3 private parking tickets being pursued for all 3 and had a ccj claim made

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, for a first draft, it is very good but I would not submit it as-is. The structure is broadly right, but it needs tightening and a few corrections before it is safe. The draft currently includes a skeleton argument before the witness statement, then the WS itself begins on page 3 with exhibits PF-01 to PF-09.

The main edits are:

Remove the skeleton argument from the front unless you deliberately intend to file a skeleton now. The order is for updated witness evidence and documents. A skeleton can be prepared later, nearer the hearing, and should not be muddled into the WS bundle.

Correct the exhibit references. Paragraph 27 says signage photos are at PF-07, but the exhibit list says PF-07 is vehicle-location photos and PF-08 is signage photos. Paragraph 44 also needs checking because it refers to a Beavis sign comparison at PF-08, but PF-08 appears to be signage photos, not necessarily a Beavis sign comparison.

Correct paragraph 12. It says the Claimant’s witness statement is dated “4/09/2026”. That is impossible and should be “4 March 2026” if that is the date of the Claimant’s WS.

Change “the Defendant” to “I” where the statement is meant to be personal evidence. The obvious ones are the unnumbered “UNCLEAR KEEPER DRIVER ARGUMENT” section, paragraph 25, and the conclusion at paragraphs 71–73.

Paragraph 25 needs correction. It currently says “formed.enforcement was taken” and then switches to “The Defendant denies”. That should be rewritten.

The “Claimant’s witness evidence” section repeats itself. Paragraphs 54–59 and 63–65 cover the same ground. Keep it once.

Move the sentence after the Statement of Truth. “I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim…” must go immediately before the Statement of Truth, not after it.

The conclusion is repetitive. It repeats tenancy, authority, PoFA and driver identity points already made earlier. Keep it short and clean.

Use this as the correction wording for the affected sections:

Replace paragraph 14 with:

14. I have compared the Claimant’s boundary/authority map with the locations where the vehicle is shown in the photographic evidence. In my understanding, at least two of the alleged contraventions occurred outside the area marked on the Claimant’s own enforcement boundary/authority map.

Replace paragraphs 24–26 with:

24. The later evidential photographs relied upon by the Claimant cannot cure a defective Notice to Keeper. PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper itself to specify the relevant period of parking. Separate photographs served later may show the vehicle at particular moments, but they do not retrospectively repair a notice which failed to specify the period of parking required by Schedule 4.

25. I have not seen any evidence proving that a proper consideration period was given before enforcement action was taken. I do not accept that the Claimant has evidenced any continuous observation period or any fair opportunity for a driver to read the signs, consider the terms and leave.

26. The driver has not been identified and I have seen no evidence identifying the driver. In those circumstances, and in the absence of full PoFA compliance, I do not understand how the Claimant can pursue me as registered keeper.

Replace the unnumbered “UNCLEAR KEEPER DRIVER ARGUMENT” section with:

46. In paragraph 11 of the Claimant’s Reply to Defence, the Claimant states that I do not deny being the driver. That is not the same thing as proving that I was the driver. The Claimant must prove its case. If it seeks to pursue me as keeper, it must prove full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I dispute.

Replace paragraphs 54–65 with:

54. The Claimant’s witness statement was produced by Ms Nabeela Ahmed, who describes herself as a paralegal employed by BW Legal Services Limited.

55. Ms Ahmed is not an employee of the Claimant and does not state that she attended the site, witnessed any alleged parking event, erected or maintained any signage, issued any PCN, or has any first-hand knowledge of the matters alleged.

56. The Claimant’s evidence includes photographs which appear to have been taken by a parking attendant at the site. That parking attendant would be the person able to give first-hand evidence about the circumstances in which the photographs were taken, the vehicle’s location, the visibility of signs, and the conditions at the time.

57. No witness statement has been provided from that parking attendant. Instead, the Claimant relies upon second-hand evidence from its legal representative. I ask the Court to attach appropriate weight to that evidence.

Replace paragraphs 70–74 with:

70. For the reasons set out above, I do not accept that the Claimant has established any lawful basis upon which I may be held liable for the parking charges.

71. The tenancy agreement establishes a contractual relationship between me and L&Q. It does not create any contractual relationship between me and the Claimant, nor does it state that I agreed to pay parking charges to the Claimant.

72. The Claimant has not proved that it had authority at the precise locations of the alleged contraventions. In particular, at least two of the alleged contraventions appear to fall outside the area shown on the Claimant’s own enforcement boundary/authority map.

73. The Notices to Keeper do not specify any proper period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Later photographs cannot retrospectively cure that defect. The driver has not been identified and the Claimant has produced no evidence establishing driver identity.

74. I respectfully request that the Court dismisses the claim and considers any costs incurred in defending this matter accordingly.

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:

Dated:

Also change “Notice to Keeper” to “Notices to Keeper” where the point applies to all three PCNs. At the moment the PoFA section slips between singular and plural.

Finally, the L&Q temporary parking letter should be added as a further exhibit if you want to rely on it. It should be used carefully as later evidence showing that L&Q recognises external overflow parking areas, not as proof that the same temporary arrangements applied on the PCN dates.

I would not send a skeleton argument with the witness statement as the court has not specifically ordered one. The 24 June deadline is for updated witness evidence and supporting documents, so the witness statement and exhibits should be the priority.

A skeleton argument is best prepared after the WS bundle is finalised and once the re-listed hearing date is known. It should then be served shortly before the hearing, ideally with the agreed trial bundle or at least a few working days before the hearing, so the judge and the other side have it in time to use it.

Because the order says the parties must agree the bundle at least 7 working days before trial, and UKCPM must file the bundle at least 3 working days before trial, the skeleton can sensibly be sent around the bundle stage. That keeps it current and avoids filing a skeleton now that may later need amending.

The skeleton should be short and used as a roadmap for the judge, not as another witness statement. It should identify the main issues only: defective/unclear pleaded contract, residential tenancy position, UKCPM’s lack of authority at the precise vehicle locations, the boundary map issue, lack of a specified period of parking on the NtKs, no keeper liability, no proof of driver identity, poor signage/prohibitory wording, and the unrecoverable added sums.

For each point, refer briefly to the relevant paragraph of your witness statement and the relevant exhibit number. Do not repeat long factual detail already in the WS.

Any authorities relied on should be included in the bundle/authorities pack. Binding authorities such as ParkingEye v Beavis and Liberty Homes can be cited in the usual way. For county court appeal decisions or other persuasive authorities, such as Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions and VCS v Edward, include the transcript.

The skeleton should probably be no more than 4–6 pages. Its purpose is to help the judge find the issues quickly, not to bury the court in argument.