(03-14-2026, 12:50 PM)b789 Wrote: Welcome to the forum @mouse. I have had a re-read of the case as it was over on FTLA and I summarise it here for reference:

This is a Horizon Parking case concerning three PCNs from the same site, Bath Street Car Park, Ilkeston, arising from visits in June, July and August 2024 involving the same vehicle. The underlying factual issue is that the site had historically offered the first hour free, but that arrangement appears to have been withdrawn without any prominent entrance notice making the material change clear. Your position is that the pay machines remained, the car park looked familiar, and no clear warning was given on entry that the previous free first hour had been removed.

The vehicle was a works vehicle. The first notice that came to attention was in relation to the August 2024 event, sent first to your employer through the hire company in September 2024, after which your name was provided and later notices were then sent to the you personally. That is why part of the early discussion focused on whether Horizon had complied with the strict PoFA requirements for a Notice to Hirer (NtH). However, that point was significantly weakened because you had already communicated with Horizon in a way that effectively identified you as liable as the driver by offering to pay for the parking. So the case moved away from a Keeper/Hirer liability defence and toward driver-based and procedural defences.

One county court claim was then issued, but that claim only covered two of the three PCNs, not all three. The advice given on the first claim was to file a short strike-out style defence focused on the inadequacy of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) under CPR 16.4(1)(a), relying on Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande. The point was that the PoC were too sparse and failed to set out the contractual terms relied on, the alleged breach, the precise location/timing/duration, and the calculation of the sum claimed.

At around the same time, Gladstones then sent a Letter of Claim (LoC) for the remaining third PCN. Because all three charges concerned the same parties, same vehicle, same site, and a contiguous period between June and August 2024, the response I advised to give was that any second separate claim would be an abuse of process. You were advised to send a formal Pre-Action Protocol response putting Gladstones on notice that a second claim would be opposed as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, Johnson v Gore Wood, and Aldi v WSP, and later as cause of action estoppel/merger once the first action was determined. The response also demanded key documents such as contemporaneous signage photographs, landowner authority, machine logs, ANPR data, and records showing when and how the free first hour had been withdrawn and publicised.

Gladstones’ response to that PAP reply was poor. They essentially ignored the substantive points, sent only a copy PCN, demanded payment, and later expressly stated that they did not intend to reply substantively and had arranged legal proceedings. That correspondence was treated as useful future exhibit material because it tends to show PAP non-compliance and a knowing decision to press ahead despite clear warning that a second claim would be abusive.

Procedurally, claim 1 then moved on in the ordinary way. The claimant served its Directions Questionnaire (DQ). You were advised how to complete and email your own N180. Mediation later took place in February 2026 but, as expected, no settlement was reached and the claimant said proceedings would continue. You were told to expect a hearing date from your local court in due course.

As of your last post dated 26 February 2026, claim 1 remains live and is progressing to local hearing allocation. Claim 2, although threatened by Gladstones in December 2025, had still not materialised by late February 2026. You specifically asked whether the claimant might be waiting for the first claim to conclude before issuing the second one. The answer I gave you in the thread was effectively yes, that risk exists, and if they do issue later, the preserved correspondence will support an abuse/estoppel defence argument.

So the current case summary is this. There is one live Horizon/Gladstones small claim concerning two Bath Street PCNs. There is a threatened but not yet issued second claim for the third Bath Street PCN. The actual defence filed in the live claim is confined to the inadequacy of the Particulars of Claim under CPR 16.4(1)(a), on the basis that the PoC fail properly to plead the contract, the term relied upon, the alleged breach, the calculation of the sums claimed, and whether the defendant is pursued as driver or keeper. The signage/material-change issue and any abuse argument regarding a second claim are background matters that may become relevant later, but they are not pleaded in the defence as submitted.

There is one material point that now needs clarifying. The current claim relates only to the June 2024 and July 2024 PCNs. The August 2024 Notice to Hirer you have shown is a different matter and belongs to the separate Letter of Claim, not to the live proceedings.

What we now need to see are the actual notices for the two PCNs that are included in this claim, namely the June and July 2024 PCNs. The PoC plead £95 per PCN, but at present those underlying notices have not been produced in the original thread. The August 2024 PCN shows the charge as £85, not £95 as claimed for both the other PCNs.

Please therefore show the June and July PCNs/notices relied upon in the current claim. This is an important material point. If the amounts or wording on those notices do not match what is now pleaded, that can be used against the claimant later. It goes directly to the accuracy of the pleaded case and the calculation of the sum claimed.

Until those two underlying notices are seen, it is not possible to verify whether the pleaded £95 per PCN in the live claim is actually borne out by the documents relied upon.

Procedurally, the case now goes one of two ways. The court may first consider the defence and strike the claim out of its own initiative on the CPR 16.4 point. If that does not happen, the case will proceed to local hearing allocation and the court will then issue directions, usually leading to exchange of witness statements and evidence. That later stage is where any mismatch between the pleaded case and the underlying June/July notices can be put before the court and used properly against the Claimant.

(03-15-2026, 09:40 AM)b789 Wrote: There is now a further material defect in the claim.

Having now seen both original PCNs for the two matters included in the live claim, it is confirmed that each PCN was issued at £85, not £95. The Particulars of Claim therefore misstate the amount of the underlying parking charges.

That is not a trivial error. The claim pleads £95 per PCN for two PCNs, namely £190 in principal parking charges. However, on the face of the original notices, the correct combined principal sum would be £170. The pleaded claim is therefore overstated even before considering the additional £70 per PCN add-ons and the claim for interest.

This is a material inconsistency and, if the matter ever reaches a hearing, it is exactly the sort of point that can be used against the Claimant. It supports the wider point that the claim has been advanced on a careless bulk-litigation basis without proper scrutiny of the actual documents relied upon.

Let me know when you receive the Notice of Allocation.