Advice for Defence for overstay at private car park - Horizon Parking & Gladstones

TheRoadToFreedom

Hi Forumites

Newbie here. I'm reaching out for advice on how to write the defence. I've spent the last few days reading through the instructions and other people's journeys.

I've followed the Newbies thread and registered on MCOL and submitted an AoS yesterday (13/10).  The date on the Claim form was 06/10/2025 - I have until 13/11/25 to submit the defence. I am doing this on behalf of my mum but she will be defending it and attending the mediation.

She received a Claim Form from Horizon Parking / Gladstones for an unpaid PCN that was issued on 08/04/2024 at Tesco Express car park. When she initially received the PCN, she appealed it as her car had broken down just as she was parking - it overheated and started steaming and gushing water.

The appeal was rejected. I (she) appealed with Popla and, they too, upheld Horizon's decision. They claimed that " it does not fall in my capacity to cancel a PCN by way of goodwill on behalf of the parking operator. I must recognise the operator has chosen to pursue the charge in this case having considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal and evidence presented to them at the first stage of appeal. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant was observed parked for longer than maximum stay period allowed and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal."

Bit of background: 
When her car broke down, she spoke to one of the employees inside Tesco who said it wouldn't be an issue. She doesn't have any evidence of that - and probably wouldn't even recognise him if she went back to find him. She called a family friend who's a mechanic and he advised her to wait until the car cools down before even attempting to lift the bonnet up. Whilst she was waiting for the car to cool down, she went into Tesco Express and grabbed a few items and went back and sat in the car - she can't recall how long she waited - max wait time is 30 minutes. According to the PCN, she was there for 1 hour 48 minutes - she honestly don't recall how long she spent there as she was flustered and worried about getting back home safely. 

I'm actually really shocked that they are refusing to accept her mitigating circumstances. Even if the car could have been moved, as a 60 year old woman, she didn't stand a chance.

She has already told HP that the car broke down and that she had spoken to staff  about it - which implies that she was the driver. 

Please could someone advise if the following fine for Paragraph 3:

3. The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Tesco car park with the genuine intention of shopping there. As the vehicle was being parked, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted a mechanic for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into Tesco to purchase a bottle of milk and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, an elderly lady of 60, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act.


Thank you

DE_612183

you're making the mistake of assuming that the PPC are in any way interested in anything other than financial gain.

You appeal will fail - the PPC standpoint will be the lady entered into a contract to park for just 60 minutes, then broke that contract and is therefore liable to pay the charge.

You're better off using Plan A - get Tesco to cancel the PCN - of course you can also email your MP as well and perhaps the local newspaper.

 

Le_Kirk

Not sure how you calculated 13/11, I made it as below: - With an issue date of 06/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/11/25

Have a look at Jopson vs Homeguard where the judge said, among other things: -

The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.

Steam coming from under the bonnet certainly counts as a small vicissitude!   Have you found and read the defence template and are you/your Mum going to insert your paragraph #3 into it?  As well as attending the mediation call, she will need to attend the hearing; you can attend with her as McKenzie friend or Lay Rep (Auntie Google will help here).

Le_Kirk

DE_612183 said:

Your appeal will fail - the PPC standpoint will be the lady entered into a contract to park for just 60 minutes, then broke that contract and is therefore liable to pay the charge.

The OP has posted a defence not an appeal.

Coupon-mad

That Defence para 3 would be OK if it wasn't Gladstones. Their cases have poor POC and invoke the pre-written defence about Chan & Akande which it looks like you've missed.

Arrrgh! She'd have won at POPLA if she had come here first. In 2024 Horizon couldn't hold registered keepers liable (chose not to use the POFA) so she could have killed it with one paragraph.

TheRoadToFreedom

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure how you calculated 13/11, I made it as below: - With an issue date of 06/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/11/25

Have a look at Jopson vs Homeguard where the judge said, among other things: -

The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.

Steam coming from under the bonnet certainly counts as a small vicissitude!   Have you found and read the defence template and are you/your Mum going to insert your paragraph #3 into it?  As well as attending the mediation call, she will need to attend the hearing; you can attend with her as McKenzie friend or Lay Rep (Auntie Google will help here).

Thank you for your reply. I realised last night that I'd miscalculated the deadline. I'll take a look at this case and what Coupon_Mad has suggested and revise paragraph 3. 

TheRoadToFreedom

Coupon-mad said:

That Defence para 3 would be OK if it wasn't Gladstones. Their cases have poor POC and invoke the pre-written defence about Chan & Akande which it looks like you've missed.

Arrrgh! She'd have won at POPLA if she had come here first. In 2024 Horizon couldn't hold registered keepers liable (chose not to use the POFA) so she could have killed it with one paragraph.

Thank you for your reply. I did see the paragraph re: Chan & Akande in one of the other threads you'd replied on. I'll add it to paragraph 3 and maybe trim the sequence of events down so that it fits in the MCOL box.

TheRoadToFreedom

Le_Kirk said:

Not sure how you calculated 13/11, I made it as below: - With an issue date of 06/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/11/25

Have a look at Jopson vs Homeguard where the judge said, among other things: -

The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture.

Steam coming from under the bonnet certainly counts as a small vicissitude!   Have you found and read the defence template and are you/your Mum going to insert your paragraph #3 into it?  As well as attending the mediation call, she will need to attend the hearing; you can attend with her as McKenzie friend or Lay Rep (Auntie Google will help here).

My apologies - yes I've seen the defence template - that's where I'm going to insert Paragraph 3.with revisions to reflect the suggestions.

TheRoadToFreedom

I've had a playaround and decided not to trim any part of the sequence of events. I've added the Chan v Akande and added an additional paragraph, paragraph 4, for the Jopson v Homeguard reference. So this is how it looks:

***START ***

3. The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Tesco car park with the genuine intention of shopping there. As the vehicle was being parked, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted a mechanic for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into Tesco to purchase a bottle of milk and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, an elderly lady of 60, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act.

With regard to the Particulars of Claim (“POC”) in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments — Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) — demonstrate that this type of pleading fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. In Chan (15 August 2023), His Honour Judge Murch held 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.” The same is true here, and the Defendant submits that the Court should strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. Similarly, in CPMS v Akande (10 May 2024), HHJ Evans confirmed that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.” This claim fails that test.

4. The Defendant also relies upon Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In particular, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, in which Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC explained that:

“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

Accordingly, the Defendant’s brief presence in the bay while waiting for the vehicle to cool and following the mechanic’s safety advice falls squarely within the Jopson principle of a “vicissitude of short duration” and cannot reasonably be regarded as parking in the contractual sense.

*** END ***

I'm hoping it'll fit into the MCOL box with the rest of the template as I've seen longer defences on the board. 

Could you please advise if I need to make any amendments. 

Thanks very much - I really appreciate you all taking the time to guide me. 

Coupon-mad

It doesn't flow. Clearly those paras need swapping around.

TheRoadToFreedom

Thank you for your quick response. 

Is this better or the second option? 

**************** OPTION 1 ***********************

3. The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Tesco car park with the genuine intention of shopping there. As the vehicle was being parked, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted a mechanic for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into Tesco to purchase a bottle of milk and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, an elderly lady of 60, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act.

The Defendant also relies upon Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In particular, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, in which Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC explained that:

“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

Accordingly, the Defendant’s brief presence in the bay while waiting for the vehicle to cool and following the mechanic’s safety advice falls squarely within the Jopson principle of a “vicissitude of short duration” and cannot reasonably be regarded as parking in the contractual sense.

4. With regard to the Particulars of Claim (“POC”) in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments — Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) — demonstrate that this type of pleading fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. In Chan (15 August 2023), His Honour Judge Murch held 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.” The same is true here, and the Defendant submits that the Court should strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. Similarly, in CPMS v Akande (10 May 2024), HHJ Evans confirmed that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.” This claim fails that test.

OR 

**************** OPTION 2 ***********************

3. The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Tesco car park with the genuine intention of shopping there. As the vehicle was being parked, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted a mechanic for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into Tesco to purchase a bottle of milk and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, an elderly lady of 60, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act.

4. The Defendant also relies upon Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. In particular, paragraphs 19 and 20 of that judgment, in which Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC explained that:

“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”

Accordingly, the Defendant’s brief presence in the bay while waiting for the vehicle to cool and following the mechanic’s safety advice falls squarely within the Jopson principle of a “vicissitude of short duration” and cannot reasonably be regarded as parking in the contractual sense.

5. With regard to the Particulars of Claim (“POC”) in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments — Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) — demonstrate that this type of pleading fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5. In Chan (15 August 2023), His Honour Judge Murch held 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.” The same is true here, and the Defendant submits that the Court should strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. Similarly, in CPMS v Akande (10 May 2024), HHJ Evans confirmed that “Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.” This claim fails that test.