Case dismissed! I’m really not sure that would have happened if it wasn’t for the fact that last night I found that the car park only had temporary planning permission to operate as such which lapsed in 2015! Luckily the judge allowed me to enter it as I kind of tacked it on to my CPR 31:14 unanswered request for planning permission for signage etc. The judge said dismissed due to not being able to enter into illegal contracts. No costs granted to me though as he didn’t believe they had acted unreasonably. Thanks for the advice given here.

Hi All My court date is this Wednesday. Other than bringing copies of everything with me and additional cases to support me is there anything else I need to know? I haven't asked for costs in the WS as I was told to take the line out. Do I need to bring something with me on this? Thanks in advance (actual advance this time too)!

I’ve gone with this as a final version in the interests of time. I’ll have missed today’s post for NDD. Is it best I still post or hand in in person tomorrow?

I've incorporated your advice. In some cases included it in existing paragraphs that I think are relevant. So my understanding is that I don't need to include the cases in the WS bundle, rather bring along copies on the day? Thanks as always. In the matter of UKCPS Limited (Claimant) v ******** (defendant) Claim no: Witness statement of Ms *******, defendant I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 1. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability so there is no cause for action against the keeper. They have also failed to identify the driver at the time and cannot assume that they are one and the same. 2. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has locus standi as the Claimant has failed to produce evidence of a contract with the landowner that gives them the authority to enter into contract with the pubic and to make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR 31.14 request. 3. The Claimant has also failed to produce evidence of proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Therefore, the Defendant believes that the signs are placed illegally and so the Defendant cannot be held to a contract with the Claimant. 4. Notwithstanding point 5 if there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the sign upon entry to the car park do not include terms and conditions and the size and placement of the additional signage does not do enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. The signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat, therefore no contract was formed and additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted. 5. The signage in Exhibit 4 does not constitute an invitation to offer parking for non-valid pay & display ticket holders. The offer to park is for valid pay & display ticket holders only. As there is no offer this becomes a case of trespass as in D3QZ88D0. NWCP v Mr H 29/9/2017.Preston. The signage is prohibitive in nature and therefore is not a genuine offer to park and thus the claim is merely an unlawful penalty. 6. Signage inside the car park is not visible from the car until after parking given the height and small size of it compared to the location the Claimant has marked that the car was parked as per ParkingEye v Mr K, Swindon County Court. 7. The signage in Exhibit 6 does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed Dated 14/08/2018

Thank you so much! I know I have a habit of leaving things till the last minute but this time I had genuine reasons. Either way no excuse. I'm working through this now and will update shortly.

So you think some of it isn’t relevant because I have the docs? Does it need rewording to say the same thing in a clearer way or do I need to add something/ change strategy here. I’ve spent hours looking at this stuff and I’m starting to panic that I won’t get it right especially as it’s already late. Thanks again for your help.

Great, thanks. As it is I'm going to have to change those cases from Parking Prankster as I can't find them anywhere to print them out. Just want to make sure I'm even on the right track with my revised WS? Any feedback would be greatly received. Thanks

Is it all of the pdfs or the just the most recent one? I edited them in different ways.

Thanks although I don't think I can do it myself! That's so strange, when I download them they are still redacted. I did them in paint and Acrobat reader!

Hi All This had to be received by the Court today but I'm going to send it next day delivery to both parties. Please could you let me know if you think it's ok. Thanks

I found a couple of cases through Parking Prankster alongside the case numbers but I can't find the full cases anywhere. Am I missing something? I'm looking for 3QT22802 and D3QZ88D0. Thanks.

Is this any better? Thanks again! In the matter of UKCPS Limited (Claimant) v ******** (defendant) Claim no: Witness statement of Ms *******, defendant I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event was over a year ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. 2. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts UKCPS to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves. 3. The Claimant has failed to indicate in what capacity I am being sued as it can’t be as both driver and keeper as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act [2012] and the signage in the car park refer to the driver. See Exhibit 1 4. On 31st March 2018 I submitted a CPR 31.14 Request for Disclosure of Specific Information to the Claimant by registered Royal Mail requesting the contract between the Claimant and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. The claimant has failed to provide evidence of this therefore I believe that they are at best merely agents of the landowner, and have no locus standi in this matter. See Exhibit 2 5. In the same CPR 31.14 request made to the Claimant I also requested proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. The Claimant has failed to produce evidence of this. I therefore believe that their signs are placed illegally and so I cannot be held to a contract with the claimant. See Exhibit 3 6.Notwithstanding point 5 if there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the sign upon entry to the car park do not include terms and conditions and the size and placement of the additional signage does not do enough to bring the existence of terms to the attention of someone parking. 7.The signage in Exhibit 4 does not constitute an invitation to offer parking for non-valid pay & display ticket holders. The offer to park is for valid pay & display ticket holders only. As there is no offer this becomes a case of trespass as in D3QZ88D0. NWCP v Mr H 29/9/2017.Preston. 8. Signage inside the car park is not visible from the car until after parking given the height and small size of it compared to the location the Claimant has marked that the car was parked as per ParkingEye v Mr K, Swindon County Court . See Exhibit 5 9.The signage in Exhibit 6 does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract. 10. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The defendant makes a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed Dated 14/08/2018

Thanks. I spent hours looking for witnesses statements but only found a few that other forum members referred to as war and peace. Most of what I found were defence statements or references to WS where the actual structure had been dealt with via DM. Having gone through POFA paragraph 8 the NTK itself is compliant so I don't think I can use that argument. There is only one person insured to drive the car too. Do you still suggest I use this? My brain seems to have stopped working but I'll have another go.

My proposed WS with some questions in red. Also to confirm that I should print all of the cases referred to below and include them in the pack for all 3 of us? 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxx, which the claimant alleges was parked at Parkit Bridge Street on 11/07/2017 at 16:11. 2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times she was parked in Parkit Bridge Street as she has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. They have sent pictures of my car with the ticket on it. Should I still include this? 3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide carpark management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Again should this be included? They’ve sent me an authority agreement with Parkit which I’ve attached. 4. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because the size and placement of the signage was such that they would not have been visible until after the defendant had parked her car. See Exhibit A (I’ll include the photos I took here) 5. The signage in Exhibit B does not mention any further conditions nor does it provide any charges for breaching the offered terms. The signage also does not indicate who manages the carpark or who is offering the contract. This is page 10 of my upload in post 16. I can go back and take more pictures for it to be clearer. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The defendant makes a request for recovery of full costs is requested under CPR 27.14.2.g Thanks as always!! I also think that I should add a paragraph referring to their use of Parking Eye v Beavis. They are referring to paragraph 98 when trying to justify expenses for unreasonable behaviour by the defendant. I'm not quite sure what to write though. Authority agreement.pdf

Hi All I've got a court date now for 29th August, so I need to send my witness statement to get to the claimant and court by Wednesday. I've just realised I've probably made another mistake though and interpreted 14 working days for 14 business days but will double check my paperwork. Miah are no longer representing the claimant according to a letter I received from them in June. Is that a good/bad thing? They have also sent a statement of fact which I assume is what they will use in court. I'll upload for you to see. I'll upload my proposed WS in my next post. Should I take into account anything in theirs? Thanks in advance letter.pdf