DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82103--------------------------------------------------
Re: SIP car park- insufficent fee paid- now County court claim
issued
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a WS you can use or adapt. You will need to study it and
understand what is in it as it will be signed by you under a
statement of truth. You may be questioned on it, study it and
learn it.
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> SIP Parking Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
>
>
> 1. I am the Defendant in this claim and the registered keeper
of the vehicle referenced in the Particulars of Claim. I was not
the driver. I make this witness statement in support of my
defence. The facts stated herein are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
>
> 2. As a preliminary matter, I submit that the claim should be
struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) due to the Claimant’s failure to
comply with CPR 16.4. The Particulars of Claim are vague,
incoherent, and lack the necessary detail to disclose a valid
cause of action.
>
> 3. The Claimant has not set out the specific contractual terms
allegedly breached, nor have they identified the legal basis for
the added costs. The PoC do not specify whether I am pursued as
the driver or the keeper, nor do they provide a breakdown of the
sum claimed.
>
> 4. The Claimant cannot rely on documents served after the
claim was issued to cure defects in the PoC. The PoC must stand
on their own. A Defendant is entitled to understand the case
against them from the claim form alone in order to plead a
proper defence.
>
> 5. The PoC fail to comply with CPR PD 16 paragraph 7.5, which
requires that any written contract relied upon be attached or
its terms set out. No such contract is provided or quoted.
>
> 6. The PoC also fail to comply with CPR PD 7C paragraph
5.2(2), which allows for separate detailed particulars to be
served—yet none were. The claim is therefore defective and
should be struck out.
>
> 7. The delay between the Letter Before Claim dated 09/11/2023
and the issue of proceedings on 30/01/2025—almost 14 months—is
excessive and unreasonable. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims requires that proceedings be issued within a reasonable
time after the letter is sent. This delay has caused prejudice
and uncertainty.
>
> 8. The amounts claimed by the Claimant have varied arbitrarily
throughout the correspondence, without any coherent explanation
or lawful basis.
>
> 9. • On 06/09/2022, the Notice to Keeper stated a charge of
£100 with no overdue fees.
> • On 13/10/2022, the Payment Overdue letter demanded £115 but
did not mention overdue fees.
> • On 28/10/2022, the Final Reminder stated £100 plus £25
overdue fees.
> • On 14/11/2022, the Legal Action Letter stated £100 plus £60
overdue fees.
> • On 09/11/2023, the Letter Before Claim reverted to £100.
> • On 30/01/2025, the Claim Form demanded £160.
>
> 10. These figures fluctuate without justification, and the
Claimant has failed to provide any contractual or statutory
basis for the added sums.
>
> 11. The Letter Before Claim dated 09/11/2023, which should
represent the final pre-litigation demand, contradicts earlier
demands of £160. This undermines the credibility of the claim
and suggests that the Claimant has not followed the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> 12. The Claim Form seeks £160, comprising £100 for the alleged
charge and £60 for “debt damage costs.” No breakdown or
justification is provided for these costs, and they appear to be
arbitrary additions contrary to CPR 27.14(2).
>
> 13. I first became aware of this matter upon receiving a
Payment Overdue Notice dated 13/10/2022, demanding £115 for an
alleged parking contravention on 31/08/2022. I did not receive
any prior Notice to Keeper dated 06/09/2022, nor was any notice
affixed to the vehicle.
>
> 14. The first letter lacked sufficient detail and appeared
generic, leading me to reasonably believe it was a scam. I
subsequently received two further letters with escalating
charges (£125 and £160), which I also disregarded due to their
vague and aggressive nature.
>
> 15. On 09/11/2023, I received a Letter Before Claim demanding
£100. I then contacted SIP Parking via email to request further
information and dispute the charge.
>
> 16. SIP Parking responded by providing a copy of the alleged
Notice to Keeper and photographs of signage. They confirmed that
a 2-hour parking session was paid, and the vehicle overstayed by
26 minutes, including a 10-minute grace period.
>
> 17. I was informed that no further direct communication would
be made, effectively shutting down any meaningful dialogue or
resolution.
>
> 18. I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in
question. I deny any contractual liability.
>
> 19. The claimant has failed to identify the driver and instead
seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 to transfer liability to me as the keeper.
>
> 20. However, the Notice to Keeper was not received, and
therefore the conditions under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 were
not met. The notice was not properly served, and no evidence has
been provided to confirm proof of posting or service.
>
> 21. The signage relied upon is cluttered and ambiguous, with
multiple payment methods and exemptions such as 1-hour free
parking via supermarket tills.
>
> 22. The alleged overstay of 16 minutes beyond the grace period
is disproportionate and does not justify a £160 claim.
>
> 23. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss, contrary to the principles in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67, which do not apply where the charge is not transparent
or proportionate.
>
> 24. The addition of £60 “debt recovery” costs is not
recoverable under the small claims track, as confirmed in CPR
27.14(2).
>
> 25. The claim inflates the debt without justification and
seeks to circumvent cost restrictions, amounting to an abuse of
process.
>
> 26. The Claimant refers to VCS v Percy in support of their
claim for £60 “debt recovery” costs. I submit that this reliance
is misplaced and should be disregarded.
>
> 27. VCS v Percy is a County Court decision and therefore not
binding. It is, at best, persuasive authority and has been
criticised for its reasoning. The judgment did not consider the
broader context of abuse of process or the limitations imposed
by CPR 27.14(2) on costs recovery in small claims.
>
> 28. The £60 add-on is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor
is it a cost actually incurred. It is a fixed, arbitrary sum
added post hoc, and its inclusion has been widely condemned as
double recovery. The Government’s proposed Code of Practice
under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 explicitly bans
such charges, recognising them as unfair and disproportionate.
>
> 29. Furthermore, the signage relied upon by the Claimant does
not clearly state that £60 will be added for enforcement. Even
if it did, contractual terms cannot override the statutory cost
limits imposed by the small claims regime.
>
> 30. The Claimant has failed to show that the £60 represents a
real loss or cost incurred. It is not supported by any invoice,
breakdown, or evidence of actual expenditure. It is simply a
mechanism to inflate the claim and pressure settlement.
>
> 31. I therefore submit that the £60 should be disallowed in
full, and the court should treat its inclusion as an abuse of
process.
>
> 32. The Claimant refers to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
in support of their claim. I submit that this reliance is
misplaced and irrelevant to the facts of this case.
>
> 33. Beavis concerned a free car park at a retail site with a
two-hour maximum stay. No payment or registration was required.
The charge was upheld because it served a legitimate interest in
ensuring turnover of parking spaces for retail customers and was
not deemed unconscionable or extravagant.
>
> 34. The present case involves a paid car park with multiple
payment methods and complex signage. The alleged breach relates
to a paid session, not the misuse of a free facility. The Beavis
judgment does not apply to paid parking scenarios where the
operator suffers no financial loss and where the motorist may
have attempted to comply.
>
> 35. The Supreme Court in Beavis did not endorse the blanket
enforceability of all private parking charges. It was a
fact-specific decision and does not override the requirement for
fairness, transparency, and proportionality in consumer
contracts.
>
> 36. The signage relied upon in this case is cluttered and
ambiguous, and the sum claimed—£160—is excessive and
disproportionate. It does not reflect any legitimate interest or
commercial justification and instead appears to be a punitive
demand.
>
> 37. I therefore submit that Beavis is not applicable and
should be disregarded in assessing the fairness or
enforceability of the charge in this case.
>
> 38. I respectfully request that the court strike out the claim
pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or dismiss it in full.
>
> 39. Alternatively, I request that the claim be dismissed on
the basis that I am not liable as the driver, and the claimant
has failed to comply with the statutory requirements to pursue
me as keeper.
>
> 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#: 82119--------------------------------------------------
Re: SIP car park- insufficent fee paid- now County court claim
issued
DIR By: Rumaan246
Date: July 22, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much, it covers all the points I was trying to get
across and more.
Do I need to attach an appendix with all the cases mentioned- or
can I submit the witness statement as is. As the claimant
witness statement has all the letters- do I need to attach them
to my witness statement?
CPR 16.4, POFA act 2012,
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].
The cases mentioned
#Post#: 82126--------------------------------------------------
Re: SIP car park- insufficent fee paid- now County court claim
issued
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No you don't. The claimant has already attached Percy and you
are silly rebutting their claim that it has relevance. Also,
Beavis is now Trite law. As a Supreme Court decision that
redefined the penalty doctrine, Beavis is now well-established
and routinely cited. Courts are expected to be familiar with it.
Statutory law and procedural rules like PoFA 2012 and the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR) are publicly accessible and judicially
noticed. That means the court is presumed to know them and can
refer to them without needing them exhibited as evidence.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page