Horizon, Gladstones court claim 2025

Liolion1987 · 23 July at 8:56AM

Coupon-mad said:

Liolion1987 said:

DE_612183 said:

1. It's not a fine.
2. Have you read the newbies thread?
3. Have you complained to Iceland?

Hello, yes i read newbies but i never complained to Iceland, can i still complain?
Thanks

After you've put in the defence.

Show us your draft including brief paragraphs about Chan & Akande.

I found this defence and changed just they sum and the date.
I delete the links because i need to be here little bit longer to post the links
Thank you @Coupon-mad

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the
allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability
for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the
Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,
there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable
consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver
breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the
test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for
prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and
paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of
fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this
Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the
limited information available, this case appears to be no
different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with
contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right
to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.
However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its
powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is
not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant
does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/12/2023, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and
driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable
and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The
quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £178.57 on private land)
and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant no longer has the
parking ticket in question. The Defendant has parked in this car
park many times while shopping in the local area and has always
purchased and displayed a parking ticket. The Defendant believes
on the on the day of the allegation that the parking machine wasn't working.

4. 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).

5. 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'.

6. 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'.
public
f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. 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)).’
Schedule

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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))'.

Coupon-mad · 23 July at 12:46PM

Yes but you need to search the forum for the Chan and Akande cases and wording.

Liolion1987 · 25 July at 12:36PM

Hi,tried to correct it,is this look ok now? @Coupon-mad

1. 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:

2. 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.

3. 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

3.1 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is

not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant

does not accept that a contravention occurred on 23/12/2023, as

alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and

driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable

and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The

quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £178.57 on private land)

and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.2 Due to the length of time, the Defendant no longer has the

parking ticket in question. The Defendant has parked in this car

park many times while shopping in the local area and has always

purchased and displayed a parking ticket. The Defendant believes

on the on the day of the allegation that the parking machine wasn't working.

4. 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).

5. 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'.

6. 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'.

public consultation =

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-o

f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. 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)).’

Schedule4 = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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))'.

Coupon-mad · 25 July at 2:42PM

Remove 6 and 10 and it should fit into MCOL. However, haven't you lost the template defence para 4? Add that back in.

Renumber everything. No 3.1, 3.2 etc. Normal numbers.

Liolion1987 · 28 July at 8:31AM

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 6 and 10 and it should fit into MCOL. However, haven't you lost the template defence para 4? Add that back in.

Renumber everything. No 3.1, 3.2 etc. Normal numbers.

Morning @c@Coupon-mad, i removed 6 and 10 paragraphs. Renumbered , just don't understand about my template defence para 4. Did i remove something in para 4?
Thank you again!

1505grandad · 28 July at 8:53AM

" Did i remove something in para 4? "

You missed the whole of the template para 4 - begins:-

"4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract......."

In fact there seems to be other sleight differences - have you gone back to the the Template Defence which has been very recently updated?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

Liolion1987 · 28 July at 9:13AM

1505grandad said:

" Did i remove something in para 4? "

You missed the whole of the template para 4 - begins:-

"4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract......."

In fact there seems to be other sleight differences - have you gone back to the the Template Defence which has been very recently updated?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025/p1

Thank you!

Liolion1987 · 28 July at 9:56AM

Is this looks okay @1505grandad ?
Thank you