DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 3, 2026, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now scanned everything and added in the G drive folder.
Legal Pack
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Dx06FW5PfSIe5O20y_m_S0n146W5ZYa7?usp=drive_link
Files are sorted with categories, including page numbers in the
file name.
There is no cover letter. Total 57 pages in the pack, and one
"With Compliments" slip. Document pack starts with copy of Claim
form (1st page)
Mostly documents are copies of claim form, N180, court notices,
PCN reminders, photographic evidences.
I also noticed my name is misspelled on the exhibit JB1 and JB2
heading pages defendant row i.e. page 38 and 42. Would that help
in any way?
Land contract to issue PCN is in exhibit JB2 file, page number
43.
Thank you.
#Post#: 105165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 9, 2026, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Can you help please? Can you advise with the next steps please?
Many Thanks
#Post#: 105166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: DWMB2 Date: January 9, 2026, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The next step is to draft your own Witness Statement. Unlike the
defence, this is written in the first person and is your version
of events. It should cover the issues raised in the defence, and
can also respond to any assertions within Excel's Witness
Statement with which you disagree (for example, their assertion
that the signage was prominent) - you can also refer to any
evidence, for example, your evidence that the signage was
shoddy. Some searches on here and the MSE parking forum for
other similar Witness Statements may be helpful here.
You'll need some evidence to rebut their point on the signage,
as one of their photos appears to show at least one sign almost
directly next to your car.
#Post#: 105253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 9, 2026, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I have had a search here for Witness Statement and
seeing some making me nervous.
They are so detailed out with keen focus on legal wordings,
something I am not familiar with. I will attempt to prepare my
statement along those lines but can I come back here for review
and feedback please?
Also, I was reviewing the land contract they have sent (page 43
in Exhibit JB2 file).
Exhibit JB2
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnjoyM_JOfUVfSZzOka4Z1863VsHrgve/view?usp=drive_link<br
/>
Contract is on Excel Parking Services Limited letterhead, so
they seem to be the land owner. Point 2 says site is leased to
Excel Parking Ltd (a different company). Point 3 says Excel
Parking Services Limited are the operator and exercise same
rights as the landowner.
So my questions are:
1. Who is the landowner? Excel Parking Services Limited or
someone else?
2. If Excel Parking Services Limited are the landowner, then why
it is leased to another company Excel Parking Ltd?
3. As per 3rd point Excel Parking Services Limited are the
operator, so they are the landowner and operator both?
4. What's Excel Parking Ltd role here? And this company doesn't
exist as per companies house.
5. Only Excel Parking Services Limited is active as per
companies house and Excel Parking Ltd doesn't have any record
(not even dissolved)
Am I right in questioning the landowner authority letter and
it's indeed ambiguous?
Thank you.
#Post#: 105562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 12, 2026, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have attempted to draft my witness statement.
My main arguments are:
1. Incomplete PoC
2. No signage on when car was parked, hence no evidence to
support claim
3. They are claiming sign was near but not at that spot
4. Incomplete signages as their site plan shows full row of
restricted parking but only 4 pillars out of more than 10
pillars show a sign. My car parked spot did not have a sign.
5. Multiple discrepancies in the evidence - parking sign in
evidence is different than the actual sign at the site (included
in my exhibit)
6. Discrepancies in their appeal time limit advise - NTK said 28
days for appeal but when my appeal rejection email said 21 days
(both evidences in as part of claimant witness statement)
7. failure to prove landownership authority, there is a mention
of Excel Parking Ltd but no records on this company in companies
house
8. I am saying it's false claim because there was no sign, they
don't have any evidence of that hence there wasn't any breach.
Can someone please kindly do a sanity check of my witness
statement, and advise and feedback if I am missing something.
Thanks a lot.
Photo evidence in my exhibit - Defendant Exhibit
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kivf8igoLepCpoUOAVpb_PqpVzSmqKgTYgVYpDRLSWc/edit?usp=drive_link
Also, regarding timelines, hearing is scheduled for 30th Jan so
I need to submit my witness statement by 16th Jan, right? And
what is the best way to submit my statement?
Many thanks for your help.
I, [Defendant’s Full Name], am the Defendant in this claim and
make this statement in support of my defence. The facts in this
statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Multiple Procedural Defects in the Claimant’s Case
2. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) and Witness
Statement (WS) are both procedurally defective and should be
given no weight due to their failure to comply with the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR) and the improper execution of their
statements of truth.
3. The PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction
16, paragraph 7.5. The Claimant had an obligation to fully
particularise the claim at the time of issuing proceedings but
failed to:
a) Set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of the terms and
conditions relied upon.
(b) Adequately explain how the terms of the alleged contract
were incorporated or why I am said to be in breach.
(c) Provide a breakdown of how the total sum claimed has been
calculated, including interest and alleged additional charges.
(d) Provide Parking Charge Notice number as claimed by Claimant
in Witness Statement paragraph 12.
4. Despite the Claimant’s failure to adequately plead its case,
the allocation judge did not order the Claimant to amend or
clarify its PoC. The Claimant has since sought to introduce
additional details via its Witness Statement, but this does not
cure the defective PoC. A Witness Statement cannot remedy an
inadequate statement of case, and this attempt to rectify
procedural failings at a later stage is an abuse of process.
5. The PoC are signed by Edmund Shoreman-Lawson, described as
the "Claimant’s legal representative," but there is no evidence
that he is a solicitor or that he has the formal authorisation
required under CPR 22.1 and Practice Direction 22 to sign a
statement of truth on behalf of the Claimant.
6. CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, paragraph 3.9, require that:
(a) If signed by a legal representative, they must be a
solicitor or a person formally authorised by the Claimant.
(b) The signatory must be responsible for the conduct of the
case.
7. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson is not a solicitor, and the Claimant
has not provided evidence that he has explicit authorisation to
sign statements of truth on behalf of Excel Parking Services
Ltd. The Claimant must demonstrate that he has the required
formal standing to sign the PoC. If he does not, the statement
of truth is defective, and the PoC are procedurally invalid.
8. The Witness Statement attempts to introduce new arguments and
details that were absent from the PoC, including references to
site plan, signage, and contract terms. However, this does not
remedy the defective PoC and is an attempt to circumvent proper
procedure.
9. Claimant has included parking signage as part of exhibit JB1
but this signage is different than the one displayed at the
site. I include a photo from the site where these contract terms
are not mentioned. This is a clear false representation by
providing false evidence and attempt to abuse the process.
10. The Witness Statement falsely states that PoC includes
Parking Charge Notice number but it doesn’t. Claimant is making
a false statement regarding that in Witness Statement.
11. Claimant’s Witness Statement fails to confirm which
accredited trade associations (ATAs) they are a member of.
Witness Statement just mentions they are Accredited Member of
Approved Trade Associations certified by the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) but fails to establish which
ATA.
12. The Claimant is a serial litigant represented by bulk
litigation solicitors and should be fully aware of its
obligations under the CPR. Despite this, it failed to properly
plead its case at the outset and now seeks to correct its
failings by introducing details at a later stage. This approach
is unfair, unreasonable, and an abuse of process.
13. In light of these procedural defects, I submit that:
(a) The PoC are inadequately pleaded, do not comply with CPR
16.4, and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing
no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
(b) The statement of truth on the PoC is defective, as the
Claimant has not demonstrated that Edmund Shoreman-Lawson was
properly authorised to sign on their behalf.
(c) The Witness Statement should be given no weight, as it does
not correct the failings in the PoC.
(d) The court should consider whether the Claimant’s conduct in
issuing vague claims and relying on late evidence constitutes
unreasonable behaviour, warranting a costs order under CPR
27.14(2)(g).
The Claimant’s Failure to Display Compliant Signage
14. The Claimant’s Witness Statement at various paragraphs
states that claimant was prominently displaying parking
restriction signs, however that’s not the case as I have
included evidence in Exhibit 1.
15. Defendant’s Witness Statement Exhibit 1 shows photographic
evidence of the site, that clearly show signage was displayed
randomly and not fully on all the parking spots where
restriction was applied
16. On that particular row of parking spots, there are more than
10 pillars but signage is displayed on only 4. That shows
Claimant’s complete failure of showing proper signage, and
misleading drivers by not showing the signage but then issuing
parking charge notices and abusing the procedure.
17. Claimant has failed to display complaint signage for all the
parking spots where restriction was applied. This shows a
misleading practice and not compliant with consumer practices.
18. The Claimant’s evidential photos of signage at the location,
found in Exhibit 2 of their Witness Statement, predominantly
depict signs on that adjacent pillar where Defendant car was not
parked.
19. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of signage
where the defendant car was parked. The Claimant’s own exhibits
and witness statement paragraph 19 claims that a sign was
displayed “near” the defendant’s parked car, and not at the
exact parking spot.
20. The Claimant’s such fundamental failure and further
providing false statements and evidence in the Witness Statement
shows an abuse of process, and falsely claiming that contract
breach has occurred without providing relevant evidence to
support their claim.
21. This is further evidence of non-compliance with the industry
Code of Practice,
"Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in
intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and
understand."
The Claimant’s Unlawful Access to DVLA Data
22. The Claimant’s Witness Statement at paragraph 3 asserts
Accredited Member of Approved Trade Associations but fails to
confirm which ATA. Since compliance with the Code of Practice is
essential for the Claimant to obtain Registered Keeper details
from the DVLA under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles
(Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. Without their
confirmation of which ATA they are member of, their access of
DVLA data would seem unlawful.
23. As already established in this Witness Statement, the
Claimant does not confirm which ATA they are a member of, this
strict compliance with the Code of Practice can not be
established and is a fundamental condition of the Keeper At Date
Of Event (KADOE) contract between private parking operators and
the DVLA, the Claimant’s access to DVLA data is unlawful.
24. The KADOE contract explicitly states that an operator must
adhere to the ATA Code of Practice in its entirety as a
condition of being granted access to Registered Keeper data. Any
failure to meet the requirements of the Code, including but not
limited to inadequate signage, misleading contractual terms, or
procedural breaches, invalidates an operator’s lawful basis for
requesting and processing keeper details from the DVLA.
25.As such, the Claimant has unlawfully accessed my data in
contravention of the KADOE contract, which constitutes a breach
of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR, as it obtained and
processed my personal data without a lawful basis.
The Claimant’s Failure to Prove Landowner Authority
26. The Claimant’s Witness Statement does not confirm whether
they have a valid contract with the landowner authorising them
to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). However, the contract
statement of authority provided in their Exhibit JB2 is so
confusing that it is meaningless and constitutes a clear abuse
of process.
27. The document shows the site is leased to Excel Parking Ltd
but does not confirm what is the role of Excel Parking Ltd.
Further, Excel Parking Ltd company doesn’t have any records in
Companies House. Without this key information, the Claimant has
provided no admissible evidence that they have landowner
authority, which is a fundamental requirement for bringing this
claim.
28. The document states that Excel Parking Services Ltd are the
operator, however if the site is leased to Excel Parking Ltd (as
per 2nd point) then document fails to show the relationship
between Excel Parking Services Ltd and Excel Parking Ltd.
Moreover Excel Parking Ltd doesn’t seem to exist as there are no
records of this company ever formed or dissolved in Companies
House.
29. This document fails to establish who is the land owner and
who is the operator, which is a failure to prove landowner
authority.
30. A parking operator must have clear landowner authority to
issue and enforce parking charges. This was confirmed in
ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338,
where the Court of Appeal emphasised that authority must be
demonstrated through an unambiguous contract. The Claimant’s
contract is so confusing that it is impossible to verify whether
they have such authority.
31. The contract does not allow the Defendant or the court to
verify that the Claimant has the right to operate at the site,
issue charges, or pursue legal action in its own name. The
Claimant’s failure to provide a clear contract means there is no
proof that they were authorised to act at the time of the
alleged contravention.
32. Given that the Claimant has failed to comply with CPR 31.6,
Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5, and established case law,
I submit that this claim should be dismissed due to the
Claimant’s failure to provide fundamental evidence of their
authority.
33. In light of the above, I submit that the Claimant has failed
to establish that it has landowner authority, has engaged in
procedural misconduct, and that this claim should be dismissed
in its entirety.
No Contract Was Formed Due to Signage
34. I deny the Claimant’s assertions in paragraphs 5 to 22 of
their Witness Statement regarding the alleged contract. They
failed to display proper signage and have no evidence of alleged
contract breach.
35. The fundamental basis of a contract is mutual agreement,
which requires a clear offer and unambiguous acceptance. Given
that the signage was not displayed where defendant’s car was
parked and claimant failed to properly display signage, no
legally binding agreement could have been formed.
36. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the signage was
displayed where defendant’s car was parked. Without proof that a
valid contract was entered into, the claim cannot succeed.
The Claimant’s Attempt to Justify False Claim via the Witness
Statement
37. The Claimant’s Witness Statement in paragraph 12 states that
Parking Charge Notice number was included in PoC but it’s not,
it’s false claim by Claimant’s witness.
38. Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraphs 13, Claimant has
used my appeal contents to identify me as a driver but they
failed to understand the reasoning behind my appeal. I appealed
in good faith (but late by 3 days of 28days limit) because there
was no contract breach as signage was not properly displayed.
39. But Claimant failed to engage with my appeal and provide any
reasonable justification and rejected the appeal just on the
basis that it missed the deadline of 28 days.
40. Further to note that Claimant’s Notice To Keeper (NTK)
mentions that all appeals/challenges must be registered within
28 days beginning with the day after the issue date of this
Notice. But PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6) then defines when a
notice is "given." A notice sent by post is presumed to have
been delivered on the second working day after it was posted,
unless the contrary is proved. For these purposes, a "working
day" excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays in England
and Wales. Claimant are using the day after the issue date which
is against the PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6). As per the PoFA
it should be second working day after it was posted.
41. Further to add, when Claimant rejected defendant’s appeal
they mentioned appeals should have been registered within 21
days. This is in clear contradiction of claimant’s own advice in
NTK, where appeal time limit is 28 days.
42. This contradiction between 2 documents (submitted by
Claimant in exhibit JB1 and JB2) clearly shows Claimant’s
misguided advise and misrepresentation of the claim case.
43. Claimant argues in Witness Statement paragraphs 19 , that
signage are displayed near the defendant’s vehicle but there was
no signage where defendant vehicle was parked and Claimant has
not produced any evidence to support their claim.
44. Claimant asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 20, “there
are no other sign visible and therefore no indication that any
alternative terms may be applied in this area ”, however there
was no sign at all at the defendant’s parking spot. Claimant has
failed to display signs prominently and relying on a sign nearby
to bring a false case against defendant.
45. Claimant asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 21, that
defendant should have utilised helpline number to clarify but
it’s claimant’s duty and responsibility as a parking operator to
clearly and prominently display all the signages and not engage
in bringing forward false claims when there is no contract
breach.
46. Claimant falsely asserts in Witness Statement paragraphs 22
that I claimed I did not see the signage. My argument is there
was no signage, this is a failure on claimant’s side where they
have failed to properly display the signage. Further claimant
has included a site plan with the witness statement, but this
site plan is not displayed at the site itself.
47. The Claimant attempts to justify the inadequacy of their PoC
by referring to Practice Direction 7C, Section 5.2(1) and 5.2A.
However, while these rules permit brief particulars of claim in
money claims, they do not absolve the Claimant of the obligation
to provide sufficient detail under CPR 16.4. The Claimant had
the opportunity to submit Further and Better Particulars but
chose not to do so. A defective PoC cannot be retrospectively
rectified through a Witness Statement.
Conclusion: The Claim Should Be Dismissed
48. The Claimant has made numerous procedural defects, failed to
establish landowner authority, has made false statements, has
provided misguided advises, has submitted vague and defective
Particulars of Claim, has attempted to circumvent proper
procedure by relying on a Witness Statement to introduce new
arguments, and has sought to bring a false claim forward without
any evidence, which seems to be an abuse of process.
49. Given the serious procedural defects, misrepresentations,
and abuse of process in this case, I respectfully request that
the claim be dismissed in its entirety.
#Post#: 105738--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 13, 2026, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can I kindly request for a feedback please as I am approaching
the witness statement submission deadline? Thanks a lot.
#Post#: 105772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: DWMB2 Date: January 13, 2026, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I'd be tempted switch the order round here. The entire
claim is based on contract law - Excel allege a contract was
formed between the driver and them. One of your points is that
no such contract was formed by virtue of what you claim to be
inadequate signage. I think I would lead with that point in the
WS, rather than burying it under several paragraphs around
procedural arguments, which some judges aren't particularly
interested in.
#Post#: 105779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 13, 2026, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, that's valid point. I will change the order in my WS.
Re next steps, since hearing is scheduled for 30th Jan, I have
until 4PM Friday 16th Jan to submit my witness statement. Am I
right?
And where do I send my WS to? Email to the same CNBC email
address
(claimresponses.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk) and
copying ELMS Legal?
OR there is a different process now since case is with the
county court now?
Anything else I need to be aware of before the hearing takes
place?
Kind Regards
#Post#: 105780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: DWMB2 Date: January 13, 2026, 4:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You should label any exhibits (e.g. your photo evidence etc.)
and you may refer to the same in your WS if it supports your
points. Likewise where you are relying on any case law for
procedural points, these can be submitted as exhibits.
The WS should be emailed to whichever court the hearing will be
at, not the CNBC. ELMS should be cc'd.
With regard to the hearing itself, there's a decent summary
linked to on MSE
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585<br
/>with what to expect on the day.
#Post#: 105820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Money Owed Court notice - Unpaid PCN - No Clear Signage - Ex
cel Parking Bakers Street Pay & Display Uxbridge
By: gogo184 Date: January 14, 2026, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am going through the summary at MSE forum and there is a
mention of Hearing Order from court but I have not received any
further correspondence from the court yet.
Last correspondence was Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims
Track (Hearing) dated 01st Oct 25, with a scheduled hearing date
of 30th Jan 26.
Since then I have received Claimant's witness statement. No
other documents from the court.
Is this ok? Am I supposed to receive an Hearing Order too?
Another reason asking for this is that I don't know where to
send my WS. I have tried to look for Reading County court
details and emails listed here are.
How do I proceed here? I am little bit panicking here as Friday
is the deadline.
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/reading-county-court-and-family-court
Visit or contact us:
Address
160-163 Friar Street
Reading
RG1 1HE
Email
Civil
court
.gov.uk
Enforcement
mber].gov.uk
(Warrants only)
Family
court
v.uk
(Paper process including C100 applications)
Breathing space
enquiries
v.uk
Family public law (children in
care)
(Digital process for case numbers starting with C5)
Enquiries
ice[/member].gov.uk
(Court of Protection)
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page