Quick Check - Gladstones Claim UPDATED 17/4/26 - Set-Aside Obtained & WS rec'd

Taiko

Always lurking, and fully up to speed on Mazur! Had mentions of VCS v Carr, so will add that into the skeleton. 

Own WS mentioned postal issues, included evidence from 3rd parties of other non-delivery in the timeframe. Also never received the transfer notice from Northampton, but did receive the hearing date from the local court. Their own WS this time around has the PCN's so it's only from recently I know what the breach is they're after, and I've Google Maps evidence I was in another location and that it's likely a double dip. Aiming for strike out, but comfortable handling the defence using the templates if asked to now defend. 

Cheers CM! 

Taiko

Update, as set aside hearing was today. 

Obtained set aside from DDJ Printer (worth a Google search!), but was not persuaded by CEL v Chan. Did get my set aside fee back, and will now do a defence. Weirdly feels like a loss. 

Coupon-mad

Ooh ... I say:

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/disciplinarystatements/Statement4024/

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/judge-warned-over-misconduct-in-own-divorce-proceedings

But this NOT a loss! This is often the outcome and getting your costs is the biggie!

Well done.

What about Mazur? Was he not bothered that their WS was signed by an unqualified person? 

How does he expect you to defend, when there was no breach alleged in the POC?

Did he say their WS stands as the 'detailed particulars' or did he order them to send further particulars to you first, and then you'll have a deadline to defend?

Taiko

Their WS stands as the detailed particulars. Standard non-POFA Horizon, claimant already had the Google Timeline showing I was driving 1.5 miles away during. 

Made challenges in my N244 about the PCN amount discrepancy, which were not addressed in their WS, nor was anything relating to my other correspondence with them pre-action. Redacted WS from Elise Davies here, so neither claim form nor WS was not signed by a solicitor based on what is seen. 

https://jumpshare.com/s/3fpkF4WBawijaR1KEAKn

Coupon-mad

You have quite a bit to attack in your defence with this one. But this angle is not correct:

neither claim form nor WS was not signed by a solicitor

Elise Davies is a solicitor (and Gladstones claims are signed by a solicitor), so forget the Mazur angle.

But if they had your Google timeline and if you told them that you weren't driving in an early appeal with that timeline as evidence (before litigation) then they have continued to pursue you - the keeper who wasn't driving - unlawfully.

Hmmm...if I were you, I would be tempted to tack onto the bottom of the defence, a properly pleaded counterclaim for, say £300 - a counterclaim costs you a £35 fee - as a remedy for significant distress arising from:

(a)  data abuse (breach of the DPA 2018) as they continued to process keeper data after they knew you were not driving, and

(b). they lied in the POC about the PCN amount and about being able to pursue you as keeper, and

(c). This conduct is a 'misleading action' (breach of the DMCC Act 2024) because the POC tried to claim £10 + £70 more than was on the sign, which exaggerated quantum also breaches the POFA Schedule 4 'maximum sum' that can be claimed, and

(d). Elise's WS (which now stands as the Claim POC) includes some untruths which mislead the court & Defendant at least twice. It says the C issued 'statutory notices' but that could only mean a POFA 2012 compliant NTK. Other ordinary notices, such as invoices capable only of driver liability, are not 'statutory' by any stretch of the imagination! Horizon never used POFA wording until 2025. Like several operators, they actively chose to operate outside of Schedule 4.

Now, that sort of NTK is OK (it's not void) but it means:

i)  they could never invoke registered keeper liability, which is something the C and their solicitor knew, or should have known, AND these were not 'statutory notices' at all.

ii). there is a second misleading action: Elise (the solicitor, who has signed under a Statement of Truth in a document now accepted by a judge as the POC) says that the C obtained DVLA data 'under POFA procedures' (words to that effect) but that is untrue and set to mislead.

Dragging you to court twice (a second hearing will be needed) is unlawful, harassing, time-wasting and has wrecked your peace of mind for months as well as wrecking your credit rating. This is a course of conduct of harassment of the wrong person for a debt that you (keeper) could not have owed. This was compounded by the fact your mortgage was due to go through in September 2025 in the midst of your credit rating being unfairly (you will say, unlawfully) ruined.

Incorrect and unfair/aggressive and unjustified debt pursuit (if there was more than one misleading action by them after they knew you weren't driving, which I think there was?) is harassment ... which lends itself to a counterclaim cause of action, per Ferguson v British Gas. 

In all the circumstances, this must - given the circs that they KNEW you were not driving & this charge could never be pursued against the keeper - meet the high bar under Dammerman (unreasonable conduct).

Thus, in addition to damages under the Counterclaim, you should get your costs plus an uplift to reflect the apparent lies in the 'new' POC. You could suggest that Elise Davies should be called to court to explain herself.

You could try all of the above... or even just the unreasonableness angle without a counterclaim and still ask the court to call her to court. If you want!

She has signed a misleading document, IMHO. She'll wriggle well (she is a solicitor after all) but you might be up for the fight...?

Coupon-mad

Taiko said in the first post:

Afternoon all, been a while although I'm glad to see my old "intellectually malnourished" quote has caught on in my absence! 

Feel comfortable with the rest of the process off the back of winning a case as a lay rep for someone back in 2023. Had this one through for myself, claim dated 16th April, AOS being handled. 

This is possibly the worst PoC I've seen, given that it has no dates, a claim for interest at 8% for £0.00 per day, amount claimed is £0 etc. All they're after is the court fee.

Anyway, just to check, it's still CEL v Chan, with references to CPR 16.4 etc about the inadequacy, that I need to use in the defence submission. After all, I have absolutely no idea what I'm defending or when it happened. 

..and wait... did they send the above claim to the CORRECT address, yet the other one you've just set aside, to the old address? Or did both go to the right address but the real claim went astray?

Which one was filed when? Dates of both? Were both for Horizon?

Taiko

Coupon-mad said:

You have quite a bit to attack in your defence with this one. But this angle is not correct:

neither claim form nor WS was not signed by a solicitor

Elise Davies is a solicitor (and Gladstones claims are signed by a solicitor), so forget the Mazur angle.

But if they had your Google timeline and if you told them that you weren't driving in an early appeal with that timeline as evidence (before litigation) then they have continued to pursue you - the keeper who wasn't driving - unlawfully.

Hmmm...if I were you, I would be tempted to tack onto the bottom of the defence, a properly pleaded counterclaim for, say £300 - a counterclaim costs you a £35 fee - as a remedy for significant distress arising from:

(a)  data abuse (breach of the DPA 2018) as they continued to process keeper data after they knew you were not driving, and

(b). they lied in the POC about the PCN amount and about being able to pursue you as keeper, and

(c). This conduct is a 'misleading action' (breach of the DMCC Act 2024) because the POC tried to claim £10 + £70 more than was on the sign, which exaggerated quantum also breaches the POFA Schedule 4 'maximum sum' that can be claimed, and

(d). Elise's WS (which now stands as the Claim POC) includes some untruths which mislead the court & Defendant at least twice. It says the C issued 'statutory notices' but that could only mean a POFA 2012 compliant NTK. Other ordinary notices, such as invoices capable only of driver liability, are not 'statutory' by any stretch of the imagination! Horizon never used POFA wording until 2025. Like several operators, they actively chose to operate outside of Schedule 4.

Now, that sort of NTK is OK (it's not void) but it means:

i)  they could never invoke registered keeper liability, which is something the C and their solicitor knew, or should have known, AND these were not 'statutory notices' at all.

ii). there is a second misleading action: Elise (the solicitor, who has signed under a Statement of Truth in a document now accepted by a judge as the POC) says that the C obtained DVLA data 'under POFA procedures' (words to that effect) but that is untrue and set to mislead.

Dragging you to court twice (a second hearing will be needed) is unlawful, harassing, time-wasting and has wrecked your peace of mind for months as well as wrecking your credit rating. This is a course of conduct of harassment of the wrong person for a debt that you (keeper) could not have owed. This was compounded by the fact your mortgage was due to go through in September 2025 in the midst of your credit rating being unfairly (you will say, unlawfully) ruined.

Incorrect and unfair/aggressive and unjustified debt pursuit (if there was more than one misleading action by them after they knew you weren't driving, which I think there was?) is harassment ... which lends itself to a counterclaim cause of action, per Ferguson v British Gas. 

In all the circumstances, this must - given the circs that they KNEW you were not driving & this charge could never be pursued against the keeper - meet the high bar under Dammerman (unreasonable conduct).

Thus, in addition to damages under the Counterclaim, you should get your costs plus an uplift to reflect the apparent lies in the 'new' POC. You could suggest that Elise Davies should be called to court to explain herself.

You could try all of the above... or even just the unreasonableness angle without a counterclaim and still ask the court to call her to court. If you want!

She has signed a misleading document, IMHO. She'll wriggle well (she is a solicitor after all) but you might be up for the fight...?

Apologies, probably worded badly. I knew ED was a solicitor, and that Mazur did not apply. Quick timeline:

16th April 2025 - Claim form with formatting error issued. This was received at my address. I have lived here since 2011, and the vehicle has only ever been registered to my name at this address. 

30th April 2025 - Letter from G/S about erroneous form, stating they will look to issue a new claim

8th May 2025 - I issue written response stating that it is unclear what they are pursuing, be it overstay, disabled bay etc. I requested all details about what they were after. No reply was ever received. 

11th June 2025 - New claim form issued with same address details as original. This does not arrive. Appeared to be possible postal issues at the time. I have private medical insurance with an excess through work, and had apparently been sent an invoice from a provider due to the amount not yet meeting the new annual excess. This has been sent 2nd June, but never arrived. This was accepted at set-aside today of evidence of postal issues. 

16th July 2025 - Default judgment obtained. This letter from CNBC did arrive. 

31st July 2025 - Emailed G/S seeking consent to set-aside, given non receipt of claim form. Still unaware of actual breach having not seen any other paperwork. Included copy of Google Timeline for date in question, which showed travel from where the car park was located to another locating, via driving, 1.5 miles away. No response obtained.

21st August 2025 - N244 submitted

2nd January 2026 - Claimant WS rec'd by email from a paralegal at G/S. This is the first I recall seeing the original NTK. 

I don't recall telling G/S or anyone that I was not the driver. Only images of the car were these: 



I do the majority of the driving in this car, but some is also done by my girlfriend. Day in question around this time of breach suggests pubs and a board game lounge bar were driven to, within the time period allegedly parked. 

Location shows was there until 8pm, driving from there to a chinese takeaway which arrived at 8:12. I recall we do reenter the Tesco as the decision to get from this specific takeaway was spur of the moment, we knew it was cash only, and that Tesco had a cashpoint that was on route. It's a double dip. 

All I can add right now, and will update further once I've slept a bit, is that I'm not 100% certain which of us drank that day and which of us drove. 

Coupon-mad

OK, so a double dip all along! The operator failed to carry out the human checks needed to avoid erroneous ANPR auto-issued PCNs.

You cannot be liable and they should never have had your data. No 'reasonable cause'. 

Taiko

Quick one, as two weeks post hearing still not actually received the order, but defence was submitted within oral timescales.

Set-aside fee has not yet been repaid to me, but think they were given 21 days so shall hold a bit longer. I had emailed GS to advise on the 17th, but got a reply of that they'd review the order upon receipt. Speaking via telephone to the courts, the order itself might not have actually been fully written up yet, with the deadline for payment being the 5th Feb.

At least this is what I assume, even in the absence of the sealed order? Or does the 21 days apply to them from the date that is issued by the court, given they did not attend or send a rep.

Coupon-mad

So you attended your CCJ set aside hearing and successfully got the CCJ set aside and your costs as well, as confirmed orally by the judge?

Nice.

And you were told to defend the case within 14 days, which you did?

To be fair they can't comply with an Order they haven't had yet. You will have to be patient!