Support needed – Claim Form received for PCN (already AOS’d)

JackR1

Hi all,

I’m new to this and really need some support after receiving a County Court Claim Form today regarding a private parking charge from Horizon Parking.

I’ve been reading as much as I can on the forum, but I’ll admit it’s a lot to take in. I’m determined to fight this but could use some guidance to make sure I don’t miss anything important.

---

Background

• I was abroad due to family sickness and bereavement when the initial PCN/NTK was issued, so my 28-day appeal window lapsed.

• Because of this, I also couldn’t go through POPLA.

• I then ignored the debt collector letters (as advised on here – no point engaging).

• Today I received the Claim Form (copy below).

• In my eagerness, I have already submitted the AOS via MCOL (only today realised I should have waited until day 5).

---

Circumstances of the PCN

• Location: Petrol station forecourt (with jet wash & automatic car wash).

• I paid for both the jet wash and the automatic car wash (payment shown on bank statements).

• There was a queue for both services, so my total time on site exceeded the 20-minute parking limit.

• I wasn’t using the “customer car park” but was either queuing, using the jet wash, or in the car wash.

• I queried this inside the shop, where the attendant told me:

  “We don’t have a reg entry system here, you’ll be fine if you’re just using the car wash.” (Sadly I can’t prove that conversation).

• The signage only mentions a 20-minute limit but doesn’t make clear whether “washing your car” or “queuing for the car wash” is considered parking. I suspect they just use ANPR entry/exit times and treat all time on site as “parking”.

---

Initial PCN/NTK (Question on Keeper Liability)

I’ve attached/quoted the NTK below. A couple of things concern me:

1. The NTK says:

   “If, after 28 days, we have not received full payment, we have the right to recover the outstanding charge from the driver and further costs may be incurred in pursuit of the outstanding balance.”

   • Isn’t that wording incorrect? Don’t they already have the right to recover from the driver at any point? Shouldn’t they be specifying keeper liability after 28 days under POFA?

2. POFA Schedule 4, para 9 says:

   “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.”
   But this NTK says: “28 days from the date of this notice”.

3. As the NTK was sent by post, shouldn’t the statutory presumption of delivery (two working days after posting) apply? i.e. their 28 days is miscalculated?

So my question is: Does this NTK even create valid Keeper Liability under POFA, or not?

---

Next Steps

I’ll be going through the forum defence threads carefully and will draft my Defence in the next couple of weeks, but for now I’d be very grateful if someone could:

• Confirm whether the NTK wording appears POFA-compliant or not.

• Confirm whether Keeper Liability actually applies in my case.

Thanks so much for your help — I’ll no doubt be back with lots more questions as I work on my Defence!

Coupon-mad

That is non-compliant with POFA so there is no keeper liability possible here.

Use the special Template Defence for Gladstones cases which is linked in that thread. The one using Chan and Akande.

You can add a sentence to the defence saying the NTK did not comply with the POFA, and denying liability (as long as you never appealed last year admitting to driving, do not comment on who was driving in this defence ... unless you know it wasn't you, in which case, say so).

Also don't miss this: we need you!

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. See this thread: -

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

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

I'm taking a closer look this week. There won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on. 

1505grandad

The sign and pcn state charge of £85 but the claim is for £95 plus £70  - I think there is another similar case recently?

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

The sign and pcn state charge of £85 but the claim is for £95 plus £70  - I think there is another similar case recently?

Yes, more than one. All Horizon.

JackR1

Thanks so much for your responses. I guess drafting the defence will be a lot more straight forward than I initially envisioned. I have never appealed or interacted at any stage, so the driver has never been identified.

I will try and draft the defence sometime next week and post my custom paragraphs here, so hopefully someone is able to review it.

Thanks again for all your input. 

Coupon-mad

JackR1 said:

Thanks so much for your responses. I guess drafting the defence will be a lot more straight forward than I initially envisioned. I have never appealed or interacted at any stage, so the driver has never been identified.

I will try and draft the defence sometime next week and post my custom paragraphs here, so hopefully someone is able to review it.

Thanks again for all your input. 

You're only writing one short paragraph and the Template Defence already tells everyone what to put. And we've just told you the extra line to add. This'll take half an hour, max.

No drafting needed. 

Then please stick around:

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post, openly telling everyone what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background.

However, people like you have lived & breathed the intimidation, greed and unfairness first hand so your voice is needed!

JackR1

I believe I have the Defence ready to be posted on MCOL, but would be very grateful if someone could check the few lines that I actually added

I have obviously used the full 10 paragraph template defence and added a couple of lines at the end of paragraph 2 + the paragraph 3 template for Gladstone cases using Chan and Akande.

... and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events considering well over 16 months have passed and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper.

As the driver has never been identified, the Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper. However, the Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) fails to comply with several requirements under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), notably:

-       Failing to warn the keeper that the creditor has the right to recover from the keeper if all applicable conditions under the Schedule are met under Paragraph 9(2)(f);

-       Misstating the 28-day statutory period in Paragraph 9(2)(f);

-       Failing to specify the actual date of posting, in breach of Paragraph 9(2)(i).

As such, the Claimant cannot lawfully pursue keeper liability under POFA.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

Coupon-mad

Good but you forgot the extra point posted above!

JackR1

I assume you are referring to the different PCN amounts. I included the following in paragraph 1.

...The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Also PCN on the Claimants own signage was £85, whereas the Claimant claims £95 for the PCN in their PoC. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene....

Coupon-mad

Perfect!  

JackR1

Great, thanks for checking! Defence submitted.