Claim form horizon/Gladstones

Jitterywreck

Hello, and thank you in advance for the support.

I’ve received a County Court Claim dated 17/12/25. I’ve submitted the Acknowledgment of Service within the required timeframe, which gives me 33 days from the issue date—meaning my defence is due by 19 January (I believe). 

I’ve dealt with a similar claim in the past and still have my old defence template, but it’s been a few years. I’m concerned I may have missed a step this time, as I haven’t contacted Horizon at all before reaching this stage. As a result, I don’t yet have their evidence, which makes drafting the defence more challenging.

The Parking Charge Notice relates to an allegation that my vehicle was parked in a permit‑holders‑only area. I attend a gym located on the same site as the office buildings that require permits, all of which are owned by the same company. The car park contains both general‑use bays and designated permit‑holder bays. My gym has consistently advised members that parking is permitted anywhere except directly in front of the office buildings.

At the time of the alleged incident, I parked in accordance with this guidance. Permit‑holder signage within the car park is inconsistent and sporadically placed, making it unclear which areas require permits and which are available for gym patrons. Based on the information provided by my gym and the layout of the signage, I reasonably believed I was parked in an authorised area.

The PCN was issued at approximately 8:15 am, a time when the car parks serving the gym and surrounding offices are virtually empty. Given the lack of demand for parking at that hour, my vehicle did not obstruct any business operations or prevent permit holders from accessing spaces. There was no loss or inconvenience to the company, and no financial impact that would justify the charge.

This is for a forum, so I want to keep things clear. My questions are when is the appropriate point to contact , and can I start drafting my defence even though I don’t yet have their full evidence?

Once I’ve drafted it, I’ll post it here for review. I’m now focused on limiting any potential damage and putting together the strongest defence I can, even if I haven’t followed every step of the process perfectly up to this point.

thank you 

Gr1pr

Do not contact Horizon,  ignorance is bliss 

Use the Gladstones bespoke defence in the 1st post in the defence template thread in announcements 

You have received a Money Claim using MCOL from the CNBC in Northampton 

Use the MCOL defence box to copy, paste,  save,  submit, your defence , no posting it,   no email either 

Jitterywreck

p.s not sure why I am shouting at you in the opening paragraph! apologies, I was unable to alter the font for some reason. 

Coupon-mad

That's not the Gladstones template defence linked in the Template Defence thread.

Also, is the claim POC saying that the PCN was £10 more than was on the signs?

Like in the Gladstones Horizon examples collated by me on this page 14:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-2025-now-let-039-s-see-what-happens/p14

Coupon-mad

I haven't posted a link to the Gladstones defence, and I never will for any newbie.

You must go find it, in the Template Defence thread as I explained.

And this isn't what I asked:

"I have attached the POC for clarity. The claim states merely 'authorised parking'".

Not what you should be looking at.

I asked:

...is the claim POC saying that the PCN was £10 more than was on the signs?
Like in the Gladstones Horizon examples collated by me on this page 14

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-2025-now-let-039-s-see-what-happens/p14

Jitterywreck

As helpfully suggested I visited the site of the alleged contravention of the "contract"  I entered in to, and can confirm that the POC states the PCN of £95 which is in contrast to the signage. 

Coupon-mad

As expected. Always the case.

I gave you sufficient info and exact match case links to defend this. We do not need to check the Gladstones template defence.

  

Coupon-mad

I don't understand what you mean by 'the thread'. I gave you a link to read several similar ones where £10 was added. You weren't advised to go down a rabbit hole of reading one thread. I gave you a link to several collated examples, just to give you the gist and give you some confidence that this is bog standard for Gladstones/Horizon cases.

As for your defence, you are not "filling in your own particular circumstances". Read the Template Defence thread again - as I said, there is a Gladstones para 3 linked there. A special one. Linked twice.

Not posted there. Linked there to copy.

You are not adding facts. Except as I said, add a line denying that the PCN was £95.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant has not identified the specific conduct said to constitute a contravention, offering only a vague reference to a breach of signage terms relating to “authorised parking.” 

My only question is:does the POC say that?

(If your longer version doesn't quite fit in MCOL just shorten or remove the final paragraph, which is optional really),

Jitterywreck

Apologies I thought I had shared the entire POC. Here it is. I have not outwardly denied being the driver at the time (nor have I admitted) as I would rely on me being the actual driver in the event of needing WS, as "authorised" can mean lots of things, I use a gym on the site of the alleged contravention and in this case could argue "authority" by way of a contract with a business on the land (all of which is the same landowner) basically there are sections of the car park we are permitted or not permitted to park (some bits have signs and some bits not), along with word of mouth and signage in the gym stating to not park in front of the one office between the hours of 6pm to 7am so to any reasonable person the permitted parking on the site is as clear as mud.

patient_dream

  Horizon using Gladsrones ??? WOW 
Just part of the musical chair game of so called legals ?

All these legals add a FAKE charge and they all call it differebt names.  Gladstones are calling it  ... CONTRACTUAL ?
DCBL CALL IT DAMAGES
Others call it debt collection or admin charges

Gladstones are scamming you for a fake charge. Judges do not like FAKERS

The sign does not say contractual charges unless it is in the tiny print which nobody can read.   Horizon signs are used by legals all with different reasons to add a FAKE, AS ABOVE.
They are all utter crap which judges know
TOTALLY AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT RULING