We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Claim Form - Horizon Parking
Options
Comments
-
Coupon-mad said:I have researched the CEL v Chan case, would you simply copy and paste the statement as my defence.Well, you will use the Gladstones Defence specially linked in the Template Defence thread with Chan and Akande already written into it.In 2023 Horizon didn't use the statutory (but optional) wording to hold a registered keeper liable, so for your paragraph 6 you can put:6. The location is recognised as a hotel used by the Defendant and family members at various times but it is denied that there was a contravention of any term (not that the woeful POC even hint at what the term, obligation of alleged breach may have been). Gladstones POC always state that they will pursue defendants as 'driver/keeper' but this is boilerplate wording. They fail to state whether or not the Claimant seeks to rely upon the 'keeper liability' provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') and what 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' was purportedly breached by an unidentified driver. There are no specified contractual terms in these POC and no copy of the purported 'contract' (sign) was sent at pre-action stage. Liability is denied and there is certainly no 'keeper liability' possible in this case. The Claimant cannot rely the POFA because in 2023 they did not issue compliant Notices To Keeper. The Defendant is not liable and if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage - as the court is hereby requested to do - they are put to strict proof that the occupants of the car were not authorised patrons of the Travelodge and they will also have to show who was driving.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards