Gladstone's Solicitors / Horizon Parking / County Court Claim - help!

Gerin_Manolis

Here's the latest draft...


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the Defendant was a member of the gym and the Defendant (and other family members / drivers of this car in 2018) often shopped in Sainsburys. Both the gym and the Supermarket are on the same site, so it is likely the driver was a genuine patron of one or the other, or both (after using the gym it was common for members to then do some shopping whilst there).

4. It is believed that the system may have changed since then, so any signage in the car park will be different, but the Defendant recalls some vague terms allowing 90 minutes free parking for gym patrons and for Sainsburys customers. However, where that parking licence or offer becomes blurred, was if a patron used the gym and then Sainsburys, or vice versa. The doctrine of contra proferentem - enshrined now in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the 'CRA 2015') applies, and the interpretation of terms and/or consumer notices (signs) that most favours the consumer must be used - namely that if a Sainsburys shopper is allowed 90 minutes free parking, and a gym member is allowed 90 minutes free parking, then if a driver uses one facility followed by a visit to the other, going by the ambiguous terms on offer it is reasonable to conclude that 2 x 90 minutes parking (plus grace periods) were on offer.

5. Further, members of the gym were supposed to be able to scan their gym membership card but in the Defendant's experience in the past, this system never worked and again, this offends against the CRA 2015 Schedule 2. The defendant believes the terms and consumer notices are likely to have breached paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18 of that statutory 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair in consumer contracts.

6. Further, the Defendant (and other family members / drives of this car) often enters and exits the car park on more than one occasion in any given day and it is therefore unclear whether the PCNs in question relate to the actual time that the vehicle was present.

7. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

8. It is denied that:
A contract was formed
There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site..
That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

10. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

11. 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.

12. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

13. The terms on the Claimant’s signage were 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.

14. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to each parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgment in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover and this is therefore a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

15. 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.

16. 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.

Coupon-mad

Capital initials for all Acts and case law:

protection of freedoms act 2012

parking eye v Beavis.

And Beavis needs the full neutral citation number (Google it).

Gerin_Manolis

Thanks Coupon-mad: Here with those changes:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the Defendant was a member of the gym and the Defendant (and other family members / drivers of this car in 2018) often shopped in Sainsburys. Both the gym and the Supermarket are on the same site, so it is likely the driver was a genuine patron of one or the other, or both (after using the gym it was common for members to then do some shopping whilst there).

4. It is believed that the system may have changed since then, so any signage in the car park will be different, but the Defendant recalls some vague terms allowing 90 minutes free parking for gym patrons and for Sainsburys customers. However, where that parking licence or offer becomes blurred, was if a patron used the gym and then Sainsburys, or vice versa. The doctrine of contra proferentem - enshrined now in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the 'CRA 2015') applies, and the interpretation of terms and/or consumer notices (signs) that most favours the consumer must be used - namely that if a Sainsburys shopper is allowed 90 minutes free parking, and a gym member is allowed 90 minutes free parking, then if a driver uses one facility followed by a visit to the other, going by the ambiguous terms on offer it is reasonable to conclude that 2 x 90 minutes parking (plus grace periods) were on offer.

5. Further, members of the gym were supposed to be able to scan their gym membership card but in the Defendant's experience in the past, this system never worked and again, this offends against the CRA 2015 Schedule 2. The defendant believes the terms and consumer notices are likely to have breached paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18 of that statutory 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair in consumer contracts.

6. Further, the Defendant (and other family members / drives of this car) often enters and exits the car park on more than one occasion in any given day and it is therefore unclear whether the PCNs in question relate to the actual time that the vehicle was present.

7. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

8. It is denied that:
A contract was formed
There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site..
That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

10. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

11. 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.

12. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

13. The terms on the Claimant’s signage were 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.

14. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to each parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover and this is therefore a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

15. 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.

16. 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.

DoaM

14 ... contracted to pay. ... Schedule 4, not nor with reference

Gerin_Manolis

Thank you DoaM.... changes here:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the Defendant was a member of the gym and the Defendant (and other family members / drivers of this car in 2018) often shopped in Sainsburys. Both the gym and the Supermarket are on the same site, so it is likely the driver was a genuine patron of one or the other, or both (after using the gym it was common for members to then do some shopping whilst there).

4. It is believed that the system may have changed since then, so any signage in the car park will be different, but the Defendant recalls some vague terms allowing 90 minutes free parking for gym patrons and for Sainsburys customers. However, where that parking licence or offer becomes blurred, was if a patron used the gym and then Sainsburys, or vice versa. The doctrine of contra proferentem - enshrined now in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the 'CRA 2015') applies, and the interpretation of terms and/or consumer notices (signs) that most favours the consumer must be used - namely that if a Sainsburys shopper is allowed 90 minutes free parking, and a gym member is allowed 90 minutes free parking, then if a driver uses one facility followed by a visit to the other, going by the ambiguous terms on offer it is reasonable to conclude that 2 x 90 minutes parking (plus grace periods) were on offer.

5. Further, members of the gym were supposed to be able to scan their gym membership card but in the Defendant's experience in the past, this system never worked and again, this offends against the CRA 2015 Schedule 2. The defendant believes the terms and consumer notices are likely to have breached paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18 of that statutory 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair in consumer contracts.

6. Further, the Defendant (and other family members / drives of this car) often enters and exits the car park on more than one occasion in any given day and it is therefore unclear whether the PCNs in question relate to the actual time that the vehicle was present.

7. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

8. It is denied that:
A contract was formed
There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site..
That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

10. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

11. 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.

12. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

13. The terms on the Claimant’s signage were 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.

14. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to each parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover and this is therefore a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

15. 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.

16. 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.

Coupon-mad

#7 is in the wrong place, looks like it should be #2.

Gerin_Manolis

Thanks C-m. Like this?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

4. The facts are that the Defendant was a member of the gym and the Defendant (and other family members / drivers of this car in 2018) often shopped in Sainsburys. Both the gym and the Supermarket are on the same site, so it is likely the driver was a genuine patron of one or the other, or both (after using the gym it was common for members to then do some shopping whilst there).

5. It is believed that the system may have changed since then, so any signage in the car park will be different, but the Defendant recalls some vague terms allowing 90 minutes free parking for gym patrons and for Sainsburys customers. However, where that parking licence or offer becomes blurred, was if a patron used the gym and then Sainsburys, or vice versa. The doctrine of contra proferentem - enshrined now in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the 'CRA 2015') applies, and the interpretation of terms and/or consumer notices (signs) that most favours the consumer must be used - namely that if a Sainsburys shopper is allowed 90 minutes free parking, and a gym member is allowed 90 minutes free parking, then if a driver uses one facility followed by a visit to the other, going by the ambiguous terms on offer it is reasonable to conclude that 2 x 90 minutes parking (plus grace periods) were on offer.

6. Further, members of the gym were supposed to be able to scan their gym membership card but in the Defendant's experience in the past, this system never worked and again, this offends against the CRA 2015 Schedule 2. The defendant believes the terms and consumer notices are likely to have breached paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18 of that statutory 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair in consumer contracts.

7. Further, the Defendant (and other family members / drives of this car) often enters and exits the car park on more than one occasion in any given day and it is therefore unclear whether the PCNs in question relate to the actual time that the vehicle was present.

8. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

9. It is denied that:
A contract was formed
There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site..
That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

10. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

11. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

12. 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.

13. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

14. The terms on the Claimant’s signage were 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.

15. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to each parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover and this is therefore a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Sharpie01

I am due in court next week for a private parking fine issued by UK car park management (also owned by Gladstones solicitors) and would like some advice please - I was given permission to park there by an employment agency who have six spaces allocated to them.
I was told to park by their sign, which is ten times the size if the UK carpark management’s signs (which were mainly overshadowed by unkempt hedgerow) .
The person who gave me permission has now left the agency and the manager is not willing to get involved.
The ticket said I failed to display a permit, but I wasn’t given one and the employment agency’s sigh gave no mention of a permit needed.

Le_Kirk

The advice is to read the NEWBIE sticky and then if you have a specific questions that isn't answered start your won thread. It is difficult to keep track of two different issues on one thread.

beamerguy

Sharpie01 .... this is NOT your thread, please start a new thread if you want help