Gladstones, Horizon court claim, defence stage

fryster

Good Afternoon, I'm helping my daughter as she's received a claim form from Horizon parking/Gladstones. At the time she parked, tried to pay on exit but machine was out of order. She used the sign next to the machine and paid the appropriate fee. Turns out this sign was for a different car park operated by the same company. Car park that the sign is for has no reason to be in the position it is in due to the location of the car park. She has proof of payment tied to her car reg. MCOL set up, just completing the initial defence using the suggested template. Is this OK for section 3:

The sequence of events on the date of the alleged breach is as follows:
(a) The car park operates a pay-on-exit / ANPR system where drivers pay at the machine upon departure before exiting the site. Upon returning to the vehicle to leave, the Defendant attempted to pay the required fee at the physical payment machine on site, but the machine was non-functional and failed to process the transaction.
(b) Needing to settle the tariff before departing, the Defendant located a QR/app payment instruction sign situated immediately adjacent to the broken payment machine. Relying on the proximity and instructions of the signage posted at the pay station, the Defendant scanned the sign and successfully remitted full payment of £1.50 via YourParkingSpace for the 3-hour stay (1:24 PM to 4:24 PM on 21 April 2025) prior to driving out of the car park.
(c) Payment was successfully processed and received by the Claimant’s payment platform for vehicle ******* at the point of departure.
(d) The Defendant performed the contract in good faith by paying the full required tariff at the time of departure. If the signage posted adjacent to the broken pay-on-exit machine directed payment to an adjacent or sub-allocated location code managed by the same operator (Horizon Parking / YourParkingSpace), this is a result of misleading or poorly placed signage erected by the Claimant. A driver acting reasonably cannot be held liable for a minor administrative location misallocation caused by the Claimant’s ambiguous site layout. The Claimant has suffered zero financial loss and de minimis applies.

This is on Particulars of Claim:

The driver of vehicle registration ****** breached the prominently displayed terms and conditions of parking at Princes Mead Long Stay Farnborough on 21/04/2025 by Failure to pay for full duration of stay anpr. The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, In the event of breach, the driver agreed to pay the specified parking charge. The Parking Charge Notices remain unpaid after 28 days and the Defendant, as driver and/or registered keeper, is liable for the outstanding sums. Despite demands, payment has not been made.
The Claimant therefore claims £80 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £14.48 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, accruing at £0.03 per day until judgment or earlier payment.

Castle

Was the vehicle parked for less than 3 hours?

fryster

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82113291#Comment_82113291

Yes it was

fryster

We have a photo of one of the earlier charge notices and the original charge was for £70, not the £80 they are claiming. Also confirms the car was parked for 2 hours 24 minutes.

Gr1pr

Please change your thread title to something more suitable like

Gladstones, Horizon court claim, defence stage

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82115091#Comment_82115091

Read any of these Gladstones Horizon threads:

There are lots of Horizon Parking claims £10 higher than was on the sign:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6618133/horizon-gladstones-court-claim-2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6622009/notice-of-proposed-allocation-to-the-small-claims-track

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81642574#Comment_81642574

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81642570#Comment_81642570

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81533390#Comment_81533390

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81759597#Comment_81759597

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6602415/pcn-from-2023-gladstones-now-at-money-claim-stage

Most are about Tesco sites but you can copy their defence para 3 wording.

They all involve an extra £10 added inappropriately to every claim, which is caused by Horizon's system and how Gladstones software transfers the file.

It means (on top of the unlawful £70 double recovery fake 'fee') there is unjust enrichment like a cherry on top in every case.

Horizon know this because MSE defences have been pointing this out for a couple of years. Still they keep coming.

And Gladstones later send signed WS to court claiming impossible 'keeper liability' (Horizon didn't use the POFA until 2025).