Horizon Proceedings

[Gooner]

@b789

I have now received the claimants WS ( attached ) today 5th of June at 13:43pm, almost two full days beyond the deadline and has clearly been submitted as a response to my own WS.

The contents are no more than I expected to see, which you had kindly prepared me for, however I do draw attention to the following:

1. The Exhibit shows signs which are generic and not specific to any particular premises.

2. The photographs presented of signage again could be generic and are more importantly date stamped June 2022 or February to May 2023, the parking charge was alleged to have taken place in November 2023, six months after the photographs were taken.

3. The arial photograph shows no relevant information to the statement.

4. The dark photo appears to be unrecognisable.

5. The listing of transactions shows items 1-20 of 62 entries although I respect these are in time order.

6. Point 2 of the witness statement states:

" I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing listed on 19th June 2026 at County Court at Burnley "

The hearing is scheduled for the 17th of July 2026 at the County Court at Peterborough


In my limited knowledge the WS appears to contain several flaws and of course has been prepared with the luxury of seeing mine in advance as well as being submitted late.

Can I or should I submit anything further ?

[b789]

@Gooner, this needs dealing with promptly, but it should be done in a controlled way. Do not send a full second witness statement unless the court gives permission. The correct first step is to email the court, copying Gladstones, objecting to the late WS and asking for directions.

The central point is not simply that the WS is two days late. The more serious point is that it has clearly been served after they had seen your WS, and it now attempts to do exactly what your Defence and WS said they must not do: repair defective Particulars of Claim by introducing the missing factual case through witness evidence.

Their paragraph 17 is especially useful because they effectively admit that the claim is "now fully particularised within this Witness Statement". That is the problem. A WS is not a pleading. If the case is only now being fully particularised, then it was not properly pleaded in the PoC.

The most damning part is their claim that they were not served with the Defence. That position is not credible in the procedural context. This claim proceeded as defended. You received their N180, filed your own, went through mediation, received the Notice of Transfer and then the Notice of Allocation. If Gladstones genuinely did not have the Defence, they should have raised that with the court long ago, requested a copy, or sought directions. They did not. They waited until after your WS and then served a late statement attempting to answer it.

That needs to be put front and centre because it undermines the reliability of the whole statement. It is also internally inconsistent because they say they cannot address the Defence, yet they refer to the Defence, the authorities relied upon, and the pleading point you raised.

The other points are also relevant, but secondary: the WS is signed by a Gladstones solicitor, not anyone from Horizon with direct knowledge; the witness is unlikely to attend; the statement wrongly refers to a hearing on 19 June at Burnley when your hearing is 17 July at Peterborough; the signage appears generic or historic; some photos pre-date the alleged event; the dark image is of little value; the payment record appears to be only an extract; and the NtK does not invoke PoFA keeper liability.

The email should ask the court to refuse permission for the Claimant to rely on the late WS and exhibits. In the alternative, if the court is minded to allow it, you should ask for permission to file a short supplementary WS dealing only with the late evidence and new factual matters.

Send it now, copy Gladstones, and keep the email showing the exact time their WS was served. Do not chase them or help them fix anything. The point is that you complied with the court deadline and they did not. If the court says a formal application is required, then you can decide whether an N244 is proportionate, but for now the objection email preserves the point and shows that you did not accept the late evidence by silence.

Send this by email to the court, CC Gladstones and yourself:

Subject: Claim No. M8GF4T40 – objection to Claimant’s late witness statement and request for directions

Dear Sir/Madam,

Claim No: M8GF4T40
Horizon Parking Limited v Jack Coleman

I am the Defendant.

I write to object to the Claimant’s witness statement and exhibits, served by Gladstones Solicitors on 05 June 2026 at 13:43, after the Court-ordered deadline of 03 June 2026.

I respectfully ask the Court to refuse permission for the Claimant to rely upon that late witness statement and exhibits. In the alternative, if the Court is minded to admit the late evidence, I respectfully request permission to file and serve a short supplementary witness statement in response.

The most serious point is paragraph 12 of the Claimant’s witness statement, where Gladstones state that the Claimant "has not been served with a copy of the Defence" and is therefore "unable to address any specific allegations contained therein". I do not accept that this is a credible or satisfactory explanation.

This claim has proceeded throughout as a defended claim. I received the Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire, filed my own Directions Questionnaire, participated in the mediation process, and received the Notice of Transfer and Notice of Allocation. Gladstones and/or the Claimant must therefore have known that a Defence had been filed and that the claim was proceeding as a defended matter.

If the Claimant or Gladstones genuinely did not have a copy of the Defence, the proper course was obvious. They should have raised the issue promptly with the Court, requested a copy, sought directions, or explained the alleged problem at the time. They did none of those things.

Instead, they allowed the claim to proceed through allocation, mediation and directions, waited until after receiving my witness statement, and then served a late witness statement purporting to answer the case. That is not a satisfactory litigation position for a professionally represented serial parking claimant.

The assertion at paragraph 12 is also internally inconsistent with the rest of their statement. The statement refers to my Defence, the authorities relied upon, the pleaded criticisms of the Particulars of Claim, and the fact that I filed a Defence. It cannot sensibly be maintained that the Claimant was unable to deal with the Defence while simultaneously relying on the procedural history of the defended claim and responding to the very points raised by it.

This is important because the Claimant’s witness statement is verified by a statement of truth and signed by a solicitor employed by Gladstones. The Court is being asked to rely on a late solicitor-drafted statement which contains an untenable assertion about non-service of the Defence, despite the entire procedural history showing that the claim had proceeded as defended.

The statement is also plainly template-based and carelessly prepared. Paragraph 2 states that it was prepared for a hearing listed on 19 June 2026 at the County Court at Burnley. This claim is listed for 17 July 2026 at the County Court at Peterborough. That is not a minor typographical error. It is a serious case-specific error in the opening section of a statement of truth document and strongly suggests that the statement was produced in bulk without proper scrutiny.

The late service is not harmless. The central issue in my Defence and witness statement was that the Particulars of Claim were generic and defective. The Claimant has now served a late witness statement, after seeing my evidence, and has used that statement to introduce the factual case, signage, photographs, payment records, legal submissions and exhibits which were not properly pleaded.

At paragraph 17, the Claimant states that its case is "now fully particularised within this Witness Statement". That is precisely the problem. A witness statement is not a pleading. The Claimant should not be permitted to use a late witness statement to repair defective Particulars of Claim after a Defence and witness statement have already been filed.

The statement is signed by Elise Davies of Gladstones Solicitors, not by anyone from Horizon Parking Limited with direct knowledge of the material facts. It is not direct evidence from a person who witnessed the alleged parking event, inspected the signage on the material date, operated the payment system, checked the alleged payment records, or made the decision to issue and pursue the parking charge.

I also understand that Ms Davies will not attend the hearing. If so, I will have no opportunity to question the person who signed the statement. The Court would be asked to rely on a late, solicitor-drafted statement from a person with no first-hand knowledge of the material events and who is not available for questioning.

The exhibits themselves raise further issues which I have had no fair opportunity to address because they were served late. In particular:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not appear to invoke Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and does not attempt to transfer liability from driver to keeper. I am the registered keeper, yet the Claimant has not properly pleaded or evidenced any lawful basis for keeper liability.
   
2. The signage images appear to include generic Horizon/Travelodge folio images rather than proof of the actual signs displayed at the material location on the material date.
   
3. Several signage photographs appear to be dated June 2022 and February to May 2023, whereas the alleged parking event was on 1 November 2023.
   
4. The aerial photograph does not prove what signs were visible to the driver, where the vehicle was parked, or what terms were brought to anyone’s attention.
   
5. One of the ANPR images is extremely dark and of limited evidential value.
   
6. The payment record appears to be an extract only, showing entries 1–20 of 62.
   

The Claimant is a professionally represented serial litigant. Gladstones Solicitors are experienced in issuing bulk private parking claims. They should not be permitted to issue generic Particulars of Claim, fail to comply with the witness statement deadline, wait to see the Defendant’s evidence, and then serve a late template witness statement attempting to particularise the claim after the event.

I respectfully ask the Court to refuse permission for the Claimant to rely upon its late witness statement and exhibits.

If the Court is not minded to exclude the evidence, I respectfully request permission to file and serve a short supplementary witness statement responding to the late material and the new factual matters now raised for the first time.

If the Court considers that a formal application is required, I respectfully ask that this email be placed on the file and treated as clear notice that I do not consent to the Claimant relying on its late witness statement or exhibits.

Please place this email before the Judge as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Jack Coleman

[Gooner]

@b789

Thank you for the very comprehensive response and advice, I will do this now.

Can I ask a hypothetical question, in the Notice of Allocation it states:

" If you cannot or choose not to attend the hearing, you must write and tell the court at least 7 days before the date of the hearing, the district judge will hear the case in your absence, but will take account of your statement of case and any other documents you have filed "

If I chose not to attend, is there any real detremental effect to my case ?, Gladstones have confirmed they will not attend.

[b789]

You absolutely do not want to be absent. Be there. It is a very valuable life experience.

If you’re feeling daunted by it, have watch if this short video which explains what happens on the day.

This is county court. Not the Old Bailey. This is not a criminal trial.

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared

[Gooner]

I spoke with the County Court Helpline this morning ( 22nd June ), their system was showing that no fee had been paid by the claimant and I was advised to email the court to confirm this and request that the claim is struck out, would you advise any additional comments are made at this stage, also would I need to copy Gladstones into the email ?

Many Thanks

[b789]

Yes, copy Gladstones. It avoids any suggestion that you are corresponding with the court behind their back on a live case-management issue.

I would keep this short and procedural. The main point is the unpaid hearing fee. Do not overload the email with every defect in their late WS. However, it is worth adding one sentence preserving the existing objection to their late WS in case they now try to seek relief from sanctions or pay the fee late.

The key point is that the court helpline has confirmed that the system shows no hearing fee paid by the 19 June deadline, so you are asking the court to confirm that the claim has been struck out in accordance with the Notice of Allocation, or to place the matter before a judge for directions.

Do not get drawn into arguing the whole case again at this stage. The fee default is enough. However, I would add one sentence confirming that you maintain your objection to the Claimant’s late WS and exhibits, in case they now try to rely on them or seek relief.

Include a short costs schedule, either attached as a separate one-page PDF or pasted beneath the email after the signature. Because the allocation order expressly says that, if the Claimant fails to pay the trial fee by 4pm on 19 June 2026, the claim is struck out and, unless the court orders otherwise, the Claimant is liable for the Defendant’s costs, it is sensible to give the court the figure now rather than merely asking for directions.

Keep it modest and credible. Do not include “stress”, “inconvenience”, or speculative items. Include only actual time and disbursements incurred in defending the claim. Use the current LiP rate of £24/hour.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Claim No: M8GF4T40
Horizon Parking Limited v Jack Coleman

I am the Defendant.

I write further to the Notice of Allocation, which required the Claimant to pay the hearing fee by 19 June 2026.

I spoke with the County Court Helpline on 22 June 2026 and was advised that the court system showed no hearing fee had been paid by the Claimant.

I respectfully request confirmation that the claim has therefore been struck out pursuant to the Notice of Allocation, or alternatively that the matter be placed before a Judge for appropriate directions.

For completeness, I also maintain my objection to the Claimant’s late witness statement and exhibits, served after the Court-ordered deadline and after I had already served my own witness statement.

Please confirm whether the hearing listed for 17 July 2026 remains listed or has now been vacated.

I attach a short schedule of the costs I have incurred for the Court’s consideration pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation.

Yours faithfully,

Jack Coleman

That is enough. If the court replies that the fee was paid late, or that Gladstones are seeking relief, then the late WS objection and the defective PoC points become relevant again.

Suggested structure for costs schedule:

Schedule of Defendant’s Costs

Claim No: M8GF4T40
Horizon Parking Limited v Jack Coleman

Preparation and filing of Defence: [x] hours at £24/hour = £[x]

Directions Questionnaire, mediation preparation and related correspondence: [x] hours at £24/hour = £[x]

Reviewing court orders, Notice of Allocation and procedural requirements: [x] hours at £24/hour = £[x]

Preparation, filing and service of witness statement: [x] hours at £24/hour = £[x]

Reviewing Claimant’s late witness statement and preparing objection: [x] hours at £24/hour = £[x]

Postage/printing/copying, if applicable: £[x]

Total claimed: £[x]


These costs are claimed pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation dated 6 May 2026, which provides that, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Claimant is liable for the costs incurred by the Defendant where the Claimant fails to pay the trial fee by 4pm on 19 June 2026 and the claim is struck out.

[Gooner]

@b789

E-mail was sent on Monday with attached list of costs, I have again spoken with the court helpline this morning who again confirmed that the fee has not been paid, however they couldnt confirm that the case had been struck out, is it normal procedure for the Court to write to the defendant to confirm this, I assume I should still be prepared for the court case unless I hear otherwise.

[b789]

@Gooner That is the problem. In theory, the court should confirm the strike-out, but in practice the notice may not arrive before the hearing date. Unlike a discontinuance, where the Claimant or solicitor would normally serve a copy of the N279, an automatic strike-out for non-payment of the hearing fee often just sits in the court system until admin eventually catches up.

So do not rely on receiving written confirmation in time.

The practical position is that he claim should already be struck out if the fee was not paid by 4pm on 19 June, because that is what the Notice of Allocation says. However, unless the court confirms that the hearing has been vacated, you should assume there is still a risk it remains on the list.

Keep checking with the court shortly before the hearing and ask the specific question: “Is the hearing on 17 July still listed?” Not “has the case been struck out?”, because the helpline may not be able to confirm that.

Do not contact the incompetents Gladstones about the unpaid fee.

If you get to court on 17 July and are told the hearing is not listed or has been vacated, do not simply leave. Ask the usher whether the matter can be put before a District Judge there and then for a brief consequential order, because you have attended unnecessarily due to the Claimant’s failure to pay the hearing fee.

Have with you:

1. the Notice of Allocation;
   
2. your email asking for confirmation of strike-out;
   
3. your costs schedule;
   
4. proof/notes of the calls confirming the fee had not been paid;
   
5. proof of your attendance costs for that day.
   

The point to make to the usher is simple:

"The order says the claim was struck out without further order if the Claimant did not pay the hearing fee by 4pm on 19 June. I have attended because the court did not confirm the hearing had been vacated. I ask that this be put before a District Judge today for confirmation of strike-out and costs, including the wasted costs of today’s unnecessary attendance."

If the usher says no judge is available, ask them to note on the file that you attended, that you were told the hearing was not proceeding, and that you asked for the costs issue to be placed before a judge.

Do not argue with the usher. They cannot make the order themselves. The objective is to get the attendance recorded and, if possible, get the file in front of a judge that day.

If they will not do anything, make your own attendance note immediately before leaving the building. Record the time you arrived, who you spoke to if known, what you were told, and that you asked for the matter to be put before a judge.

Then send an email to the court from the court building or immediately afterwards saying that you attended for the listed hearing, were told it was not proceeding, had not been notified in advance, and now seek confirmation of strike-out and costs including the wasted attendance costs.

[Gooner]

I have today spoken to the court helpline again and they have told me that the fee was paid on the 25th of June and that the hearing is still listed for the 17th of July.

From this point I have an issue which I briefly touched on before, I am unable to attend the court hearing in person due to a family issue, this is an ongoing situation and I wouldnt be able to provide an alternate date if asked, I understand that I must notify the court at least 7 days from the hearingand that the Judge will hear the case in my absence and will take account of my statement and any other documents I have filed.

I feel that I want to provide a timeline of errors made by Gladstones and also a recap of my case, most importantly that the fee was not paid in time and the paperwork clearly states that The claim will be struck out without further order, however I am unsure if this is a good idea or if it is even relevant.

I am aware that my situation may weaken my case, but I believe that Gladstones have pretty much abused the system all along.

I am unsure how to proceed with this.

[b789]

Apologies for the late response but I am away on vacation for the next 2 weeks. I am currently on the road driving to Spain so will have very limited time to respond until after I arrive at my destination.

@Gooner, If the hearing is still listed and you cannot attend, you must send a written notice to the court under CPR 27.9, and you must copy Gladstones. That is not optional if you want the court to decide the case in your absence.

Keep it focused. Do not send a long emotional timeline. Send a short hearing note with the CPR 27.9 notice making these points:

1. You cannot attend and ask the court to decide the claim in your absence.

2. As a preliminary issue, the Claimant failed to pay the £27 hearing fee by 4pm on 19 June 2026. Paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation said the claim would be struck out automatically, without further order, if that fee was not paid by the deadline.

3. The court helpline has since confirmed that the fee was only paid on 25 June 2026. That was late. The Claimant therefore needed relief from sanction. You have seen no application for relief and no order granting relief.

4. You ask the judge to find that the claim was struck out with effect from 19 June 2026 pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation.

5. If the judge does not accept that point, you ask the judge to refuse or give little weight to the Claimant’s late WS, which was also served after the deadline and after they had seen your WS.

6. If the claim is still considered, you rely on your Defence, your WS, your costs schedule, and your objection to the Claimant’s late evidence.

Your inability to attend is not ideal, but it does not mean you simply let Gladstones walk through this. The strongest point is now the late hearing fee. If the order said strike-out without further order, and the fee was not paid until 25 June, the Claimant should not be treated as having fixed the problem unless the court grants relief from sanction.

The hearing note should be short and headed as a CPR 27.9 notice and Defendant’s short written submissions. CPR 3.8 is the useful rule on sanctions: where a sanction applies for breach of a court order, it takes effect unless the defaulting party obtains relief.