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

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

LookAtTheBrightSide said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Just fill in the dq online and email it today with your new address 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

When you have filled the form and saved it at the top of the form write on it your new address so its obvious using a free pdf editor like sedja

That's great, thanks! How do I know the name of the court if I haven't received their letter and it might not be the same court as in the original letter (to write at the top of the form)? Also, what's the email address I'm sending it to? 
Sorry for all the questions but I'm on my way back home today and no access to a computer to check all the info but want to be ready to deal with it first thing tomorrow. 
Many, many thanks!

It came from the CNBC.

This is already covered - with the exact email address - in the first 8 steps in the Template Defence thread. Read those steps again.

Also draw attention to your new address by repeating it again in the body of your email, and cc in the solicitors for the Claimant. 

Phone calls are no good. Do the above.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Hi peeps,
Could someone please have a look at my WS that is due in 2 days and tell me if it all makes sense? @Coupon-mad I'm counting on your kindness and expertise to help me out here, for some reason I've been really struggling to put this together, much more than the defence...

Witness Statement No: One    

 

               IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxx

CLAIM NO: xxx

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)  

               

V

 

xxx  (Defendant)               

 

 

 

     WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

 

 

I, xxx of xxx, am the Defendant against whom this claim is made, and I was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the date of the alleged event.  

 

INTRODUCTION

1.The facts and matters set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own direct experience, unless otherwise stated. 

2.Throughout this statement I will refer to exhibits contained within this witness statement as evidence, referring to page and reference numbers where necessary. This statement is intended to stand as evidence in chief at the hearing.

I am a litigant in person with no formal training, and no formal legal representation. I have done my utmost to present my case and supporting evidence clearly and truthfully.

I make this statement in support of my Defence submitted on xxx/2025 and I will say as follows:

 

Preliminary Matter; The claim should be struck out 

 

3. As a preliminary point, I draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant’s  witness statement appears to have been signed by a solicitor with no personal involvement in the events, and therefore carries little evidential weight.

 

4. The Claimant has also elected not to attend the hearing, ensuring this weak, second-hand evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination. 

 

5. Given this non-compliance, I respectfully invite the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) for failure to adhere to the relevant rules and practice directions. 

 

6.   I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to two very recent and persuasive appeal decisions which support the striking out of claims of this nature. Considering the Overriding Objective, I submit that this baseless claim ought properly to be dismissed. Bulk-issuing litigators are aware of the Practice Directions and yet persist in submitting vague, template-based pleadings. Where claimants continue to adopt this approach, they cannot reasonably be surprised when the Court exercises its powers under CPR 3.4 to strike out such defective claims, as has already been established in persuasive case law. 

 

7. The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (Exhibit JK- 1).  

 

8. The second persuasive authority is Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30). In a judgment given on 10 May 2024, HHJ Evans confirmed that Particulars of Claim must set out the essential facts upon which the claimant relies to prove their case. (Exhibit JK- 2). 

 

9. In my submission, this claim should have been rejected at the outset by the Civil National Business Centre. The claimant, a legally represented parking company, has knowingly failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Particulars of Claim lack any meaningful detail, failing even to specify the alleged contractual term said to have been breached. Indeed, these PoCs are less specific than those already struck out in Chan and Akande, leaving no coherent factual basis for the cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.

 

10. Furthermore, in the Particulars of Claim ‘THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £80 for the PCN’
 but as per the claimant’s own photographic evidence in their witness statement, the Parking Charge Notice is £70 and in their Schedule of losses the Claimant claims ‘The sum of £70.00 in respect of the unpaid PCN (‘The Principal Debt’)’ 

11.These discrepancies at this stage are unacceptable and bring the Claimant’s credibility further into question.

 

Factual Background of the alleged incident 

 

12. I deny liability as a driver as I was not the driver on the date of the alleged incident. I had people staying at my place around Christmas who were authorised by me to use the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention via their own comprehensive insurance policies, which allowed them to use another private vehicle for which they were covered on a third party only basis. I do not know who was driving and I am not required to name them by law (Exhibit JK- 5).

 

13. I deny liability as a keeper due to the Claimant issuing a NTK that did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4 (Exhibit JK- 3) or in the date served. In fact, I remember distinctly when I received the letter with the NTK as it was an unpleasant surprise on the first weekend of 2024. It was Saturday 06 January 2024 and the letter was dated 27 December 2023, but the envelope was not postmarked. It puzzled me as to why a letter would travel for so long. As the notice to keeper was delivered well outside the statutory14-day period and as I knew I was not the driver on the evening in question, I decided to ignore it. The Claimant’s records of the PCN being sent in time are mentioned in their solicitor’s witness statement, however they fail to include the evidence for it.

 

14. I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to two persuasive cases of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal regarding claim number C0DP9C4E (exhibit JK- 4) and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward on appeal regarding claim H0KF6C9C (exhibit JK- 5) where both claims were dismissed on the basis that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper and the keeper cannot be held liable without the POFA where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving.

I also enclose the link to the POFA 2012 Act. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

Site Details  

15. The entire duration of the visit was during the hours of darkness, evidenced as per Claimant's photograph of my vehicle (exhibit JK- 3) - a fact that is critical to the matter of signage visibility.

 

16. In preparation for this hearing, I have recently visited the Tesco site for my own photographic evidence, which reveals that the Claimant has built its case upon a foundation of misleading, inaccurate evidence, which calls their entire credibility into question. 

 

17. Included in the Claimant's evidence bundle (Exhibit GS-1) is a photograph of a sign with ‘£70 Parking Charge Notice’ written on it and the details of the terms and conditions in much smaller print. I can state with certainty, having personally inspected the site, that this sign does not exist at the entrance to the site. There is a sign positioned on the right hand side after having entered the car park and just before the pedestrian crossing, which is too small to read from the left lane and can be easily missed as the driver needs to concentrate on potential pedestrians (exhibit JK- 6).

18. Additionally, as seen on my photographic evidence (exhibit JK- 7), the lamp on the lamp post is not switched on which suggest the likelihood that it was not switched on at the time of the alleged contravention, making the sign even less visible in the hours of darkness. 

19. I submit that the Claimant’s evidence does not demonstrate that the contractual terms were prominently displayed, legible, or accessible to drivers.  

20. Clear and adequate signage is a fundamental requirement for any alleged contract to be enforceable.

 

21. The Claimant is therefore relying on a photograph of a sign that is not located at the entrance of this site, which is a grossly misleading representation of the facts to both me and to the court. 

22.This is a direct breach of the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 1, 'Entrance Signs'), which states that operators "should display entrance signs" where a car park has a defined entrance. Without clear entrance signs, a driver is not given the "Consideration Period" required by the Code to read and accept any terms. 

 

23. The Claimant's own photographic evidence of their signage provided in their Exhibit GS-2 does not strengthen their position as the signs are really small in size and it is not clear what is written on them from the photographs attached.

 

24.The benchmark for fair signage was established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Beavis case is distinguishable because in that situation, the signage was large, bold, and clearly positioned (Exhibit JK- 8). That was not the case here, so the same principles do not apply.

 

25. For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. That was not the case in this instance, especially in low-light conditions with no illuminated signage or road markings. No agreement could have been formed. A driver would need to stop and exit the vehicle in order to read the sign, meaning any alleged contract could not have been formed before parking.

 

26.In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, (Exhibit JK- 9) it was held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms if they had no reasonable opportunity to see them. That principle applies here.

 

27.In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, (JK- 10) the court held that terms must be presented before or at the time of contract formation — not after entry. In this case, signage was not visible or clear enough at entry.  

28.The 'red hand rule' from Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (JK- 11) further supports that any onerous or unusual terms (such as penalty charges) must be made extremely prominent, which they were not in this instance.

 

Conclusion

 

29. In summary, this claim is without merit. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Particulars of Claim are vague, the signage relied upon is inadequate, the NTK is non-POFA 2012 compliant in its wording and the correct serving of the NTK is not properly evidenced.

 

30.The authorities I have referred to, including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande, make it clear that poorly pleaded claims such as this should not proceed. Furthermore, the attempt to impose unfair and disproportionate additional costs is contrary to government guidance and established case law. 

31. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the claim should be struck out or dismissed in its entirety. In addition, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), I ask the Court to consider awarding my costs, as detailed in the attached Schedule of Costs, on the basis that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in pursuing a meritless claim and has caused me unnecessary time and expense in defending it. 

32. I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that: 

- The NTK was non-POFA 2012 compliant in wording and serving

- No valid contract was formed by the driver

- The signage was not sufficiently prominent or clear to meet legal requirements

- The claimant’s evidence is inadequate and does not reflect the actual conditions on-site

- No loss or legitimate interest justifies the charge being pursued

- The Particulars of Claim are deficient and fail to meet the CPR requirements 

 

33. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees. 

 

Statement of Truth:

34. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Signed:

Dated: 

Coupon-mad

That's very good but para 22 cites the wrong Code of Practice. Horizon are in the BPA, not IPC.

And change this heading 'Factual Background of the alleged incident' to instead state your 'silver bullet' point:

No keeper liability: this Claimant chose-not to use POFA 2012 Schedule 4 wording and can only hold a driver liable. I was not driving  

Coupon-mad

You also need to spell out why it isn't a 'keeper liability' compliant notice and stop relying only on the issue date!

The NTK wording is the absolute killer. Explain this very clearly in your WS:

Quote 9(2)f and point out that this mandatory and statutory keeper liability claim/warning is absent, due to Horizon's deliberate choice not to use the POFA until one year ago (early Spring 2025). Before that, this parking operator was one of several who opted not to rely on any semblance of keeper liability, therefore - whilst they are allowed by the DVLA to use a non-POFA worded NTK - they cannot, as a matter of law, pursue a keeper or succeed with this claim.

Can you 'prove' it wasn't you driving,
maybe by adding another family member's witness statement corroborating your stance? Not from the driver obviously! Just someone who was with you at Xmas 2023. It would help but if not, be ready for the judge or the C's third party hired gun rep (who might well attend) to ask you about this fact.

Are you sure and truthful about not driving? This is your 100% nailed on winning point, if the judge isn't minded to strike out the claim based on Chan and Akande.

LookAtTheBrightSide

Coupon-mad said:

You also need to spell out why it isn't a 'keeper liability' compliant notice and stop relying only on the issue date!

The NTK wording is the absolute killer. Explain this very clearly in your WS:

Quote 9(2)f and point out that this mandatory and statutory keeper liability claim/warning is absent, due to Horizon's deliberate choice not to use the POFA until one year ago (early Spring 2025). Before that, this parking operator was one of several who opted not to rely on any semblance of keeper liability, therefore - whilst they are allowed by the DVLA to use a non-POFA worded NTK - they cannot, as a matter of law, pursue a keeper or succeed with this claim.

Can you 'prove' it wasn't you driving,
maybe by adding another family member's witness statement corroborating your stance? Not from the driver obviously! Just someone who was with you at Xmas 2023. It would help but if not, be ready for the judge or the C's third party hired gun rep (who might well attend) to ask you about this fact.

Are you sure and truthful about not driving? This is your 100% nailed on winning point, if the judge isn't minded to strike out the claim based on Chan and Akande.

Thanks a lot @Coupon-mad, I will make the changes and add details about the wording that you suggested.
At this point I will have to rely on my statement only as I need to send it off tomorrow and I have not compiled all the exhibits yet. Cannot find the Beavis sign - could you direct me to a source?  Plus Gladstones have already notified me that they are not going to attend the hearing, which I guess puts me in a stronger position.

1505grandad

Para 30  -  ".... Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande,......"

No "s" on the end of "Service"  -  see your para 8 and the Judgment doc.

Coupon-mad

The source for the ParkingEye v Beavis sign (yellow with £85 in bold) is Google images!

LookAtTheBrightSide

@Coupon-mad Another one bites the dust! The claim got struck out within minutes 😃 AND I was awarded costs for the time spent on research and preparation, as the judge agreed with me that the claimant had acted unreasonably 🤑 Although for me it was never about money, but the principle, it felt really good to win and make these lousy *@$!÷%&$ pay to top up the victory.

I just wanted to thank everyone on here for all the support that I've received to make it a success story!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81896920#Comment_81896920

Woohoo! Nicely done.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Which point convinced the judge?

LookAtTheBrightSide

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81896928#Comment_81896928

The first one! CEL v Chan. She said I've raised more points, but the sparse PoC was enough for her, haha.