On behalf of the Claimant Witness: Jake Burgess Statement no. 2 17/03/2026 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CLERKENWELL & SHOREDITCH CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: - VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT THE SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF JAKE BURGESS I, Jake Burgess, of 7 Europa View, Sheffield Business Park, 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 Defendant’s Witness Statement. 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. 4. I intend only to comment on the points raised within the Defendant’s Witness Statement insofar as they differ to the points already addressed within the First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess . The First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess is to be read concurrently. 1 Preliminary Issues 5. The Court ought to be aware that the Defendant failed to comply with the directions provided within the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track dated 30 th January 2026 which ordered for both parties to file and serve their Witness Statements by 27 th February 2026. The Defendant filed and served their Statement after this deadline had lapsed. The Court is reminded that in default of compliance with the Court directions is a serious issue. 6. Further to the above, the Court is referred to the Defendant’s defence whereby their disputes focus mainly on the Particulars of Claim. Whereas their Witness Statement addresses the substantive issues and the First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the Defendant simply waited for my Company’s Statement before addressing the Claim in its entirety. The Defendant’s Witness Statement 7. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the points raised within the Defendant's Witness Statement as follows:- i. The Defendant has alleged that they made payment for 2 hours’ parking. This is accepted; however, it does not render the Charge baseless. At “EXHIBIT 3” of the First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess the PDT Log confirms a payment of 2 hours for the Defendant’s Vehicle from 12:35 until 14:35, however as the Defendant did not exit the Land until 14:49 the duration paid for did not cover their stay on the Land and as such the Charge was issued correctly. ii. The Defendant seeks to rely on the grace period afforded to drivers on private Land to defend their overstay on the Land. As the Court ought to be aware, a grace period is not a period of free parking, and a consideration period does not apply where a parking event has taken place. Simply, a consideration period affords a user the opportunity to leave the land within a minimum of 5 minutes should they not wish to be bound by the Terms and Conditions, which does not apply when the parking event takes place. The Defendant made payment for their parking session within this consideration period and as such the same therefore did no longer apply. In regard to a grace period afforded to users, this is time added to the end of a parking event before a Charge is issued. The Defendant made payment for a duration of 2 hours and yet remained on the Land a further 17 minutes. 2 These 17 minutes are not a period of free parking and is simply allowing time for users to leave the Land and is capped at a reasonable 10 minutes. The Defendant remained on the Land in excess of an afforded grace period and thus was issued with the Charge and remains liable for the same. iii. In addition to the above, the Court is referred to “EXHIBIT 5” of the First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess and ought to note that given the size of the Land, it would be unreasonable for the Defendant to suggest that it would take in excess of 10 minutes to leave the Land. My Company maintains the position that the Charge was issued correctly and the Defendant remains liable. iv. My Company apologises for the administrative error within the First Witness Statement of Jake Burgess in relation to the Defendant nominating themselves as the driver of the Vehicle. In any event, it remains the position that in default of providing alternative driver details, the Defendant can be pursued on the balance of probabilities that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. It is reasonable to state that if an individual believed themselves to not be liable, if they were not driving the vehicle, they would advise and nominate otherwise. On the other hand, pursuant to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), the Defendant can be pursued as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. v. Further to the above, it is noted that within their Witness Statement, the Defendant seeks to question my Company’s compliance with POFA 2012. My Company denies this in its entirety and maintains the position that the provisions of POFA have been complied with. The Court ought to be aware that my Company have complied with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (f) in that the Defendant was placed on sufficient notice that should they fail to provide alternative driver details they can be pursued as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. There is no requirement that the sentence “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met” has to be included in the Notice. My Company will say that had the Defendant truly believed themselves not to be liable they would have nominated otherwise and in default the Defendant is correctly pursued for the debt as the Registered Keeper. vi. The Defendant’s comments regarding my Company’s authority to manage the parking on the Land given the company details stated within the Landowner Agreement are noted. For the avoidance of doubt, Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) and Excel Parking Services Ltd (EPS) both form part of the Excel Group. Both Companies have the same Director and same Trading address. EPS lease the Land, and as such the signage is displayed in the 3 name of EPS. However, the Defendant is entering into a Contract with a VCS when the park on the Land and the signage clearly outlines the same. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has not been prejudiced by the aforementioned. Conclusion 8. It is my respectful submission that the Defence and Witness Statement 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. 9. 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). 10. In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought. 4 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 Jake Burgess on behalf of the Claimant Dated 17/03/2026 DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: 121097.17083D Solicitors for the Claimant 5 In The County Court At Clerkenwell & Shoreditch CLAIM NUMBER: BETWEEN VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED CLAIMANT -V - DEFENDANT Supplementary Witness Statement of Jake Burgess DCB Legal Limited Direct House Greenwood Drive Manor Park Runcorn WA7 1UG Ref: 121097.17083D Solicitors for the Claimant 6