I've finally got some free time. If you can, can you please post up the latest version of the document after Nicky Boy's suggestions?

Good move. I have to go to my local airport now to pick up people who are staying with me - so you can imagine what that will do to free time. They've already been delayed an hour. It would be good if there were another couple of hours so we could work on the WS!

I see you have sent me a private message. From the most superficial of read throughs, what you have produced is on the right lines. I have a massive amount on in my life today and simply cannot deal with this. Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer giving up their free time. You cannot expect a lengthy document like a Witness Statement to be produced in a few days - when you have had six months. So the choice is this. 1. Send the document as is today. 2. Wait for us all to tidy the WS up during the day when we have time, and send it 24 hours late. I will have some spare time later, but precisely when I don't know. Of the two options I would recommend the second. The court is unlikely to get too shirty about a 24-hour delay. Unlikely - but not impossible. Your choice.

Don't worry about producing a long section. Just put. DOUBLE RECOVERY XX Under "The Claimant claims (iii)" Ms Atkinson refers to "instructing solicitors". The claim already includes legal representative's costs at small claims. Inventing a further £70 is a badly-concealed attempt at circumventing the small claims cap. It is irrelevant what the Claimant's biased trade association (itself a breakaway from the British Parking Association, which dealt with appeals far too leniently for the likes of the Claimant) deem as lawful, it is the law in England & Wales which decides what is lawful. The addition of fictitious sums to the original parking charge is also forbidden under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Hang on just a mo ...

Last night's was not perfect, but on the right lines. If you do what I've posted immediately above, the WS will be imperfect, with repetition, but who cares, you're not a lawyer, as long as the main points are clear, you've got a good chance of winning. Your aces are - LOADING IS NOT PARKING Quote their contract Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules This is your ace. NO KEEPER LIABILITY LFI is the expert here. Put all his suggestions. If it all gets too much for you, just finish at this point. These are the two main arguments. If you have time to do the rest, even better. Make sure you put the STATEMENT OF TRUTH at the end.

Yes!

Excellent. So you're in the clear. Well before litigation the charlatans were told they were threatening to sue the wrong person, you identified the right person, the right person owned up, but the imbeciles insisted on suing the wrong person. In their diseased minds it will be because your appeal was "too late" which will be irrelevant to the court, and in any case the "too late" was because they were incapable of understanding a double digit address, bless them. Yep, go for set aside, and when you do so request that the spivs be ordered to pay the £275 due to their unreasonable conduct for deliberately suing the wrong person. However, that is for the morrow. As everyone else has said, please upload all previous communications. The more info we have, the more the advice is likely to be correct.

@lookinforinfo I think what has gone wrong is that the OP has used the legal arguments in Alaska101's WS, despite us saying not to do so as it's a completely different case. Alaska101's case was for stopping in a no-stopping zone at an airport, nothing at all to do with residential parking, unloading and permits. @citroenberlingo 1. Go back to last night's version. 2. Make the changes I suggested above. 3. Add all LFI's stuff under NO KEEPER LIABILITY. 4. Make damn sure that in LOADING IS NOT PARKING you mention that in the contract between the landowner and the Claimant it is specifically mentioned that Motorists loading / unloading their vehicle are exempt from the parking rules This is your ace. 5. Send the WS off and cross fingers & toes. 6. Please learn for the future, you cannot just magic up such an important legal document in a couple of days, you have had since you filed your defence in February - six months - to work on this.

Well done on your victory!

Well, I don't know what to say really. Yesterday you had the bones of a good WS yet today you've changed things totally and ignored the sequence of legal arguments we suggested. I'd hoped to have had to correct a few things this evening, not chuck the whole lot in the bin. You go on & on about there being no contract between the PPC and the landowner - when the fleecers have produced a contract. Had you come here at least before last weekend there would have been time to rescue things, but it's far too late now. Sorry, I'm the biggest glass-half-full person there is going, but you've made a huge mess of this and I don't see what can be done.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

I've been on the site for seven years, and until recently there had been a 100% record with set asides in private parking company cases. Recently however three set asides were not granted, in one case it was clearly the Cagger's fault, in the other two there was just a rubbish judge. So set asides are granted a lot more than they are not granted, as that is usually in the interests of justice - but there is no guarantee. As others have said, we need to see your draft application and the defence. However, from a first glance, your defence is very weak as the fleecers will try to say you should have named the driver, and this point needs to be tackled. Can you please also upload the original PCN.

Usual Night Owl deal from me - I will be on-line at 10pm UK time after work. However, the sooner your upload a revised version the better. There are other regulars on CAG who keep normal hours

Have a read of the last page of this thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454769-ukpc-court-claim-crownhill-retail-park-pl6-5us-no-parking-claim-discontinued/page/2/#google_vignette This is what DCBL are supposed to do when discontinuing, so it's worth ringing them.

Point taken about the court. Yes, phone DCBL. They might confirm discontinuance and then e-mail confirmation. Or they may be a waste of time. But it can't harm you. Don't worry about the use of e-mail, if the case is over it won't matter if they e-mail you.

So - apparently the court can at any time of its own volition decide if a hearing is required and whether there are genuine grounds to reinstate the defence. So you will have to attend the hearing and prepare documents as shown in the court order.

This must be extremely annoying. Sadly I don't think there's any alternative than to keep pushing for an answer. You can't be left with uncertainty till the day before the hearing! 1. Call the court - again - and ask what the status of the claim is. If they say it's been discontinued ask them to e-mail you so you have it in writing. 2. E-mail the court - again - and ask them the status of the claim. 3. Phone DCBL and ask them if they are proceeding with the claim. If they say it has been discontinued then say you have had nothing in writing and will they e-mail you the Notice of Discontinuance.

Sorry for the delay in coming back to you. Please give us another 48 hours.

Well done on your victory!

Going back to their letter offering the £70. What date is on it?

The civil court system encourages the parties to negotiate, so you're not admitting anything if you offer £35. I think Nicky's idea was to (a) take the wee wee out of them and (b) show the organ grinder that they have doubled the amount of costs they really entailed. But if you don't want to send the mail then don't.