:

• Entering the car park

• Finding a space

• Assisting a disabled passenger

• Exiting the site safely

1. The actual period of parking (vehicle stationary) would have been significantly less than the total time recorded.

6. GRACE PERIODS

1. The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires:

• A minimum consideration period upon arrival

• A minimum grace period upon departure

1. Any alleged overstay, if it occurred, would have been minor and within or close to these tolerances, particularly given the circumstances involving a disabled passenger.

7. EQUALITY ACT 2010

1. My mother is a Blue Badge holder and I attach a redacted copy at Exhibit EX5.

2. Under the Equality Act 2010, the Claimant and landowner are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons.

3. This includes allowing additional time for parking, mobility, and accessing premises.

4. No such reasonable adjustments were made.

5. There was no visible policy or signage explaining any accommodation for disabled users.

6. This placed my mother at a disadvantage and amounts to a failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

8. NO CONTRACT / UNFAIR TERMS

1. Due to inadequate signage and lack of clear communication, no contract was formed.

2. The terms fail the requirements of transparency and fairness under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

3. I rely on:

• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970]

• Vine v Waltham Forest [2000]

• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956]

which confirm that unclear or hidden terms cannot bind a motorist.

9. NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST (BEAVIS DISTINGUISHED)

1. Unlike the ParkingEye v Beavis case, there is no legitimate interest in penalising customers at a retail park who are genuinely using the facilities.

2. The purpose of such a site is to encourage patronage, not to penalise customers for taking a reasonable amount of time.

3. The facts of this case are therefore clearly distinguishable from Beavis.

10. LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and to pursue this claim in its own name.

2. As an agent, the Claimant cannot form contracts or litigate without proper authorisation, which has not been evidenced.

11. EXAGGERATED AND UNLAWFUL CHARGES

1. The claim includes an additional £70 which is not a genuine or recoverable cost.

2. Government analysis (DLUHC Impact Assessment 2023) indicates such costs are minimal and not £70.

3. This represents an attempt at double recovery and is unreasonable.

4. The Defendant further relies on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that contractual terms must be fair, transparent and not create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.

5. The Claimant has not demonstrated that any additional costs were actually incurred. The process is largely automated and does not justify the sum claimed.

6. The inclusion of this additional sum is therefore unfair, disproportionate and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

7. Even if an overstay is assumed, which is denied, the sum claimed is wholly disproportionate.

8. The Claimant seeks a total of approximately £255 for what would have been a short overstay in a free retail car park.

9. This bears no relation to any genuine loss or commercial justification and is punitive in nature.

10. The charge therefore falls outside the principles set out in ParkingEye v Beavis, particularly given the absence of clear signage and legitimate interest.

12. UNFAIR SYSTEM

1. The operation of this parking scheme appears to be designed in a way that leads to inadvertent breaches by reasonable users, rather than facilitating fair use of the site.

13. CONCLUSION

1. I respectfully submit that:

• No contract was formed

• Signage was inadequate

• The time restriction is unreasonable

• The Claimant failed to comply with Equality Act obligations

• The claim is exaggerated and without merit

1. I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

Name:

Date: 20/04/2026

EXHIBITS

• EX1 – Pictures 1- 12 (Retail Car Park Pictures)

• EX2 – Blue Badge Details

Gr1pr

Statement of truth is 5 years out of date, amend it

1505grandad

A heads-up - UKPPO are IPC AoS members not BPA

Car1980

Refer to the Single Code of Practice:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

You can quote the code for this part, for example :

2. There was no prominent entrance sign clearly stating key terms such as the maximum stay or the parking charge.