DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 12, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good day everyone
I just received an email titled 1xxxxx.11481d - M9Kxxxxx- Excel
Parking Services Limited v Salaudeen Adebayo - Hearing listed on
01/10/2025 at 1600 with a witness statement of 42 pages from
excel representative in DCBL legal.
I am totally confused now, I will appreciate any help and can I
share the witness statement here or any alternative means.
Thank you
#Post#: 89621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 12, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The email was sent to
enquiries.barnsley.countycourt[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
and I was copied
A clarification on my previous message
Thanks
#Post#: 89626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 12, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Who is the person named in the N1SDT Claim Form? That will be
addressed to the defendant.
>
--- End Quote ---
If you can't be bothered to answer the questions, how do you
expect to receive any assistance?
Are YOU the named defendant?
You will have to show us the claimants WS. Use Google Drive or
any other free to host service. Please remember to redact your
personal details, if only to try and prevent identity theft.
#Post#: 89688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 12, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Honestly I don't know how I omitted the previous question.
I am the 1st defendant and a proof is also on the witness
statement
Sorry for the late reply
I will redact the witness statement and send a link to access it
Thank you
#Post#: 89701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 12, 2025, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening all
Here is the link to the witness statement
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CvrakSLKgyzCTBNCCm-BM4TnEvi5PACB/view?usp=drivesdk
Thank you all
#Post#: 89759--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2025, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am reviewing the WS by Jake Burgess, a well known incompetent
and has a reputation amongst those of us who know of him or have
to deal with his mendacious statements, as someone who has been
ridiculed in court so many times, we all await his next
spanking.
To start with, after a cursory review of the WS, there is a
glaring error in their supposed evidence. The Claimant’s own
“Payment Log” is incomplete and omits the very window they rely
upon. The alleged contravention is 30/10/2024 from 13:30 to
14:11.
Paragraph 2(i) of the WS section on "the defence" (page 5)
asserts that “...as evidenced by the Payment Log at ‘EXHIBIT 6’
a parking tariff was not purchased for the Vehicle on site, YK14
OEL”.
EXHIBIT 6 (pages 38-41) is headed “Allow List Export (generated
on 08/08/2025)... All inactive from 30/10/2024 to 31/10/2024”,
but the sequential entries jump from #93 (31/10/2024 09:30)
straight to #238 (30/10/2024 13:11), leaving a void for
#94–#237—i.e., the entire period between 30/10/2024 13:11 and
31/10/2024 09:30. That gap necessarily includes 30/10/2024
13:30–14:11, so the log does not evidence anything about the
Defendant’s VRM in the material time.
That alone backs up my view of Jake Burgess's competence as a
'witness'.
I will get back once I've had a chance to digest more of the
incompetent rubbish from this mendacious witness.
However, I need to see the PoC. The original image has been
removed so please host the claim form with the PoC again. Also,
please confirm that Excel are represented by DCB Legal.
#Post#: 89761--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2025, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the deadline dates? Date for payment of the £27 trial
fee by the claimant and date for submission of WS? Also what is
the date of the hearing?
If the date for the payment of the trial fee has passed, have
you checked with the court that the trial fee has been paid?
#Post#: 89790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2025, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without receiving an answer to my questions, this is what I
propose you submit as your WS. I am assuming the decline for
submission is 14 days before the trial date. If so, do not
submit this any earlier.
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BARNSLEY[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Excel Parking Services Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
>
>
> 1. I am the Defendant in this case. This is my witness
statement. The facts and matters set out are within my own
knowledge unless otherwise stated, and are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
>
> Preliminary matter
>
> 2. I invite the Court to strike out the claim. The Particulars
of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4: they omit the contractual
clause(s) relied upon, the precise breach, the driver/keeper
basis, and any clear calculation of the sum claimed. Nothing
prevented this legally represented, serial litigant from serving
full, separate Particulars after issue (or seeking permission to
amend). Their witness—who styles himself “Head of Legal”—plainly
knows this. The decision not to plead a proper case was a
tactic, not a MCOL inevitability. The Claimant has tried to
“cure” the defects by unveiling new particulars for the first
time in a witness statement.
>
> Procedural unfairness and late disclosure of the “theory of
breach”
>
> 3. For clarity, all ‘Exhibit [n]’ citations below are to the
Claimant’s WS exhibits (e.g. Exhibit 6).
>
> 4. At the time I filed my Defence, I could not tell what was
actually alleged. The Particulars of Claim did not say whether
the accusation was non-payment, late payment, a keying error, or
something else. I only understood the case the Claimant now
wishes to run when I received their witness statement and
exhibits.
>
> 5. I did not receive any Notice to Keeper. My first knowledge
of this matter was a Letter of Claim from the Claimant’s
solicitors, after which I immediately provided my correct
service address and requested rectification of any outdated
address. I note that the Claimant now exhibits a Notice to
Keeper at Exhibit 5; I simply did not receive it. I raise this
solely to explain why no appeal was lodged and to rebut any
insinuation that not using their in-house appeal implies
liability.
>
> Events on 30/10/2024
>
> 5. I was the driver on 30/10/2024. I made repeated attempts to
pay, but the payment system would not complete a transaction.
After many attempts over a period of time, I had no option but
to leave.
>
> 6. I accept that no payment was ultimately completed. That
non-payment was caused by the Claimant’s system failure and
cannot amount to breach. The Claimant has disclosed no
contemporaneous machine audit, no PSP/gateway reconciliation or
error logs, no uptime/incident records, and no ANPR/payment
clock-synchronisation evidence for the material window
(30/10/2024, 13:30–14:11).
>
> Selective “payment” extract and missing entries
>
> 7. The Claimant relies on an “Allow List Export” at Exhibit 6
to suggest that no tariff was purchased for my VRM. The document
itself states it was generated on 08/08/2025 and purports to
cover 30/10/2024–31/10/2024. However, the sequence produced is
truncated: it jumps from entry #93 (31/10/2024 09:30) to #238
(30/10/2024 13:11), omitting entries #94–#237. Those missing
entries would cover the whole material window (13:30–14:11 on
30/10/2024). A selective, incomplete extract cannot demonstrate
that the system was operating normally or rebut repeated failed
attempts.
>
> 8. The pages that are disclosed actually show a
contemporaneous transaction overlapping the alleged window (for
example, the entry numbered #238 runs 13:11–14:11 for another
VRM). That indicates records for that timeframe exist; yet the
remainder of the entries for that window have not been provided.
In these circumstances, I understand the Court may draw an
adverse inference from selective disclosure. (Exhibit 6)
>
> ANPR timestamps without any underlying audit
>
> 9. The witness statement quotes “entry” and “exit” times of
13:30 / 14:11 for 30/10/2024, but there is no exhibit containing
any ANPR audit (no system event log, no raw image metadata, no
calibration/accuracy checks). ANPR records boundary crossings;
without the audit trail, those timestamps are unproven. This
omission is material given that Exhibit 6 skips the very window
relied upon.
>
> No contractual term for the added £70
>
> 10. The signage relied upon forms the alleged contract. The
Claimant’s own signage photographs at Exhibit 2 (and the site
plan at Exhibit 4) contain no term that allows an additional
£70—still less a clear and prominent price term to that effect.
The attempt to bolt on a fixed £70 therefore has no contractual
basis.
>
> Matters not in dispute (to narrow the issues)
>
> 11. I do not take issue with the existence/term of the
landowner agreement exhibited at Exhibit 1, nor with the PoFA
wording of the Notice to Keeper exhibited at Exhibit 5. The
issues are: (i) the defective pleading and late attempt to
introduce particulars via the witness statement; (ii) the
incomplete payment data in Exhibit 6 that omit the material
window; (iii) the absence of any ANPR or payment-system audits
for that period; and (iv) the lack of any signage term
permitting an added £70.
>
> Position
>
> 12. On the facts above: (a) the pleadings are non-compliant;
(b) the Claimant’s own Exhibit 6 omits the material window; (c)
the contemporaneous audits one would expect if the systems were
functioning have not been disclosed; (d) Exhibit 2 contains no
contractual basis for an added £70; and (e) the Claimant seeks
to advance missing particulars at evidence stage.
>
> 13. I respectfully ask the Court to strike out the claim. In
the alternative, I ask the Court to place little or no weight on
new particulars introduced for the first time in the witness
statement, to disallow the £70 add-on as unsupported by Exhibit
2, and to dismiss the claim for want of proof.
>
> 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.
>
> Signed:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 13, 2025, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the late reply
Here is the link of document that showed they are the
representative of excel parking.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEzrqif8q1Kl0uo-XdnMXUEnmxxg8v1I/view?usp=drivesdk
The deadline for payment was 03/09/2025.
I will call the court again on Monday because the first time I
called them, they said my name was not on the case.
Thank you for the reply to be sent for my WS. The trial is on
01/10/2025 as seen on the WS that DCB legal copied me. Should I
sent the reply 14 days before the trial date and I am yet to
receive any letter or email from the court.
Thank you for all you do
#Post#: 89851--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 14, 2025, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand you. You received the N1SDT Claim form,
defended and then received the N180 DQ and mediation call. At
some point after that, you should have received a directions
order telling you that the claim has been transferred to your
local county court. Then you should have received an allocation
notice from your local court that it has been allocated to the
small claims track and it would have had the date of the
hearing, the deadline for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee
and the deadline for both parties to submit their
evidence/WS/bundle etc.
You say you called the court (CNBC or your local county court?)
and were told that your name is not on the claim with that
number. This is very serious if you have not received the
appropriate orders from the court since allocation. You MUST
clarify with the court (Barnsley County Court) why they say your
name is not on the claim. You have the N1SDT form and that has
your name on it, doesn't it? It is addressed to you is it not?
If you have not had any communication from Barnsley County Court
directly addressed to you, there is a SNAFU somewhere and it
needs to be rectified ASAP before it becomes a FUBAR.
Make sure you send your WS as a PDF attachment in an email to
enquiries.barnsley.countycourt[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
and CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC yourself. Just get it
emailed asap.
Please answer the questions I have raised above in order to
clarify why you appear to be in the dark about the deadlines.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page