Court Claim - Horizon Parking / Gladstone Solicitors

brianj1991

Hi All,

So this is about a Northampton County Court Claim from Gladstone Solicitors on behalf of Horizon Parking.

I've read through the Newbies post and the bits about county court claims. I have to say due to the situation that I have stupidly put myself in, I literally do not know where to start. I think I may not have a leg to stand on at all, but I am grateful for any advice / opinion available.

I have received a claim for 3 PCNs received, two in March 2015, one in May 2015. The claim is for approx £480 (3x £120 fines + interest + court fee + legal representatives costs). These were all given on a University campus. The car was parked at the back of the campus behind an accommodation block on a small strip of parking spaces (approx 25). This was rarely full. It was intended for permit holders.

This bit really isn't great. Unfortunately I ignored all of the PCNs and other letters. A while after I realised that this was not the latest advice but due to being absolutely insanely bogged under with other things + some significant depression + being ignorant / naive about it, they were left alone incorrectly. In addition, I moved around several addresses and not all of the post got to me + has been lost over time. Obviously I messed up here big time, and I have idiotically allowed them to end up with a court claim against me.

I don't know what to do about these. I literally do not know if I have a leg to stand on with the fact I have ignored them. PLUS I know there are other unpaid ones from this campus / PPC due to the same sob story I have given above.

I am still a student and my paid work is very limited. I have debt that I am struggling with and my outgoings already outstrip my income. Therefore there is simply no way I can afford to pay this money if I was to lose in court. I believe that if I were to lose I would have to pay within 21 days and I certainly would be unable to do that. Bearing that in mind, I wondered if I need to accept the liability and offer £1 a month settlement which even that I technically cannot afford!

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

hoohoo

The case will depend on signage. It is likely that you were therefore a trespasser, in which case the maximum they can claim is the damage to the landowner, or a nominal £1 if no damage.

This case sounds very like yours, but the signage wording will be key
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

You should acknowledge the claim and then file a defence

Coupon-mad

I've read through the Newbies post and the bits about county court claims. I have to say due to the situation that I have stupidly put myself in, I literally do not know where to start. I think I may not have a leg to stand on at all,

Yes, you do.

The car was parked at the back of the campus behind an accommodation block on a small strip of parking spaces (approx 25). This was rarely full. It was intended for permit holders.

Here's a defence point straight away, then (EDIT - hoohoo beat me to it but we are both saying the same thing):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/bargepole-spanks-ukpc-in-court-no.html

And small print on signs is another defence point - again pointing to NO CONTRACT FORMED. Horizon tend to have wordy signs with the charge in small lettering, and on University campuses signage is almost always badly lit or in a bush. Get some photos to prove it if you are still there. Do that now. The point being, to compare and contrast with the 'ParkingEye v Beavis' signs here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

I am still a student and my paid work is very limited. I have debt that I am struggling with and my outgoings already outstrip my income. Therefore there is simply no way I can afford to pay this money if I was to lose in court. I believe that if I were to lose I would have to pay within 21 days and I certainly would be unable to do that. Bearing that in mind, I wondered if I need to accept the liability and offer £1 a month settlement which even that I technically cannot afford!

Forget all of that and defend it then. There is certainly a chance you can win this case.

You will know from the 'Small Claim?' section of the NEWBIES thread that there's a useful link there to Bargepole's summary of what you MUST do and when. Revisit that and acknowledge this claim, leaving thr defence box blank (other questions are answered in Bargepole's post).

Finally, you are not alone. You will find other Horizon court claims on here and on pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106641

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106627

And google 'parking prankster gladstones' to read about how often they FAIL!

brianj1991

Thank you for your response hoohoo and Coupon-mad! Very helpful and I will read further in to the links you posted.

One question. The fact that I have so many PCNs for parking in the same place, would this not erode my defence as I can hardly say I was unaware that I should not have been parking there, etc.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter if the Judge agrees that you were offered no contract/licence to park at all. You can't be held to a contract that doesn't exist at all due to the drafting of the words on the sign, or if the terms were not seen and agreed. And don't forget physical evidence, e.g. if the signs were dark or in trees (choose the best time of year and lighting conditions to take you photos of the signs before any hearing!).

And if you look at the UKPC link, it was about TWO PCNs, and in this PCM case, it was three defendants, all with 'multiple' PCNs:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

HTH

brianj1991

Thank you guys for your input. I will be writing my defence over the next 1 - 2 days and I will try to post it for your opinion!

brianj1991

This is my statement. (please ignore missing number 2, re-arranged it all!)

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE


1.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.


3.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.

3.a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.c)
Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3.d)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4.
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Horizon Parking Limited. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.


5. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


6.
The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract. There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area. Signage is hidden by foliage. Other signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read. The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the POFA.


7.
Even if a contract had been formed it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

7.a)
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in an educational establishment where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking.


8.
The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


9.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

brianj1991

Any opinion on the above would be most gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Where is #2?

brianj1991

I moved things around. I have re-arranged the numbers on my original document. Thank you!
Otherwise, does it look okay?

Coupon-mad

I would just suggest that #5 cites: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 instead of 'the Beavis case'. See what comments others here might add tomorrow.