Horizon, Gladstones court claim 2025

Liolion1987

Can you please check @Coupon-mad is it looks good now? Thank you

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. Also PCN on the sign was £85 , but the Claimant are claiming £90. 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.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.  Another 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.

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.

Coupon-mad

Yep, looks good.

Liolion1987

Hello everyone, 
I done my defence 2 days ago  and today i received email from Gladstones solicitors.
Many thanks everyoneHello everyone, 
I done my defence 2 days ago  and today i received email from Gladstones solicitors.
Many thanks everyone

Coupon-mad

Normal. Covered in the first 8 steps you are following from the Template Defence thread.

While your case is quiet, we ask you pleeease to respond to the Public Consultation which is now open for August.

What parking operators do is is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety. If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be a SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that people trust. The sector is crying out for an independent and impartial appeals service - not two involved in a race to the bottom - that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. If there had been an ADR you'd have used it, etc.

b).  THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY THE VULNERABLE PAY. DRAS LIKE GLADSTONES MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE. THEY OFFERED NOTHING, NO LEGITIMATE OPTION TO KEEP YOUR CASE OUT OF COURT.

c). Tell them about your experience and the complete and utter waste of court resources caused on a grand scale by the likes of Gladstones.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month pleeease!

We will discuss it further next week on that thread if you want ideas.

Liolion1987

Coupon-mad said:

Normal. Covered in the first 8 steps you are following from the Template Defence thread.

While your case is quiet, we ask you pleeease to respond to the Public Consultation which is now open for August.

What parking operators do is is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety. If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be a SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that people trust. The sector is crying out for an independent and impartial appeals service - not two involved in a race to the bottom - that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. If there had been an ADR you'd have used it, etc.

b).  THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY THE VULNERABLE PAY. DRAS LIKE GLADSTONES MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE. THEY OFFERED NOTHING, NO LEGITIMATE OPTION TO KEEP YOUR CASE OUT OF COURT.

c). Tell them about your experience and the complete and utter waste of court resources caused on a grand scale by the likes of Gladstones.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month pleeease!

We will discuss it further next week on that thread if you want ideas.

Hello 👋  just finish Public consultation you asked to do. 

Yesterday i received another claim form from Moorside Legal Services Ltd
After five days I will do acknowledged letter
On the letter says that I agreed to pay within 28days, but I never spoke with anyone and there was no any ticket on the window ,this is the second claim form this month.. Does anybody had same problem?
Also When I received letter before claim a month ago I did emailed them two times (please see attached pictures) and they never got back to me. Just got an automated email saying they will get back to me in 5 days.

patient_dream

HORIZON NOW  USING GLADSTONES ???
They have tried other legals on the musical chairs and failed. REAL legals will not touch such claims with a baregepole but Gladstones will ....... of course it was Davies amd HURLEY who set up the IPC/IAS scam,
both from Gladstones.  The Courts know all about Gladstones and so do the SRA

Follow the advice above

Coupon-mad

Hello 👋  just finish Public consultation you asked to do. 

Yesterday i received another claim form from Moorside Legal Services Ltd
After five days I will do acknowledged letter

On the letter says that I agreed to pay within 28days, but I never spoke with anyone and there was no any ticket on the window ,this is the second claim form this month.. Does anybody had same problem?

Also When I received letter before claim a month ago I did emailed them two times (please see attached pictures) and they never got back to me. Just got an automated email saying they will get back to me in 5 days.

"On the letter says that I agreed to pay within 28days, but I never spoke with anyone".

That's not what that sentence means at all! Think about what that actually means in contract law, relying on parking conduct where signs are up. Then forget it. Means nothing.

But this new claim is about a different location, different solicitor (and possibly a different parking firm) so you need to start a new thread please.

But DON'T post about that nothing sentence. They aren't saying you agreed verbally.

1505grandad

As above  -  make sure the password is redacted.

Taiko

Just a quick one to chirp in on this, but this is another example where the PCN amount on the claim form differs to the amount on the signage, that is for Horizon and submitted by Gladstones. I'm sure there's more, but basing off the set-aside i'm dealing with at the moment for myself elsewhere. 

Is there anything in this with regards to the statement of truth for the POC being knowingly false? Any potential comeback? 

Coupon-mad

Taiko said:

Just a quick one to chirp in on this, but this is another example where the PCN amount on the claim form differs to the amount on the signage, that is for Horizon and submitted by Gladstones. I'm sure there's more, but basing off the set-aside i'm dealing with at the moment for myself elsewhere. 

Is there anything in this with regards to the statement of truth for the POC being knowingly false? Any potential comeback? 

Yes you could try saying that. Any due diligence by a professional law firm would have involved a glance at the contract (the sign in this case) to ensure the claim was correct.

You could also complain to Gladstones now, concisely saying one thing: that you will report them to the SRA for routinely seeking more money in Horizon Parking cases, which means (potentially) EVERY CCJ they've obtained for that client is falsely enhanced.

Whatever they come back with as a reply, report them to the SRA anyway.