Court Case Tomorrow vs Horizon/Gladstones

chad888

What would be classed a a legitimate interest and what a penalty?


Reviewed the evidence, the witness statement says "3 of the charges are over staying 3 hours", the evidence pack has signs of "Abbeywood retail park 3 hour limit" and the photograph is taken by a parking attendant with no entry time or time i have been observed in the car park. So in that case it could be any time over 3 hours, i.e. 3 hours 10, 20, 30, 40. The contract that Horizon have with the car park clearly states 4 hours (plus a 20 min grace period). They have issued me a ticket for being over 3 hours without evidence stating how long I was there, but they are not contracted to bring this claim as I had to be over 4 hours.

I am hoping the judge will throw the case out based on that as proof the evidence is not to be trusted. If not, the next argument will be that the 9 minute overstay as caught on ANPR does not show that I have actually parked, in a car park that size i could have been driving around for minute trying to find a spot and then queuing for 5 minutes to get out the car park. The car park exit is on a very busy roundabout with the previous exit being the exit point for a place of work with 10,000 car parking spaces. It can take ages to get out of the car park. The sign states 4 hours parking, the contract they have states 20 minute grace period, i was within the confines of the car park for 4hr 29 minutes.

If that doesn't fly, I will argue that there is no reference to when the 4 hour stay signs were in place, or if I was parking under 3 hour signs despite that not being the contract, they have not given any evidence as to what signs were in place and when.

bargepole

chad888 wrote: »

Its a 1pm hearing ...

They never list hearings to start at 1pm, the courts break for lunch between 1pm and 2pm.

This looks like your case, starting at 2pm:

BEFORE DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE CAUN R-112

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE TALBOT R-110

SITTING IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

ON TUESDAY 21 AUGUST 2018

ON THE FIRST FLOOR

SMALL CLAIM HEARINGS

14:00 D7GF701J Horizon Parking Ltd v C******

E19YJ375 K Jennings v UK Insurance Ltd

System

There is a thread over on Pepipoo that says Horizon are no longer the operator there having been replaced by UKCPS. Perhaps a point to raise and ask why their contract was terminated. Seems to have been sometime last year.

Revenge court case?

chad888

Bargepole, yes that is my case. Better late than early though eh!

Horizon lost the contract to a different provider last year if i remember right.

Aside, just found some small print on the back of the 3 notices for the ticket afixed to the window in the evidence...

Stay 1: 201 minutes (3 hours 21 minutes) 15/09/15
Stay 2: 196 minutes (3 hours 16 minutes) 05/10/15
Stay 3: 202 minutes (3 hours 22 minutes) 06/10/15

The sign states 3 hours.

The site services agreement between Horizon and Workman LLP (acting as the agent for the site manager Bristol Trust Fund Trustees LTD, who are managing the site on behalf of the land owner 'Knight Frank') states that from the 01/09/15 Horizon will issue PCN's to those vehicles overstaying a 4 hours maximum stay plus a 20 minute grace period.

Will this stump them, or will the judge push past that and say the contract between me and Horizon still stands as the 3 hours stated on the sign?

beamerguy

The old Gladstones boys really don't have a clue ... do they

Don't forget your costs schedule when you win

good luck, with the right judge, you won't need it

waamo

A switched on judge (and most of them are) will have a field day with that.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, contract says 4, so the sign is meaningless. Theyre operating outside of their authority.

getmore4less

Was this a site where Horizon were POFA compliant?

Umkomaas

getmore4less wrote: »

Was this a site where Horizon were POFA compliant?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you enquiring whether it is 'relevant land'? In the same context that railways, airports, ports are likely to be not relevant land as a result of coverage by byelaws?

getmore4less

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you enquiring whether it is 'relevant land'? In the same context that railways, airports, ports are likely to be not relevant land as a result of coverage by byelaws?

In my Horizon cases and it seems many other the initial invoices and NTK were not compliant with POFA 2012 and you bat them back with no keeper liability they then seem to go away or cancel


Probably to late now for this if not included already or driver named

The 4hr limit is probably going to win but might have saved a lot of time if they were not POFA compliant in the first place.