Horizon parking (TESCO) court documents arrived.

Le_Kirk

That doesn't look like the latest template defence as edited by @Coupon-mad on 16 July: -
31 July 2023 at 5:58AM edited 16 July at 8:27AM <<<<LINK

Coupon-mad

Dan_Barns said:

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

No it wasn't, it was no more than £33. Probably £30.

Anyhoo that isn't the Template Defence you were signposted to use. Look again.

Dan_Barns

Thanks i found it now. Struggling with para 3. as i cannot even recall the incident or even if i was driving, which i have stated. Anything else to add there? I need to s submit my defence this week Cheers 

DEFENCE 

 

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

 

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

 

3. The defendant cannot recall if he was driving due to the length of time since the alleged incident.

 

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

 

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

 

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

 

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

 

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... 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'.

 

9. 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.

 

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Gr1pr

A defence is written in the 3rd person,  no ME , MYSELF OR I,  but The defendant 

So study recent paragraph 3 wordings where the defendant is not aware of the circumstances in the POC

Your first post on page 1 doesn't agree with your paragraph 3

You need to remember that 95% is already written for you, so the input required from you is minimal , but you are stating that the defence is true,  so no perjury 

Dan_Barns

Gr1pr said:

A defence is written in the 3rd person,  no ME , MYSELF OR I,  but The defendant 

So study recent paragraph 3 wordings where the defendant is not aware of the circumstances in the POC

Your first post on page 1 doesn't agree with your paragraph 3

You need to remember that 95% is already written for you, so the input required from you is minimal , but you are stating that the defence is true,  so no perjury 

thanks i have changed it and will look at some other defences. Also my post on page 1 just states that i overstayed as per the letters i was receiving. I still cant recall the incident or if i was driving.  

Dan_Barns

Does this look ok? 

DEFENCE

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not
comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts
necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of
action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery
of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not
monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim
also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC')
maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason
for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the
right to amend the defence if details of the contract are
provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its
powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest
should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with
the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper. 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 D trusts that the Court should
strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR

3. The allegations and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest
should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with
the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5).

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but
to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights
Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and
sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'.
Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the
duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that
this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On
the limited information given, this case looks no different. The
Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written
landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict
proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of
the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates,
schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not
an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for
loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any
relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This
PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or
trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully
distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis
(an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and
generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the
binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC
4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only
parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in
paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin
costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135
were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated
letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government
recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring
in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting
money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit
being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... 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'.

9. 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.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an
indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a
third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that
has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases
is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs
(r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small
claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Coupon-mad

How long ago?

Is this a local Tesco that more than one driver of the car used over the years? Say that.

Dan_Barns

Coupon-mad said:

How long ago?

Is this a local Tesco that more than one driver of the car used over the years? Say that.

02/04/24

Yes local Tesco, but didn't go there very often. 

Gr1pr

Dan_Barns said:

Gr1pr said:

Your first post on page 1 doesn't agree with your paragraph 3

 , but you are stating that the defence is true,  so no perjury 

thanks i have changed it and will look at some other defences. Also my post on page 1 just states that i overstayed as per the letters i was receiving. I still cant recall the incident or if i was driving.  

So just an assumption on your part,  not factual  , just believing their allegations by surmising what could have happened !  Better to stay in the dark, no assumptions

Bazarius

Is this genuinely land owned by Tesco? I’ve not seen a single case involving a major supermarket chain since ParkingEye were exposed for claiming they could issue legal proceedings in their own name—only for the Somerfield contract to reveal they didn’t have that authority.