On behalf of the Claimant Witness: Statement no. 1 Exhibit 1 - 8 23/02/2026 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: - VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF I, , Sheffield, S9 1XH, state as follows: - 1. I am the Head of Legal, employed by Vehicle Control Services Limited (“my Company”). I am duly authorised to make this Statement on my Company’s behalf. 2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence. 3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise. I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified. Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 Parties 4. My Company provides private car park management services to private landowners, to manage the way motorists are permitted to park on their private land. My Company does so by issuing parking charge notices to any vehicle parked in a way the landowner does not permit. 5. The Defendant is the recipient of a Parking Charge (“Charge”) issued by my Company. The details are set out herein. Accreditation 6. At all material times, my Company was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) known as the International Parking Community (“IPC”). The IPC has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its members are expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. My Company operates in accordance with the Code. 7. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) my Company must be a member of an ATA. It is therefore essential for my Company to comply with the Code. Background 8. My Company issued a Charge to the Vehicle (“Vehicle”) with details listed below: Charge No. Location (“Land”) VRN Issue Date Reason for Issue Powis Street Pay Car Park, Woolwich, SE18 6JL 27/10/2024 82) Parked After The Expiry Of The Time Purchased 9. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “ EXHIBIT 1 ”. 10. I confirm that the term of the Landowner Agreement has been extended by mutual consent of the parties. 2 11. I refer to the decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (“Wilshaw”) whereby it was found that it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove the Landowner’s authority to constitute a valid cause of action to recover the Parking Charge, what is required is proof that there is a binding contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the contract between the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. Contract 12. At the time of issue, my Company was prominently displaying signs on the Land setting out the Terms of parking. A copy of the content of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at “ EXHIBIT 2 ”. The signs formed the basis of the Contract with the driver (“Contract”). 13. The following was a term of the Contract: - “A Parking Charge Notice of £100 will be issued for the following: Parked after the expiry of time and/or date in a pay car park” 14. In parking the Vehicle on the Land, the driver accepted the Contract, with the license to park being the Consideration. It is evident from the photographic evidence exhibited to this Statement at “ EXHIBIT 3 ” that the driver entered the Land at 12:32 and exited at 14:49. My Company avers that the Defendant only made payment from 12:35 until 14:35 and as such the Defendant remained on the Land in excess of the time paid for, a copy of the PDT Log evidencing the payment is at “EXHIBIT 4” . It is clear that the Defendant failed to adhere to the terms of the Contract by parking as they did, thus breaching the Contract. 15. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the driver upon breach, with payment falling due within 28 days. 16. A plan of the Land (“Plan”) showing the positioning of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at “ EXHIBIT 5 ”. 17. A copy of the Notice to Keeper is exhibited to this Witness Statement at “ EXHIBIT 6 ”. Defendant’s Liability 3 18. Pursuant to the Contract; the Driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue. 19. My Company uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the Land to manage the parking. Cameras capable of accurately recording vehicle registration numbers are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the Land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and exits the Land. Any vehicle found to have breached the Terms of parking will be issued with a Charge. 20. In order to issue a Charge, my Company requests the details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA to send notices compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post in accordance with paragraph 9 of POFA. 21. The Defendant does not dispute being the Driver or Keeper of the Vehicle. My Company reasonably believes that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis. My Company has complied with POFA and can pursue the Defendant as Keeper in the alternative. 22. My Company avers that the Defendant has admitted to being the driver when appealing the Charge and therefore is pursued on this basis. Defence 23. The Defendant was afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal. An appeal was lodged which was unsuccessful. A copy of the appeal and response issued is exhibited at “ EXHIBIT 7 ”. The Defendant was able to submit a second appeal to the ATA’s appeals service, but no successful second appeal has been made. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices. It is respectfully submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they would have engaged with the appeals process further. 24. If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the Charge or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a debt collection agency and a Letter of Claim being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised. 25. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues raised in the Defence as follows: - 4 i. The Defendant disputes liability on the basis that the Particulars of Claim are inadequate in respect of the factual and legal allegations. The Defendant questions whether the Particulars of Claim comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. I submit that the Claim was issued via the Civil National Business Centre and in this regard, I refer to Practice Direction 7C (“the PD”) which specifically provides the guidelines for doing so. I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim (“the Particulars”) are in keeping with the PD. The following sections are of relevance: - - 5.2(1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and - 5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form. ii. It is my Company’s position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to identify the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the claim. Further, with respect, if the Defendant were of the genuine belief that the Particulars of Claim were insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to make an Application to the Court. The Defendant has chosen not to do so. iii. The Court is referred to “EXHIBIT 8” , a copy of the Claim Form detailing the Particulars of Claim and will note that they clearly stipulate, the details of the Parking Charge including when, where and the Vehicle that was issued, the Term that has been contravened and that the Defendant is pursued as the driver of the Vehicle. My Company will say that the Defendant appealed the Charge and clearly nominated themselves as the driver. The Particulars of Claim also stipulated the details of the costs claimed. The Defendant, if they did not understand the Particulars of Claim and believed them to be insufficient, ought to have made an Application to the Court. My Company’s position remains that the Defendant was provided with sufficient details of the Claim. iv. My Company acknowledges the Defendant’s reference to another unrelated Claim that had been struck out due to the Particulars of Claim. Respectfully, this is irrelevant, the Court has not determined the Particulars of Claim for this Claim to be insufficient when considering the case prior to allocation. The Defendant seeking to rely on an unrelated matter is frivolous at best. The Charge remains due and the Defendant remains liable. 5 26. In view of the above, it is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Contract as set out in this Statement and as such the Defendant is liable. Amount Claimed The Charge Amount 27. The amount of the parking charge falls within the “ between £50 to £100 ” bracket quoted at paragraph 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in keeping with the guidelines given by the ATA: - Part 8.2.1, The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice version 1.1 dated 17/02/2025 states “Parking Charges must not exceed £100.” 28. The amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational costs of the parking management scheme and acts as a deterrent, as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. Contractual Costs 29. As payment was not made within the prescribed time, or indeed at all, the additional sum is claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states: - “ If payment of the Parking Charge is not made in accordance with the payment terms detailed on the Parking Charge, Vehicle Control Services Ltd (the Creditor) will be entitled to charge a collection fee of £70.00 on an indemnity basis for costs incurred as a result of debt and/or legal recovery” 30. As set out above, the Charge amount is intended to include the ‘operational costs’. It is submitted that debt recovery action is not an operational cost and as such claiming the costs of doing so would not fall foul of the 2015 decision. 31. The sum added is a nominal contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of the Defendant’s non-payment, and capped at the amount permitted under the ATA Code. My Company’s employees spent time and resource attempting to recover the debt, as well as instructing external debt recovery providers, all at a cost to the Company. This is not my Company’s usual business and, but for the Defendant’s refusal to pay, would not have been necessary. 6 32. When consider the recoverability of this element of the claim, I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 45 of Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when considering contractual indemnity costs, it was stated: - “There is nothing ... which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had the jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14.” CPR Costs 33. My Company claims the claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the hearing fee in any event. 34. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This claim was issued as a last resort, and given the robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they conclude the same. Conclusion 35. It is my respectful submission that the Defence is entirely without merit and as such it is requested that the Defence is struck out and Judgment awarded in favour of my Company, payable forthwith. 36. I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to attend, please decide the claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR 27.9(1)(a)-(b). 37. In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought. 7 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 on behalf of the Claimant Dated 23/02/2026 DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: Solicitors for the Claimant 8 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH CLAIM NUMBER: BETWEEN:- VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT “EXHIBIT 1” to the First Witness Statement of DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: Solicitors for the Claimant 9 10 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH CLAIM NUMBER: BETWEEN:- VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT “EXHIBIT 2” to the First Witness Statement of DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: Solicitors for the Claimant 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH CLAIM NUMBER: BETWEEN:- VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT “EXHIBIT 3” to the First Witness Statement of DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: Solicitors for the Claimant 19 20