Iceland - para 3

Umkomaas

Is it too late to amend it now? 

In theory no, but, with permission from the Claimant it will cost you £123; without permission £313. 

Leave the facts about being the driver and an Iceland customer for your Witness Statement. 

Coupon-mad

qwertyoffice said:

The claimant is Horizon Parking Ltd, and the legal representative is Gladstones.

I had to file it on the 29th so sent what I posted above already!
I completely forgot about the below!

Is it too late to amend it now? 

"On the date in question, the Defendant recalls parking at the location in order to shop at Iceland. The Defendant did not see any clear signage at the entrance or at the location where the vehicle was parked that communicated any terms regarding a parking charge, let alone a £90 charge or the purported £70 contractual costs now being claimed. The area appeared to permit customer parking and no notice was given at the time that a contravention had occurred. The Defendant did not knowingly agree to any contractual terms and disputes that a fair or enforceable contract was formed."

Yes, it's too late. Does it matter? No.

You will include that detail in your WS.

By the way, at Iceland Chelmsford were the signs for £80 yet the claim pleads the PCN as £90?

Can you get site photos as evidence?

Or do you have the original PCN?

We keep seeing Gladstones Horizon claims pleaded as £10 higher than was on the contract (the sign) which is an abuse of the court process and you can add that to your witness statement.

Gladstones also advertise 'fronting' the court fees and their staff write & sign the WS themselves, so these claims look to offend against the doctrine of champerty. In the context of the parking industry that's a very questionable model...

qwertyoffice

@Coupon-mad Sorry for not replying sooner, I forgot all about this when I filed my defence.
Yes, you're right, they are claiming £90 for the PCN but the sign at Iceland says £85 - this is even shown in their witness statement photos!

The court case is on 14th of April and I have just received Gladstones witness statement dated 31st of March and their trial bundle dated 2nd of April separately.

They note that they will not be attending the hearing and requested the court excuses their attendance and that the claim be decided in their absence.

I see that I should have sent my witness statement 14 days prior and I am now too late to send it.
However, as mentioned above I have only just received theirs!

Do I still prepare a witness statement to take to the court? Any advice is much appreciated - thank you!

Gr1pr

Yes, you get your WS plus Exhibits bundle done ASAP and get it emailed to Gladstones and also to the court, tomorrow ( take copies with you on the hearing date too )

Coupon-mad

You don't just prepare it, you must get it done & emailed with exhibits. Surely you were expecting this stage? WS and exhibits are covered in some detail in the NEWBIES thread post 2.

Over 6 months ago I reminded you (above) "you can add that to your witness statement" so you gave had months to read up on this stage & draft something robust.

So get that done tonight. Copy other Gladstones Horizon ones by searching the forum.

YOU MUST SEND A WS.

YOU MUST ATTEND THE HEARING.

If you don't, you can get hammered with the other side's costs.

qwertyoffice

Thanks, I will do my WS today but I am searching "Gladstones Horizon" for a WS to refer to but cannot find one?

Gr1pr

Use the following phrase in the search box

Another one bites the dust Gladstones

Or

Another one bites the dust Gladstones Horizon

Filter the results to show from 1st August 2025 to today

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81956006#Comment_81956006

But that search would give you hundreds of results so yes, you have found lots. You just have to sit down and scroll through the results. A thread with a recent WS is not going to jump off the page, you have to skim read the results when you search.

You are changing the results to sort NEWEST (not 'best match' which is useless)?

You were encouraged to get this done & emailed off today so we hoped you did the search, trawled through and found what you needed last night.

THIS IS URGENT AND A VITAL STAGE.

Your WS will have to be done tonight now.

qwertyoffice

Is this WS ok please? I have used a combination of an old WS I used before and a new one from the forum - thank you!

1.  I, ####### of ######, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

3.  I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Defective Particulars of Claim

4.  The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that “the driver of the vehicle with registration XXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage”. However, the Claimant provides no information on the specific terms said to have been breached, the conduct that allegedly broke those terms, or how any contract was formed. This absence of essential detail fails to justify the claim and has also made it difficult for me to respond to it effectively in my defence.

5.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent and persuasive Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The POC seen here in my case are far worse than the ones seen on the below Appeals).

6. The first persuasive Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (Exhibit OW-01) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 that “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”. 

7.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. A copy of the transcript of HHJ Evans’ judgement is included in Exhibit OW-02.

Sequence of events8. On the date in question, the Defendant recalls parking at the location in order to shop at Iceland. The Defendant did not see any clear signage at the entrance or at the location where the vehicle was parked that communicated any terms regarding a parking charge, let alone a £90 charge or the purported £70 contractual costs now being claimed. The area appeared to permit customer parking and no notice was given at the time that a contravention had occurred. The Defendant did not knowingly agree to any contractual terms and disputes that a fair or enforceable contract was formed.9. In the sparse/generic POC in this case compared to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement, my alleged lack of intelligence was not pleaded; certainly not an embarrassing and unjustified accusation about my intelligence and ability to understand my own defence, no matter how I researched it, to which I take offence and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush defying any reasonable explanation.Unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs. It is not a paralegal's place to suddenly attack me with bald assertions and hypocritically using their own template for their Witness Statement.Further, I ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the so-called witness statement of the paralegal who has most likely never been to the car park in question.  The person making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor are they even an employee of the Claimant.  The court requires the witness statements of the 'parties' and there is nothing from the Claimants themselves, who are also unlikely to attend the hearing.

10. If the Claimant's Witness Statement is allowed to stand, and bears scrutiny at the hearing, naturally I believe that less weight should be given to it than to my own account.

The ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms)

11. ParkingEye overcame the possibility of their £85 charge being dismissed as punitive, however the Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach (Exhibit OW-03).

12. Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a legitimate

interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.

13. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. Nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests (See Exhibit OW-04 for paragraphs of ParkingEye v Beavis).13A. I also note a clear inconsistency in the Claimant’s case as to the amount of the parking charge itself. The Particulars of Claim seek £90 as the principal parking charge, yet the Claimant’s own witness statement and the images of the signage exhibited by them state that the parking charge was £85. If the Claimant’s case is that a contract was formed by signage, then the only charge capable of being incorporated into any such contract would be the charge actually shown on the signs. The Claimant has produced no proper explanation for this discrepancy. I say this inconsistency undermines both the clarity of the alleged terms and the reliability of the Claimant’s pleaded case as to quantum.

14. In the alternative, if the Claimant alleges signage was present, I aver that the small signs had vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver. Consequently, it remains my position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge,

include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded;

and

(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound. It was unsurprising that she did not see the sign, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the

parking space'' (NB: when parking operator Claimants cite Vine, they often mislead courts by quoting out of

context, Roch LJ's words about the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio).

15. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies. In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC,

observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another,there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved - it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." If the Claimant alleges a sign was present, my position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

POFA and CRA breaches

16. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation').

17. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA'). The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

18. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signs must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. If the Claimant alleges signage was present, I aver that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith

Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR19. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.

20. I further aver the Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new Code shows that genuine disputes such as this - even if the facts were narrowed later - would have seen the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair ADR was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and would have rejected almost any dispute.In any event, the Claimant is put to strict proof as to how £90 is said to arise where their own signage evidence states £85

21. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two wellknown ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98,100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores

Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt

payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.

22. My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

23. It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including Britannia, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years. And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along. As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit OW-05) where she went into great detail about this abuse.

24. The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth. This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover. The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating (for the avoidance of doubt) the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court, would be welcomed to bring muchneeded clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

25. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made. Evidence – including unclear signage and Codes of Practice - was either ignored, even when in evidence at both

hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control

of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings / annual leave (Capped)

Defendant had to take one day of Annual Leave to attend the Court Hearing

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Litigant in Person Costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g) – If Awarded)

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, examining the Claimant’s evidence, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £24/hour.

- 12 hours research + preparation × £24/hour = £288.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £288.00

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £95.00

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £383.00

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.

I'd remove 22-25 which are out of date (there is no DLUHC now and the Labour Govt are about to relaunch the statutory Code later this year).

Replace it with the words about HHJ Moloney's judgment at Cambridge in ParkingEye v Beavis, as seen in the recent WS by @JackR1 (and attach the HHJ Moloney transcript as an exhibit).