County Court claim from Gladstones (on behalf of Horizon Parking Ltd) defence

LookAtTheBrightSide

Hello dear Forumites,

I would be grateful for your expert advice...

I have received a new CC from Gladstones on behalf of Horizon Parking LTD (after the original one was discontinued) for an alleged parking contravention that took place in Dec 2023.

I haven't done my acknowledgment online yet as I've only received the letter a few days ago (the issue is 11 June 2025) but I would like to email my defence as soon as I acknowledge it because I don't want it to drag (I will be moving house soon and I've got holidays booked 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 used the template defence edited in 2024 and included the extra wording in reference to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

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 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 'the Contract'. 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.

Would that be enough? Should I add anything regarding no liability as a keeper?

Many thanks in advance for your invaluable advice!

Report

Coupon-mad

I think that's fine but is "TESCO ******" only showing a town? If yes, is it true that there is more than one Tesco in that town?

If yes than you can add that the POC fails to identify the location of the relevant land and the same error was on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) along with no attempt to include the mandatory keeper liability warning in 9(2)f of Schedule 4 of the POFA. This was de facto a non-POFA NTK in wording and date served.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Coupon-mad said:

I think that's fine but is "TESCO ******" only showing a town? If yes, is it true that there is more than one Tesco in that town?

If yes than you can add that the POC fails to identify the location of the relevant land and the same error was on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) along with no attempt to include the mandatory keeper liability warning in 9(2)f of Schedule 4 of the POFA. This was de facto a non-POFA NTK in wording and date served.

Oh no, the location is identified (unfortunately) I just didn't type it all on here; however, this time there is no signature under the POC - not sure if that's got any importance or changes anything.

Coupon-mad

There's a signature in the other side of the page now.

OK so the second thing i said needs adding. We know they didn't use POFA para 9 wording in 2023.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Coupon-mad said:

There's a signature in the other side of the page now.

OK so the second thing i said needs adding. We know they didn't use POFA para 9 wording in 2023.

Hi, just to make sure it was non POFA before I send the defence, I can now post the pic of the original PCN

Castle

And the back page please.

Castle

You have left a name and address showing on the reminder.

And a PCN reference and VRM showing on the back of the NTK.

Nellymoser

And your pcn no and reg no are showing in How to Pay (black band) on all of your images.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Castle said:

And the back page please.

Here it is

LookAtTheBrightSide

Castle said:

You have left a name and address showing on the reminder.

And a PCN reference and VRM showing on the back of the NTK.

Oh dear! I've corrected it now 

Coupon-mad

You can see it's non-keeper liability because of the last lines on the front page. Easy to spot!