Horizon, Gladstones court claim 2025

Liolion1987

Hi there again ,
Sorry got confused what did i miss this time? 
Thanks!

1505grandad

"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

After I posted the above did you actually go to the Template Defence link?  -  for instance in the very first para you state (only quoting beginning but check all and every template paras):-

"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". 

Whereas the template states:-

"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."

Suggest you go through each para and compare.

Le_Kirk

You quite rightly cite Chan & Akande in paragraph #2 but then go on in paragraph #3 to state "a second recent persuasive appeal........."  You haven't mentioned Chan as a "first recent appeal judgment"!  Maybe paragraph #3 can say "Another recent persuasive appeal........"

Liolion1987

1505grandad said:

"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

After I posted the above did you actually go to the Template Defence link?  -  for instance in the very first para you state (only quoting beginning but check all and every template paras):-

"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". 

Whereas the template states:-

"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."

Suggest you go through each para and compare.

Is this better? 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. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to 

intervene.

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. 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. 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 £170 on private land)

and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

6. 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.

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. 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

9. 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).

10. 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).

Gr1pr

Needs renumbering for starters

Coupon-mad

I don't understand what you have removed from the template defence, which you must have done as that is only 10 paragraphs but you have added more than one!

1505grandad

Just seems to keep copying the Defence paras which regulars keep explaining are not the Template Defence!!!

Liolion1987

I edited again,

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.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.

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

Getting there now... but you've missed the important fact that the PCN on the sign was £80 but they are claiming £90.

You'll need to remove para 10 to make it all fit in MCOL's defence box. Perfectly OK to lose.

Liolion1987

Coupon-mad said:

Getting there now... but you've missed the important fact that the PCN on the sign was £80 but they are claiming £90.

You'll need to remove para 10 to make it all fit in MCOL's defence box. Perfectly OK to lose.

Hello,I just checked Iceland parking sign and it shows £85 parking fine and not £90 . Thank you!