Horizon parking (TESCO) court documents arrived.

Dan_Barns

Hi all 

I've been through this before however a good few years ago and need a few pointers to get me on track to defend this one please. 

Tesco car park 55 pound invoice issued via post. I overstayed by a few hours and then got bombarded with letters. Car is on camera leaving at the times specified. 
Started off at 55 pound then 70 then 100 and now within the first letter of the documents (from Northampton) it states:

''the driver of the vehicle ****** (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'contract') at TESCO ******* on ******* 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 
£55 for the PCN, £70 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £13.29 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, continuing at £0.03 per day''
Total amount: 223.29

I will respond to this with a tick in the box of 'I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form' and then submit my defence separately as per last time i went through this process (and won). 

Would appreciate if anyone could let me know on what points to concentrate on specifically to this case as this is slightly different to the other one I defended (in 2020), however my last one was also Horizon + Gladstones solicitors 

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Very easy to defend using the template but you may want to wait as I will be shortening it this week and changing the advice to tell people to put the defence in in MCOL not by email. 

Gr1pr

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below 

Also post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first , or take a redacted picture of the lower half of the claim form after hiding the VRM details and also the password too

It seems to me that the POC above do not specify the actual breach, so you want to adapt the Chan and Akande defence template,  removing the out of date paragraphs about the DLUHC etc

Have a look at other recent Gladstone claims on here too, see what they wrote , like this Chan and Akande one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6614896/help-with-a-review-please#latest

The extra £70 is usually objected to, and thrown out

Might be a good idea to post pictures of the signage below too

Dan_Barns

thanks coupon - could you let me know where the template is? I will wait for the new updated version as well! In the meantime I'll get this letter sent out with the box ticked only.

Gr1pr

Login online and complete the AOS on MCOL,  not by post,  providing that it's between 5 and 19 days after the issue date first 

Coupon-mad

Dan_Barns said:

thanks coupon - could you let me know where the template is? I will wait for the new updated version as well! In the meantime I'll get this letter sent out with the box ticked only.

It's in the thread called Template Defence but I will update it tomorrow before my hols. Working on it tonight

Umkomaas

You could write to Tesco, telling them that Horizon are suing you through the county court and you will wish to call Tesco as a witness. Ask them to let you know who will represent them and the dates in the next 6 months when they will be available. All bluff, but it might just encourage them to tell Horizon to get off your case. All it takes is an email marked as 'URGENT - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IMMINENT'.

1505grandad

"Tesco car park 55 pound invoice issued via post."

"THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £55 for the PCN"

Just checking  -  what was the discounted figure they stated on the invoice?

Coupon-mad

LOL at them trying to justify a 'DRA fee' of £70 to collect £55!

Dan_Barns

Hi All, is this an okay defence? I used the latest one and then the rest of the template

DEFENCE

 

 

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

 

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

 

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

 

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 and driver.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

 

8.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

 

9. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

 

10. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’’

 

11.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

 

12.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

 

13. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Dan_Barns

1505grandad said:

"Tesco car park 55 pound invoice issued via post."

"THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £55 for the PCN"

Just checking  -  what was the discounted figure they stated on the invoice?

hi sorry didn't see this, i think the discounted rate was 40