Pcn

[winston00]

Skeleton Argument – Defendant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | In the County Court at [Court Name] 1. Payment and Grace Periods

£2.70 paid at 13:49 (Exhibit A). Entry 13:23 / Exit 16:01 = 26 min pre-payment, 12 min post-expiry. BPA Code (Exhibit B) requires 5–10 min consideration + 10 min grace. Appeal letter admits 10-min consideration (Exhibit F). No loss. 2. PoFA 2012 Non-Compliance

NTK demanded payment, not an invitation (Exhibit C). Keeper liability not established. 3. Identity Inconsistencies

Defendant named inconsistently (Exhibits D1–D4). Records unreliable. 4. ANPR Evidence Inadequate

ANPR only entry/exit times (Exhibit E1). No logs (Exhibit E2). PoFA requires period of parking. Excel v Lamoureux (2017, Skipton CC) confirms timestamps alone insufficient. 5. Authority, Consents, and Site Defects

Land Title xxxxxxxx (Exhibits F1–F2). xxxxxxx not landowner (Exhibit F4). No landowner contract disclosed. Planning approvals = use of land only, no ad consent. Enforcement (2018) required removal of all signage (Exhibit F7). Searches show no advertising consent (Exhibit F3). Signs unlawful under 2007 Regs. Land has drainage rights (Exhibit F8). 6. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim

Claim inflated from £100 to £170 (Exhibit G1). PoFA caps at £100 (Exhibit G2). Beavis [2015] permits core charge only. County Court struck out add-ons (Exhibits G3–G4). Relief Sought

Dismiss claim, or strike out extras beyond £100.

[winston00]

Judge’s Sheet – Defendant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | Site: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Defence Themes (11/07/25)

Payment made, no loss. Grace periods. NTK defective. ANPR inadequate. Identity inconsistent. Claim inflated. Supporting Evidence

1. Payment & Grace – £2.70 receipt (Exh A), BPA Code (Exh B).
2. PoFA – NTK demands, not invites (Exh C).
3. Identity – Names inconsistent (Exh D1–D4).
4. ANPR – Only entry/exit times, no logs (Exh E1–E2).
5. Authority/Consents – Land Title xxxxxxxxxx (Exh F1–F2), car park operator not landowner (Exh F4), no advertising consent (Exh F3–F8), enforcement removal of signage (Exh F7), drainage rights (Exh F8).
6. Abuse of Process – Inflated to £170, PoFA caps £100 (Exh G1–G4). Relief Sought

Dismiss claim, or strike out extras beyond £100.

[winston00]

Specific Feedback Requested:

1. WS length/clarity – Is the Witness Statement the right balance (not too long, but covers all core issues)?
2. Skeleton tone – Does the Skeleton Argument read judge-friendly (short, clear bullets, no advocacy)?
3. Planning/ad consent angle – Is the absence of advertising consent framed carefully as supporting evidence (not as a “new defence” outside the pleadings)?
4. Exhibit flow – Do the A–G exhibits map logically, or should any be re-ordered/streamlined?
5. Judge’s Sheet – Is the one-page roadmap useful, or should anything be trimmed/added?

many thanks
Winston00

[des8]

Just one comment for present.
Not having seen the claim form, I assume DCB Legal have claimed against you as the driver or as the keeper.
If you admit to being the driver you need not bother about defending yourself on the basis of non compliance with PoFA2012

[winston00]

Hi DES8,

Here is the front page of the Claim Form (N1) with the Particulars of Claim section.

Wording is:

• Para 3: “The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).”
• Para 4: “In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.”

My Defence admits xxxxxx was the driver (payment made, grace periods, no loss etc).

Question: does this mean PoFA 2012 can now be disregarded, and we should keep our focus entirely on payment/grace, ANPR inadequacy, authority/consent defects, and abuse of process?

Many thanks,
winston00

[des8]

Question:[/B] does this mean PoFA 2012 can now be disregarded, and we should keep our focus entirely on payment/grace, ANPR inadequacy, authority/consent defects, and abuse of process?

Correct

[winston00]

Update – CPR 31.14 Request (27/08/25)

Hi all,

Here is the CPR 31.14 request I sent to DCB Legal on 27 August 2025. I asked for:

1. The NTK relied upon.
2. The landowner contract / authority.
3. Consents or undertakings relevant to the site.
4. Signage evidence relied upon.
5. Copy of my appeal submitted online.

I’ve had no response at all (checked inbox and junk). Britannia only replied to the SAR with limited data, refusing to provide landowner contract or signage.

Question: does this silence on CPR 31.14 play in our favour as “authority not proved,” or should I have chased them?

Many thanks,
winston00

Just wanted to say thanks for your time and input so far — it’s been super helpful. Your clear steer on PoFA and trimming the defence to the four pillars has really sharpened our focus. Much appreciated.

winston00

[winston00]

Hi all,

As suggested, I’ve now updated the bundle following DES8’s steer:

• PoFA removed (driver admitted).
• Focus now on the 4 core pillars:
  1. Payment & grace.
  2. ANPR inadequacy.
  3. Authority & consents (CPR 31.14 silence + incomplete SAR + no advertising consent).
  4. Abuse of process (inflated claim).

Attached for review:

• Witness Statement (updated).
• Skeleton Argument (updated, mirrors WS).
• Judge’s Sheet (updated, 1-page roadmap for the court copy only).

Would appreciate any comments on tone, structure, or if anything still feels overplayed/underplayed before exhibit grind begins.

Many thanks,
winston00

[winston00]

Witness Statement of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | In the County Court at [Court Name] 1. Introduction

I am the Defendant and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, supported by the attached exhibits. 2. Payment and Grace Periods

On xx December 2024, I parked at Exeter Road Car Park, Bournemouth. Poor mobile signal caused a delay in completing payment.
At 13:49 I paid £2.70 via mobile app, covering parking until 15:49 (Exh A).
The Claimant’s ANPR shows entry 13:23 and exit 16:01 (Exh E1). This equates to: 26 minutes before payment and 12 minutes after expiry.
The BPA Code of Practice (Version 1, June 2024) requires a consideration period on arrival (5–10 mins) and a minimum 10-minute grace period on exit (Exh B).
Britannia’s own appeal rejection letter admits a 10-minute consideration period (Exh F).
Payment was made, and the stay fell within required allowances. The Claimant suffered no financial loss. 3. Identity Inconsistencies

The Defendant is identified inconsistently across documents:
• xxxx (PCN, V5C)
• xxxxx (appeal correspondence)
• xxxxxx(Claim Form) (Exhs D1–D4).
These inconsistencies undermine the reliability of the Claimant’s records. 4. ANPR Evidence Inadequate

The Claimant relies on ANPR stills showing only entry at 13:23 and exit at 16:01 (Exh E1).
These are not evidence of a “period of parking.”
The Claimant confirmed in SAR responses that no patrol logs or machine records exist (Exh E2).
In Excel v Lamoureux (Skipton CC, 2017), the court held that ANPR entry/exit times alone do not establish a period of parking. 5. Authority, Consents, and Site Defects

The land is Title DT377300, postcode BH2 5AJ, owned by The Mast (Bournemouth) Ltd (Exhs F1, F2).
Britannia Parking is not the landowner. Their own planning applications confirm this by Certificate B (Exh F4). No contemporaneous landowner contract has been disclosed.
A CPR 31.14 request was sent to DCB Legal on 27 August 2025 (Exh H1). No response has ever been received.
A Subject Access Request was submitted to Britannia Parking. The SAR response (Exhs H2–H4) refused to provide the landowner contract or signage evidence, claiming these were “sensitive” and only to be produced in court. The SAR therefore remains incomplete.
Planning approvals (2018–24) authorised use of land as a temporary car park but did not include advertising consent for signage.
In 2018, Bournemouth Council refused Britannia’s application, issued an enforcement notice requiring removal of “all signage,” and the Inspector on appeal allowed only directional signs for traffic safety (Exhs F5–F7).
Searches of the BCP planning register (2015–25) confirm no advertising consent applications for tariff boards or contractual signs (Exh F3).
Under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regs 2007, tariff boards and terms signs require express consent unless deemed. No such consent exists.
The land is further subject to drainage and easement rights (Exh F8). The Claimant is put to strict proof its authority extends to such encumbered land. 6. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim

The original PCN sum was £100. The claim seeks £170 (Exh G1).
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 allowed the core parking charge but not additional recovery.
County Court judges (e.g. DJ Taylor, Southampton 2019) struck out similar £70 add-ons as an abuse of process (Exhs G3–G4). 7. Conclusion

Payment was made; grace periods applied.
ANPR evidence inadequate.
Claimant has not proved authority or lawful signage.
Claim inflated beyond the lawful sum.
I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim. Alternatively, to strike out sums beyond £100.
Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed: __________________ Date: __________________

[winston00]

Skeleton Argument – Defendant: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | In the County Court at [Court Name] 1. Payment & Grace

£2.70 paid at 13:49 (Exh A).
Entry 13:23 / Exit 16:01 → 26 mins pre-payment, 12 mins post-expiry.
BPA Code (Exh B) requires 5–10 min consideration + 10 min grace.
Britannia admit 10-min consideration in appeal letter (Exh F).
No financial loss. 2. Identity Inconsistencies

Defendant named inconsistently (Exhs D1–D4).
Records unreliable. 3. ANPR Inadequate

ANPR = entry/exit only (Exh E1).
No patrol logs (Exh E2).
Does not prove “period of parking.”
Excel v Lamoureux (2017): timestamps ≠ period of parking. 4. Authority & Consents

Land = Title DT377300, BH2 5AJ (Exhs F1–F2).
Britannia not landowner (Cert B, Exh F4). No landowner contract disclosed.
CPR 31.14 request unanswered (Exh H1).
SAR incomplete (Exhs H2–H4).
Planning approvals = use only, no advertising consent.
Enforcement (2018) required removal of signage (Exh F7).
Register searches confirm no ad consents 2015–25 (Exh F3).
Signs unlawful under 2007 Regs.
Land encumbered with easements (Exh F8). 5. Abuse of Process

PCN = £100; claim inflated to £170 (Exh G1).
Beavis permits only core charge.
County Courts struck out £70 add-ons as abuse (Exh G3–G4). Relief

Claim dismissed.
Alternatively, extras struck out → capped at £100.

[winston00]

Judge’s Sheet – Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | Site: Exeter Road Car Park, Bournemouth Defence Themes (11/07/25)

Payment made; no loss. BPA Code grace periods breached. ANPR evidence inadequate. Claimant lacks authority/consents. Claim inflated with unrecoverable add-ons. Core Issues

1. Payment & Grace – £2.70 paid (Exh A); within BPA Code allowances (Exh B); Britannia admit 10-min consideration (Exh F).
2. ANPR Inadequate – entry/exit only (Exh E1); no logs (Exh E2); Excel v Lamoureux (2017).
3. Authority & Consents – Land Title DT377300 (Exh F1–F2); Britannia not landowner (Exh F4); CPR 31.14 unanswered (Exh H1); SAR incomplete (Exh H2–H4); no advertising consent 2015–25 (Exh F3); Enforcement 2018 removal of signage (Exh F7).
4. Abuse of Process – PCN £100, claim inflated to £170 (Exh G1); Beavis only permits core charge; County Court strike-outs (Exh G3–G4). Relief Sought

Dismiss claim; alternatively, strike out extras beyond £100.

[winston00]

Update – Post-DES8 Trim

Hi all,

As suggested, I’ve now updated the bundle following DES8’s steer:

• PoFA removed (driver admitted).
• Focus now on the 4 core pillars:
  1. Payment & grace.
  2. ANPR inadequacy.
  3. Authority & consents (CPR 31.14 silence + incomplete SAR + no advertising consent).
  4. Abuse of process (inflated claim).

Attached for review:

• Witness Statement (updated).
• Skeleton Argument (updated, mirrors WS).
• Judge’s Sheet (updated, 1-page roadmap for the court copy only).

Would appreciate any comments on tone, structure, or if anything still feels overplayed/underplayed before exhibit grind begins.

Many thanks,
winston00

[des8]

In the title of your Witness Statement you need to insert ;
Claimant Britannia etc
vs
Defendant your name

Statement of truth wording:
"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.

How long parking time does £2.70 buy? Enough to cover your stay anyway?

What do the signs state (exactly)? ... it may be they are not capable of forming a contract

I wouldn't include the "Judges Sheet" and viewing the shortness of the WS the skeleton might not be appropriate

[winston00]

Subject: Exeter Road (Britannia) – signage consent status confirmed (Condition 5 discharged 24/01/2025)

TL;DR: BCP Enforcement (Ref ENF/25/0566) confirms no approved tariff/contractual signage existed at the material time. The first approval of “all car park signage” was only 24 Jan 2025 under Condition 5 of app 7-2023-643-Y. xxxxx PCN is 15 Dec 2024 (notice 20 Dec 2024) — i.e., before any such approval.

What we now have (dated):

• 7-2018-643-V (appeal allowed 2019): only a condition for “directional and instructive signage.” No tariff/contractual signage approved.
• 7-2021-643-X (granted 30/09/2022): no signage condition requiring tariff/contractual boards.
• 7-2023-643-Y (granted 16/02/2024): includes Condition 5 requiring submission/approval of “updated details of all car park signage” and the one-way system.
  • BCP Enforcement (Karen Fairclough) confirms Condition 5 details were approved on 24/01/2025, and that the approved details include the tariff/contractual signage.
• PCN dates: Contravention 15/12/2024, Notice 20/12/2024 → both precede 24/01/2025.

Condition 5 (extract, 16/02/2024):
“Unless within 30 days … updated details of all car park signage … have been submitted … and unless within 60 days these details have been approved … the use shall immediately and permanently cease… The development … shall only be used and operated in accordance with these details once approved.”

Enforcement email (summary):
Karen Fairclough confirms Condition 5 was discharged 24/01/2025, with approval including the tariff/contractual signage (ENF/25/0566).

Why this matters (for the claim):

• At the material time (Dec 2024), no approved tariff/contractual signage existed.
• An application “in progress” gives no lawful cover under the Control of Advertisements Regs — consent must be granted first.
• Therefore, the signage relied upon to found any contract was unlawful/not approved at the relevant time.

Extras we can evidence if needed:

• 2023 “Signage Picture Pack” used 2019-dated photos and mismatched metadata (“1812 Exeter Road, BH2 5BY”) — not the car-park parcel — showing recycled/mislocated evidence.
• Our planning portal searches (2015→present) show no Advertisement Consent ever granted for tariff boards; only the 2024 permission’s Condition 5 was later discharged (Jan 2025).

Attachments we can supply LB (on request):

• Decision Notice 7-2023-643-Y (showing Condition 5 text).
• Enforcement email excerpt (ENF/25/0566) confirming 24/01/2025 approval.
• Timeline note: PCN dates vs approval date.
• 2018/2021 docs confirming no tariff signage approvals.
• Screens from the 2023 signage PDF showing 2019 timestamps / “1812” metadata.

• Happy to be corrected, but our current position is that no enforceable contract could arise in Dec 2024 because tariff/contractual signage had not yet been approved (approval only on 24/01/2025 under Condition 5). Any refinement to how best to frame this in the WS/Skeleton?

[winston00]

Update – Directions Questionnaire (N180)

We’ve now had confirmation from the court that the Defendant’s N180 must be filed and served by Monday, 15 September 2025 (deadline 19 September but we’re posting/emailing early to be safe).

Our plan:

• xxxx will sign and date the N180 this weekend.
• On Monday, we will:
  • Post the original hard copy back to the Civil National Business Centre (with Certificate of Posting).
  • Email a scanned copy to ccbc@justice.gov.uk.
  • Serve a copy by email to DCB Legal (info@dcblegal.co.uk).

Section G of the N180 will include the enforcement reference (ENF/25/0566) and the fact that signage consent was only discharged on 24 January 2025, after the date of the alleged contravention (15 December 2024).

This way we’re procedurally watertight on the N180 and the court is on notice that there’s a live planning enforcement issue which goes directly to the enforceability of the Claimant’s case.