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 Horizon, 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

Jitterywreck

 thank you for pointing out I was in a muddle and thought it was the correct one, i am struggling to find the actual gladstones defence template in that section, I will look again. I will also consult the other link if I find they have indeed sought more than they claim in signage. I have also attached the POC for clarity on what they are asking me to pay. The claim states merely 'authorised parking' doesn't state what is meant by authorised I.e. by permit or permission. I will check the signs when I go to the gym tomorrow as in all honesty I don't remember what they said the "fine" is or was. 

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.

  

Jitterywreck

I have read some of the thread but in the example shown it was a little confusing as I think the OP missed the deadline for the defence. In their proposed defence they were stating "an increase in charge" however I believe you were trying to tell them it wasn't an increase but an error? Therefore pursuing me for "breach of contract" when they themselves were in breach for pursuing the incorrect amount? So the main points from the defence and the templates relating to gladstones in this instance will be paragraph 3 (what consitiutes authorisation) and the incorrect amount being pursued, I am aware that there are other parts included  such as the beavis case, just wanted to be clear where I fill in my own particular circumstances I can link to the template information correctly. Thanks 

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.

Jitterywreck

I have kept to the template with the exception of paragraphs 2 and 5  and wanted to check that they would be sufficient in this instance? 

Within the original para and for context I have added : 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.” No clear description of the alleged wrongdoing, the terms purportedly breached, or the factual basis for liability has been provided. Given the sparse and generic nature of the POC, and the passage of time since the alleged event, the Defendant is unable to meaningfully respond to unparticularised allegations. The Defendant therefore denies that the Claimant has properly set out any cause of action capable of being defended.

5. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contractual term was breached. To form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration, none of which are evident in this case. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) imposes a duty on the Court to apply a ‘test of fairness’ and requires a high standard of prominence for terms and ‘consumer notices’. Having regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), s62, and the overarching duties of fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant is known to rely on unclear and unfair terms and signage. On the limited information provided in the POC, this case appears no different.

5A. Further, the Particulars of Claim plead a parking charge of £95, yet the signage at the location (checked as part of basic information gathering due to the sparse POC) clearly states a charge of £85. The Claimant is therefore seeking a sum that exceeds its own purported contractual terms. This inconsistency renders the alleged contract neither transparent nor fair, contrary to sections 68 and 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and demonstrates a breach of the Claimant’s own stated terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof by production of contemporaneous photographs of the signage in place at the material time. The Court is invited to strike out the claim, as the pleaded sum is not recoverable and no valid cause of action is disclosed.

thanks in advance