County Court claim from Gladstones on behalf of Horizon Parking Ltd. discontinued

LookAtTheBrightSide

Hi,
I need your advice please. I had a ccc issued against me recently by Gladstones on behalf of Horizon Parking Ltd for an unpaid PCN which to me was non POFA compliant, therefore ignored. Before I had the time to acknowledge the form, they discontinued the claim as they made 'an administrative error ' in the amount claimed (£0.00) and are now harassing me to pay them or they will reissue the claim.
My question is - should I respond telling them to quit harassment or I will make a counterclaim against them or just ignore them, hoping they will leave me alone? How likely are they to reissue the claim and what tricks could I use to get rid of them now and avoid having to deal with a court case?
Many thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

No different than the others like it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81419676/#Comment_81419676

Same advice. 

Gr1pr

Email the LoC response template from the newbies sticky thread in announcements to Gladstones 

Lots of people got these £0.00 or £35 claims, which are being discontinued 

Yes they will do what their client tells them to do, so yes they will reissue the claim   ( its not harassment and a counter claim for harassment wont succeed  )

There are no tricks, it will happen,  so you will have to deal with a court claim,  same as all the other cases 

Coupon-mad

Which is dead easy!

Johnersh

Tempting to write back and say it's not an administrative error but their negligent failure to plead the claim properly. Neither you nor their client should be responsible for the costs of the wasted issue fee.

It is if course up to their client as to whether to issue fresh proceedings (and whether to entrust Gladstones again with doing so).
  

Car1980

Dear Gladstones

I find the irony of you making an incompetent boob in attempting to punish people for their own parking errors very amusing.

We all had a good laugh about it on the MSE forum.

Try to adhere to MoneyClaim's
clearly stated terms and conditions in future.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Coupon-mad said:

Which is dead easy!

Coupon-mad said:

No different than the others like it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81419676/#Comment_81419676

Same advice. 

Hi Coupon-mad, 

I would be grateful for your expert advice...

I have received a new CC for an alleged parking contravention that took place in Dec 2023 from Gladstones on behalf of Horizon Parking LTD.

I haven't done my acknowledgment online yet as I only received the letter a few days ago but I would like to email my defence as soon as I acknowledge it, because I don't want it to drag (I've got holidays booked up for August).

I would be grateful if you could have a look at my drafted paragraph 6 and let me know if it's ok. I followed your advice on new wording and used the updated version from 2024 for the previous paragraphs.
The POC are as follows:
The driver of the vehicle ****** (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at TESCO ******. on 16/12/2023 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £80 for the PCN, £70 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £16.84 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.03 per day.

My drafted response:

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

6.  The Defendant chose to ignore the PCN as it appeared to be non-POFA compliant and delivered as a photographic evidence on 7th January2024 - three weeks after the alleged contravention. The Defendant, however, was not the driver and couldn’t name the driver on the date stated on the PCN, therefore denies liability. The Defendant couldn't have noticed any “terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’)” therefore did not enter into a contract. The defendant usually shops at Tesco Finchley Superstore where the signage with time limit is clearly visible at the entrance to the car park. The Defendant has also parked in this particular car park before while shopping at Tesco, but was unaware of parking restrictions in place. If there was any signage, it was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions for whoever was driving the Defendant's car that day.

I know that the POC don't mention the specifics, but the original PCN was for exceeding the time limit (without specifying what the time limit was) so I'm not sure whether I wrote too much.

Many thanks in advance for your invaluable advice!

Car1980

Please start your own fresh thread.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Car1980 said:

Please start your own fresh thread.

But it was my original thread. The previous CC was discontinued but I now received a new one and need advice on the defence. 

Coupon-mad

OK carry on here but edit your thread title and the first post to only talk about this claim and which parking firm & solicitor it is from.

What's the issue date?

I'd remove this unnecessary bit:

"The defendant usually shops at Tesco Finchley Superstore where the signage with time limit is clearly visible at the entrance to the car park. The Defendant has also parked in this particular car park before while shopping at Tesco, but was unaware of parking restrictions in place"

LookAtTheBrightSide

Coupon-mad said:

OK carry on here but edit your thread title and the first post to only talk about this claim and which parking firm & solicitor it is from.

What's the issue date?

I'd remove this unnecessary bit:

"The defendant usually shops at Tesco Finchley Superstore where the signage with time limit is clearly visible at the entrance to the car park. The Defendant has also parked in this particular car park before while shopping at Tesco, but was unaware of parking restrictions in place"

Thanks @Coupon-mad - I removed the bit you'd highlighted and started a new thread on this one to make things easier.