Horizon parking court claim

winner1111

In terms of making an SAR, is the below example okay? Bear in mind that this PCN is for a free carpark with a time limit, so no ticket machine etc. It uses an ANPR system.
...............................................................................................................................
To the Data Protection Officer at Horizon Parking Limited,

A Subject Access Request (SAR) is hereby being made for information held for the keeper of the vehicle (REG PLATE) in August 2017, namely (FULL NAME). The keeper’s address is (FULL ADDRESS). This is in relation to a Claim Form (Claim No. CLAIM No. HERE) recently received.

Here is what is required from yourselves:

- All photos taken of the vehicle in question
- All letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- All data held, all evidence you will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK
- A list of all PCNs you consider are outstanding against the keeper and/or this VRN (any claim must be for all PCNs in one claim, not several separate claims)

Regards,
FULL NAME

Redx

Seems reasonable to me, seeing as you are asking for your own data

Add proof of ID under the GDPR, such as a copy of the V5C or N1 claim form

winner1111

Redx wrote: »

Seems reasonable to me, seeing as you are asking for your own data

Add proof of ID under the GDPR, such as a copy of the V5C or N1 claim form

Great, I have now sent it to the following email address: dp@horizonparking.co.uk with a PDF copy of the N1 Claim Form. Thank you for your tip Redx

winner1111

I have to say I am thoroughly enjoying the process of going through all of this and gradually making progress, thanks to all of you who have assisted me so far, it is greatly appreciated.
I have gone through the Newbies thread and unless I've missed it, I cannot locate where an example of where a defence for a retail car park's ANPR PCN is. Could someone please point me in the right direction or provide a link?
Also, I took the liberty of visiting the car park in question and made a video of the entry from the driver's perspective-there was not a single sign visible when driving in! Should I include this video in the evidence or provide screenshots from it showing no signs?
Thanks again guys, you're making this a real pleasure!

getmore4less

Have Horizon started issuing POFA compliant NTK
All of mine have not been and they backed off as soon as I point that out.

seems there are recent ones as well

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6035046horizon

winner1111

getmore4less wrote: »

Have Horizon started issuing POFA compliant NTK
All of mine have not been and they backed off as soon as I point that out.

seems there are recent ones as well

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6035046horizon

Well this all began in August 2017 and any PCN's or debt collection agency letters received previously were all binned and so I have no idea. If this would have been something they would send at this 'Claim Form' stage then no, they haven't. Would Horizon point this out in the SAR request I have made?

nosferatu1001

In the SAR they MUST give you ALL data they hold. THis would include copies of the NTK.

If you find that it is now suddenly POFA compliant, yet all other known NtK arent, thats a shoe in for creating false of misleading docuemnts...

winner1111

So here is a modified version of a defence found in the Newbies thread. The signs which are in the car park indicate no stay over 4 hours (this is a free car park that serves all of the stores in the retail park). Also, this carpark never used to have a time limit and the driver was not aware of this new policy upon entering the car park. The driver does not live in the town of said car park and seldom visits. Should these point be mentioned also?

.................................................................................................................................................

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:!

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX Retail Park. The car park was free.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) XXXX XXX;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.!

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Upon entering the car park from the Birmingham Road, Park Road roundabout, there is no signage whatsoever indicating parking terms and conditions.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signs which are present are not visible to each driver who has parked their vehicle and are at a height that makes the print significantly difficult to read.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £80. The claim includes an additional £70, legal representative’s costs of £50 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. There is also statutory interest added onto the total, this coming to £22.27.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.!

Name!
Signature
Date

winner1111

Hi everyone, would someone mind having a butchers at my first draft of defence and commenting please? I have until the 10th Sept to file it and would like to get it perfected and filed well in advance.

Thank you in advance.

Le_Kirk

It's a standard Bargepole defence from the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and, if it suits your circumstances, you could submit it but, since you mention additional charges AND you have time, search the forum for a thread by beamerguy (with a comment on it at post #14 by Coupon-mad) about abuse of process. Search also for posts by others about abuse of process and how they used it in their defence.