Horizon/Gladstones Parking Claim- Court date looming - advice please

longjohnsilver76

Hello,

I have a PCN via Horizon/Gladstones which has progressed through to the Hearing stage.

I built a defence and witness statement based on examples and guidance in the forum, which were submitted inline with the dates stipulated by the court.

I have a few questions please;

1. The claimants witness statement has the unfair advantage of already having seen mine and responding to it (I submitted 15 days prior to trail date), however it was submitted late (13 days before trial, I confirmed with the court) - is there a possibility that the judge will disregard the claimant WS under these circumstances - I intend to ask them to do so - surely the 14 day rule exits for a reason and should be adhered to?
2. Based on the below - do you think there any value in me attending court - I'm feeling that my chances of a successful outcome are quite low. Perhaps only if the judge agrees with the strike out request for generic PoC, or to achieve a reduction in the fee claimed by removal of the additional fee requested?
3. Can I simply ask the Judge to decide the case based on the witness statement provided and not attend? The claimant has stated in their covering WS email that they will not be attending.
4. The only flaw I could obviously spot in the Claimant WS was that they specified the wrong court a couple of times - Kingston upon Thames as opposed to Kingston upon Hull - is this significant and worth highlighting? I'm sure the Hull judge won't be very happy with this :-)

Here is the Particulars of Claim;

Here is my WS;

[Image removed by Forum Team]

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made, and I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number XXX XXXX on the date of the alleged event.  

This statement is intended to stand as evidence in chief at the hearing.

I am a litigant in person with no formal training, and no formal legal representation I have done my utmost to present my case and supporting evidence clearly and truthfully. 

1. Defective Particulars of Claim

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 XXXX 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.

Furthermore, the claimant failed to serve the required Witness statement within the time-frame laid out by the court.

Hence the defendant has not had the opportunity to consider any specific allegations as part of the submitted defence.The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper at the time of the alleged incident.

2. Preliminary Matter; The claim should be struck out 

1.   I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to two very recent and persuasive appeal decisions which support the striking out of claims of this nature. Considering the Overriding Objective, I submit that this baseless claim ought properly to be dismissed. Bulk-issuing litigators are aware of the Practice Directions and yet persist in submitting vague, template-based pleadings. Where claimants continue to adopt this approach, they cannot reasonably be surprised when the Court exercises its powers under CPR 3.4 to strike out such defective claims, as has already been established in persuasive case law. 

2. The first relevant authority is the appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44). In that case, decided on 15 August 2023, HHJ Murch held that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD 16.7.5, as they did not set out the alleged conduct said to constitute a breach of contract upon which the claim was based.  

See Exhibits – DH1: CHAN

3. The second persuasive authority is Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30). In a judgment given on 10 May 2024, HHJ Evans confirmed that Particulars of Claim must set out the essential facts upon which the claimant relies to prove their case. 

See Exhibits – DH2: AKANDE

5. In my submission, this claim should have been rejected at the outset by the County Court Business Centre. The claimant, a legally represented parking company, has knowingly failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Particulars of Claim lack any meaningful detail, failing even to specify the alleged contractual term said to have been breached. Indeed, the PoC is less specific than those already struck out in Chan and Akande, leaving no coherent factual basis for the cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.  See Exhibits – DH3: POC

6. Lack of Particulars: The Claimant has not complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to provide key facts. Although the date is on the POC, there are no times of entry and exit and the breach is not outlined. See Exhibits - DH3: POC

7. Unclear Case: The defendant is unable to respond to the allegations without knowing the exact time the breach allegedly occurred.

3. Factual Background of the Visit

8. According to the PoC received, the alleged incident occurred 22/07/2024. At this time, the defendant was on holiday in Cornwall. Other family members had access to drive the vehicle (via their comprehensive insurance) at the time.

The defendant does not recall visiting the location in question on the date of the alleged incident. No specific timings or details of the supposed breach have been stated, as outlined above.

4. Claimant's Conduct 

9.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms, the conduct said to amount to a breach, or any cogent explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a £70 “contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

10.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

5. Inflated and Unlawful Charges

11.  In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. In this case the claimant is seeking an additional £70 payment on top of the £80 PCN.

The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper.

12.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

13.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC67 - link included.

14.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (link included) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

15.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(QB) - link inlcuded - which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

16.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V (link included) in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

17.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conclusion

18.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide no details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in defence.

19. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

21.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

22. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

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.

Today I received a copy of the Claimant WS, I will include a copy below…

longjohnsilver76

[Images removed by Forum Team]

Received by email this morning, also confirmed that is when the court received it… further pages with exhibits not posted.

Gr1pr

If you fail to attend the hearing, its almost guaranteed that you will lose, and if the claimant sends an advocate then it could cost you a lot more money, due to fees etc, not worth the risk

You can raise preliminary issues about the submissions etc, but the judge may well carry on in order to get it over with, instead of adjourning the case

Gladstones wont be attending, but the claimant is Horizon Parking, they won't be attending either, but that doesn't mean that they wont employ an advocate to attend on their behalf, you wont know until you get there on the hearing date

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82005858#Comment_82005858

So the amount awarded if I lose could be greater than claimed in the PoC?

Gr1pr

Its always higher than the POC. ( £164.38 ) , it could be around £220 ( in your case maybe £180 ) for a single pcn claim, or could be the total on the right hand side, typically around £300 ( in your case its £250 . ) , or if an advocate turns up they will ask for a couple of hundred pounds in fees, as well, plus more if your conduct is considered unreasonable behaviour

You should be there to try to minimise the loss if you lose, and to counter any claims by the advocate if one attends, plus your objections regarding late submissions etc, plus claiming your costs if you have submitted your costs assessment including proof of loss like wages or leave etc

longjohnsilver76

Any other comments or advice please, o wise and knowledgeable forumites?

Are there any examples of cases where late witness statements have been struck off in the small claims track, due to late submission I can use?

Gr1pr

You have left your VRM details, name , claim reference etc on show above, not allowed here, please study the yellow banner at the top of forum regarding personal information

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82006388#Comment_82006388

I realised the error, but am unable to edit the original posts, unless I am missing something…

Gr1pr

Your status in green says newbie, you cannot edit your posts until you are upgraded to forumite, like mine, so you will have to report the post to the admins and ask them to delete stuff on your behalf

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82006388#Comment_82006388

Have reported my posts containing personal info, as not yet allowed to edit…

longjohnsilver76

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82006435#Comment_82006435

Just been promoted - edited out all the sensitive parts, I hope…