Horizon Claim

[mouse]

Thank you!! 

I already emailed the court straightaway this morning after our exchange and cc'd Gladstones regarding the query of submission, shall I also send this along too? 

The fact that they will have known all the dates, and still haven't sent anything across would suggest to me that they have no intention of sending anything until they have received my witness statement. I shouldn't have assumed, but thought with a change of date to the hearing, a change of date for submission would have followed. Thank you for everything, you have been amazing throughout it all. Once I've got the statement in order I will upload.

[b789]

The only thing changed by the latest order was the trial date. The original deadline for witness statements and evidence was not expressly varied, which means Gladstones have also failed to comply with it.

The statement you are filing now records that non-compliance and preserves the prejudice caused to you. It is not a substitute for your full substantive witness statement, which we will prepare if the court confirms how it intends to deal with the missed deadline and any late evidence from the Claimant.

Gladstones will probably instruct a hearing advocate who has had little or no involvement in the case before the hearing. Do not accept legal advice from that advocate or become drawn into an informal discussion about the merits. You may listen to any settlement proposal, but you are entitled to say that you will leave the disputed issues for the judge.

You must expressly raise costs at the end of the hearing if you succeed. Prepare and serve a costs schedule in advance. It should include the £123 N244 fee, reasonable travel and parking or public-transport expenses, and any proven loss of earnings or leave for attending the hearing, capped at £95 for the day. You may also seek litigant-in-person preparation costs at £24 per hour under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but those are not automatic: they depend upon persuading the judge that the Claimant’s conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable..

Keep a contemporaneous record of the time reasonably spent dealing with the Claimant’s defaults, including the ignored requests for consent, the N244 application, the defective and amended pleadings, and the failure to serve evidence. Do not inflate the hours. A restrained and properly evidenced schedule is more persuasive than an exaggerated one.

[mouse]

As always you make everything make sense. Absolute legend.

I will send that email over as like you said, Gladstones are well versed in this, I am not.


The Court not giving any details on this is also a massive fail, why wouldn't they include any further information on what to do? I get its not there job to give a step by step, but basic information on serving paperwork with deadlines should have been included, even if they were staying the same so I could have been prepared. 


Google only gives you so much advice, and that is conflicting at times too. Your expertise in this has helped beyond anything, without it I would have fluffed up certainly by now! 

Thanks again @b789 have a great weekend and I will update when I hear back and when I have finished the witness statement.

[mouse]

Afternoon @b789,

Still awaiting for the court to reply, however Gladstones have emailed their witness statement today. They have also said:

We act for the Claimant in the above matter.

Please find enclosed, by way of service, the Claimant’s Witness Statement and accompanying exhibits.     

The Claimant, without intending any discourtesy to the Court hereby gives you notice that it will not be attending the final hearing.

This notice is given pursuant to CPR 27.9.

The Claimant has requested that the Court excuses its attendance and that the claim be decided in its absence.

The Claimant has filed and served documents pursuant to the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) and the Court has been notified of the Claimant’s non-attendance and that the Court has been asked to deal with the Claim in the Claimant’s absence.

We confirm the Court has been informed and served with the Claimant’s Witness Statement in accordance with 27.9(a) and (b).”

We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court.

Kind Regards,

Olivia

A lot is a repeat of what they have sent before, some of it is infuriating, one point that they acknowledge they received every email regarding the adjournment and said they didn't have time to respond before the N244 was put forward   

Im at a loss as to what my next move is. Do I wait a little longer for the court, but I don't want to hound them or call and see if anyone has dealt with the request? I don't want to get anything wrong at this stage with them sharks.

Ive attached their witness statement.

Thanks so much.
  Witness Statement HP_GLAD_compressed.pdf (Size: 1.78 MB / Downloads: 3)

[b789]

@mouse, do not wait any longer for the court before preparing and serving your substantive witness statement. Gladstones have now disclosed the case they intend to rely upon, albeit six days after the court-ordered deadline of 17 July 2026. Their statement is dated 23 July 2026, so their assertion that it was filed “pursuant to the Notice of Allocation” is plainly misleading: it was not served in accordance with that order because it was late.

Their non-attendance notice under CPR 27.9 does not cure the default. It merely tells the court that they want the claim decided in their absence. You will still attend and can ask the judge to exclude their late statement and exhibits, or at least attach reduced weight to them and refuse any ambush caused by their non-compliance.

Their bundle has also created several useful admissions and further defects:

• They expressly concede that PoFA keeper liability is unavailable for the July PCN. 
  
• They still have no evidence identifying the driver and instead rely on speculative “inference”, agency and vicarious-liability arguments. 
  
• Their witness wrongly states that the DVLA identified you as the registered keeper, despite this being a works vehicle whose keeper supplied your details. 
  
• They admit the interest start date predates the due date of one PCN and call it a drafting error. 
  
• They admit the original £95 figure comprised an £85 charge plus a separate £10 administrative fee, while still demanding another £70 per PCN. 
  
• They still refuse to produce the landowner agreement, despite the court specifically requiring evidence of their authority. A claim that it is “confidential” is not compliance with a court direction. 
  
• Their own signage photographs are dated 12 June 2024, but they produce no evidence of the temporary material-change notices required when the former free parking regime was replaced. 
  
• Their explanation for ignoring your adjournment correspondence is contradicted by their own admission that they received three requests on 12, 15 and 22 June. 
  

The next step is therefore to prepare your full witness statement and rebuttal immediately, addressing their bundle paragraph by paragraph where necessary. It should begin by recording that their evidence was served late, without permission or any application for relief from sanctions, and that you reserve the right to ask the trial judge to exclude it.

Also telephone or email the court once, referring to the claim number, to confirm that your earlier request concerning the witness-statement deadline has been placed before a judge. That is not “hounding” the court. It is sensible case management after the Claimant has now served a substantial 61-page bundle late.

I will draft a suitable WS and post it here later today.

[b789]

Send the following as your WS and CC Gladstones:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM

Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Between:

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED
Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT’S FULL NAME]
Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT



I, [DEFENDANT’S FULL NAME], of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this claim and state as follows.

Introduction

1. I rely upon my Defence dated [date], my Amended Defence dated [date], and the witness statement filed in support of my application dated [date]. I do not repeat those documents in full, but address below the factual evidence and the Claimant’s late witness statement served on 23 July 2026.

2. The facts stated in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated. Where I refer to documents introduced by me, they are exhibited under the references identified below.

Procedural history and late service

3. By the Notice of Allocation, both parties were required to file and serve their witness statements and documentary evidence by 4:00pm on 17 July 2026. The Notice of Allocation is exhibited at DB1.

4. The hearing was originally listed for 20 August 2026. Following my application, the court made an order dated 8 July 2026 vacating that hearing, directing that the matter be relisted after 5 September 2026 and reserving the costs of my application. That order is exhibited at DB2.

5. The matter was subsequently relisted for trial on 17 September 2026. The Notice of Trial Date is exhibited at DB3.

6. Neither the order dated 8 July 2026 nor the subsequent Notice of Trial Date expressly varied or replaced the existing deadline of 17 July 2026 for witness statements and evidence.

7. The Claimant did not serve its witness statement or evidence by 4:00pm on 17 July 2026.

8. The Claimant’s witness statement is dated 23 July 2026 and was served upon me after the court-ordered deadline. The covering email showing the date of service and the Claimant’s notice of non-attendance under CPR 27.9 is exhibited at DB8.

9. The Claimant has not served any application for relief from sanctions and has provided no proper explanation for its failure to comply with the court’s direction.

10. The Claimant is a professionally represented commercial litigant whose solicitors routinely conduct private parking claims. It knew or ought to have known of the deadline.

11. I respectfully request that the court apply CPR 32.10 and refuse permission for the Claimant to rely upon its late witness statement or call any witness whose statement was not served within the time ordered.

12. Alternatively, if the court permits reliance upon the late material, I ask that the lateness, absence of any application for relief and prejudice caused to me be taken into account when assessing evidential weight, conduct and costs.

The Claimant’s non-attendance and witness evidence

13. By its covering email exhibited at DB8, the Claimant has stated that it will not attend the final hearing and asks that the claim be determined in its absence pursuant to CPR 27.9.

14. The Claimant has therefore chosen not to provide any witness from Horizon Parking, the landowner or the site management to attend and answer questions concerning:

   a. the date on which the parking regime changed;

   b. the installation and visibility of the signage;

   c. compliance with the requirement to warn drivers of a material change;

   d. the Claimant’s landowner authority;

   e. the identity of the driver;

   f. the issue and service of the notices; and

   g. the calculation of the sums claimed.

15. Deanne Nevers is a paralegal employed by Gladstones Solicitors. She was not present at the site on either material date and has no first-hand knowledge of the alleged events, the signage history, the landowner arrangements or the issue and service of the notices.

16. Her statement consists substantially of legal submissions, argument and commentary upon documents supplied by the Claimant rather than evidence from a witness with direct personal knowledge.

17. The Claimant has expressly chosen not to attend and therefore cannot expect unsupported hearsay assertions made by its solicitor’s employee to carry the same weight as properly tested evidence from a factual witness.

18. I respectfully invite the court to attach limited weight to those assertions where they are unsupported by contemporaneous evidence or concern matters outside the witness’s personal knowledge.

Driver identity and absence of keeper or hirer liability

19. The Claimant has produced no direct evidence identifying me as the driver on either 22 June 2024 or 20 July 2024.

20. The vehicle was a works vehicle. The assertion at paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s witness statement that the DVLA named me as the registered keeper is incorrect.

21. My details were provided to Horizon Parking by the company responsible for the vehicle. The Claimant has produced no DVLA response identifying me as the registered keeper.

22. The Claimant’s notices at pages 51 and 53 of its bundle are both dated 13 September 2024.

23. The first concerns an alleged event on 22 June 2024 and the second concerns an alleged event on 20 July 2024.

24. Neither notice could have been delivered within the mandatory 14-day relevant period required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

25. At paragraph 15 of its witness statement, the Claimant expressly concedes that it cannot rely upon statutory keeper liability under PoFA in relation to the July notice.

26. The same necessarily applies to the June notice, which was also issued on 13 September 2024.

27. Further, because the vehicle was a works or hired vehicle, any attempt to transfer liability to a hirer required strict compliance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.

28. The Claimant has produced no hire agreement, statement of liability signed by the hirer, original Notice to Keeper served upon the vehicle company or other mandatory documents required to transfer liability to a hirer.

29. The Claimant therefore has no statutory basis upon which to hold me liable as keeper or hirer for either charge.

Speculative driver inference, agency and vicarious liability

30. Faced with its inability to rely upon PoFA, the Claimant seeks to replace statutory keeper liability with speculation that I was the driver or that an unidentified driver was my servant or agent.

31. There is no legal presumption that a registered keeper, hirer or person named by a company was the driver.

32. The Claimant has produced no admission, photograph, witness evidence, contemporaneous record or other evidence identifying me as the driver on either date.

33. Elliott v Loake does not establish any general presumption that a keeper was driving. It was a criminal case involving specific forensic and evidential findings linking the defendant to the vehicle and collision. No comparable evidence exists here.

34. Launchbury v Morgans does not establish that merely allowing another person to use a vehicle creates vicarious liability. Liability depends upon proof that the driver was acting as servant or agent and for the purposes of the alleged principal.

35. Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd concerned a corporate employer held liable for the conduct of its employee acting in the course of employment. It does not establish personal liability against an individual merely because another person was permitted to use a vehicle.

36. The Claimant has pleaded and proved no facts establishing employment, agency, control, a business purpose or any other relationship capable of giving rise to vicarious liability.

37. The assertion at paragraphs 17 to 24 of the Claimant’s witness statement is therefore a speculative attempt to avoid the consequences of its failure to comply with PoFA and its inability to identify the driver.

The previous free parking regime

38. Before the material dates, the site operated as a free customer car park with a maximum stay of two hours.

39. The previous signage expressly stated that customers could park free for up to two hours and that an £85 parking charge would arise only for specified conduct such as exceeding the maximum stay or parking otherwise than in accordance with the displayed conditions.

40. A photograph of the previous sign is exhibited at DB4.

41. The Claimant subsequently introduced a materially different regime requiring payment of £0.40 for up to one hour and £0.80 for up to two hours.

42. This was not a minor alteration. It converted the car park from free parking for up to two hours into compulsory paid parking from the outset.

43. The Claimant’s replacement-sign photographs at pages 32 to 41 of its bundle are dated 12 June 2024, only ten days before the first alleged event on 22 June 2024.

44. Those dated photographs support the Defendant’s case that the paid regime had been introduced shortly before the alleged events.

45. The former and replacement signs used similar Horizon branding, colouring, layout and presentation. A regular user familiar with the free regime could readily fail to appreciate that the fundamental basis of parking had changed unless that change was specifically highlighted.

Failure to notify drivers of a material change

46. Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires additional temporary notices at the entrance for not less than four months where there is a material change to pre-existing terms which would not be immediately apparent to a driver.

47. The provision is expressly intended to prevent regular visitors familiar with the former terms from inadvertently incurring parking charges.

48. The relevant extract from section 3.4 is exhibited at DB5.

49. The Claimant has produced no evidence of any temporary entrance notice stating that the previous free parking regime had ended or that new charges had been introduced.

50. The entrance sign relied upon by the Claimant merely states “Park, Shop & Pay”. It does not state that:

   a. the former free parking arrangement had been withdrawn;

   b. materially different terms had recently been introduced;

   c. payment was now required from the outset; or

   d. regular users should not rely upon the former free regime.

51. The Claimant’s contention at paragraphs 25 to 29 of its witness statement that the former regime is irrelevant is contrary to the express purpose of section 3.4.

52. The whole purpose of that provision is to address the precise risk that motorists familiar with previous terms may otherwise fail to appreciate that a material change has occurred.

53. The fact that no payment was made is entirely consistent with a driver familiar with the established free two-hour regime believing that no tariff was payable.

54. The Claimant cannot rely upon its own failure to provide the required material-change warning as the basis for imposing two parking charges.

55. I therefore deny that the Claimant has proved that the new paid terms were fairly and adequately brought to the driver’s attention or that any contract was formed on those terms.

Standing and landowner authority

56. The court specifically directed the Claimant to provide evidence of the agreement authorising it to operate on the land and pursue parking charges.

57. At paragraph 3 of its witness statement, the Claimant refuses to produce that agreement and merely asserts that it is confidential.

58. Commercial confidentiality does not override a court direction or relieve the Claimant of its burden of proof.

59. The agreement is particularly relevant because it may establish:

   a. the identity of the contracting landowner or principal;

   b. the date and duration of the Claimant’s authority;

   c. the territorial extent of that authority;

   d. whether the Claimant was authorised to impose the particular paid tariff;

   e. when the previous free regime was changed; and

   f. whether the Claimant had authority to litigate in its own name.

60. The Claimant’s bare assertion that an agreement exists is not proof of its terms, duration, parties, territorial scope or authority to litigate.

61. Reliance upon One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw does not excuse non-compliance with the express direction made in this case requiring production of evidence of authority.

62. The Claimant has therefore failed to comply with the court’s direction and has failed to prove standing.

The original charges and subsequent additions

63. Each original parking notice demanded £85.

64. The Claimant’s notices at pages 51 and 53 of its bundle confirm the original amount of £85 per notice.

65. The Claimant subsequently added a £10 administration fee to each notice, increasing each alleged balance to £95.

66. The reminders and final reminders at pages 56 to 61 of the Claimant’s bundle show that sequence.

67. The signage relied upon identifies an £85 parking charge. It does not prominently state that a fixed additional £10 administration fee will become contractually payable.

68. The Claimant then seeks a further £70 per notice, namely £140, described as contractual or recovery costs.

69. The Claimant therefore attempts to recover, in respect of each original £85 notice:

   a. the £85 parking charge;

   b. a £10 administration fee; and

   c. a further £70 recovery charge.

70. The original claim form sought £95 per PCN plus another £70 per PCN.

71. The Amended Particulars of Claim then pleaded principal charges of £85 per PCN plus £70 per PCN.

72. The Claimant’s current Schedule of Losses at page 10 of its bundle now seeks £190 as principal debt, comprising £85 plus £10 per PCN, together with a further £140.

73. These changing formulations demonstrate that the Claimant has not maintained a consistent or properly calculated case as to quantum.

74. A general statement that further charges “may” be incurred does not transparently incorporate a fixed contractual liability of £70.

75. The reminder notices refer expressly only to the £10 administration fee. They do not establish that a further £70 became contractually due.

76. The Claimant’s Schedule of Losses is also internally contradictory. It seeks:

   “£140.00 or such other amount as the court considers fair and reasonable up to a maximum of £70.”

77. A demand for £140 subject to a stated maximum of £70 is inherently incoherent.

78. The sums claimed are therefore inconsistent, inadequately explained and unsupported by the prominent contractual terms.

Interest

79. The Claimant originally claimed a single composite sum of interest calculated from 19 August 2024.

80. That date predates the issue of both parking notices on 13 September 2024 and predates the date upon which either notice could have become overdue.

81. The claim concerns two separate alleged debts arising from different events. Any interest would need to be calculated separately from the date on which each individual sum allegedly became due.

82. No proper separate calculation has been produced.

83. At paragraph 38 of its witness statement, the Claimant concedes that interest could not accrue on the July charge from 19 August 2024.

84. The Claimant describes this as a drafting error and asks the court to recalculate the claim.

85. This is a further admission that the claim was issued and pleaded on an inaccurate basis.

86. The court should not be required to reconstruct a professionally represented claimant’s defective claim or calculate an alternative case which was not properly pleaded.

Late evidence and prejudice

87. The Claimant’s 61-page witness statement and bundle were served after the court-ordered deadline.

88. I was therefore required to prepare this statement after the deadline and in response to evidence which should already have been served before 17 July 2026.

89. The Claimant should not obtain a tactical advantage from its own failure to comply with the order.

90. It would be contrary to the overriding objective and the requirement to place the parties on an equal footing to permit a professionally represented Claimant to ignore the deadline while prejudicing an unrepresented Defendant who had not been given sight of the case and evidence intended to be relied upon.

91. I respectfully request that the late statement and evidence be excluded under CPR 32.10 unless the Claimant first obtains relief from sanctions.

92. Alternatively, I request that I be permitted to rely upon this statement and evidence in full, and that the Claimant’s non-compliance be taken into account when considering evidential weight and costs.

The adjournment application and reserved costs

93. After learning that I could not attend the original trial date, I contacted Gladstones Solicitors on 12 June 2026 seeking the Claimant’s consent to relist the hearing so as to avoid a formal application and fee.

94. I sent further emails on 15 June and 22 June 2026.

95. The complete email trail is exhibited at DB6.

96. Gladstones did not respond to any of those requests.

97. The Claimant’s witness statement now admits that the emails of 12, 15 and 22 June 2026 were received.

98. Gladstones’ contention that insufficient time was allowed to respond is untenable. The first request was received on 12 June 2026 and no response was provided before I was forced to apply.

99. Their silence required me to make an N244 application and incur a fee of £123. The N244 application and evidence of payment are exhibited at DB7.

100. The court granted my application, vacated the original hearing date and reserved the costs of that application, as shown by the order exhibited at DB2.

101. I respectfully request that the reserved £123 application fee be awarded against the Claimant at the conclusion of the trial.

Conclusion

102. The Claimant cannot rely upon PoFA and has produced no evidence identifying me as the driver.

103. It has proved no relationship capable of establishing agency or vicarious liability.

104. Its own dated photographs support the case that the parking regime had recently changed, yet it has produced no evidence of the temporary material-change notices required by section 3.4 of the applicable Code.

105. It has refused to produce the landowner agreement despite the court’s specific direction.

106. The sums claimed have changed repeatedly and include an unsupported £10 administration fee, a further £70 per PCN and an admitted defective interest calculation.

107. The Claimant’s witness statement and evidential bundle were served after the ordered deadline without permission or an application for relief from sanctions.

108. The Claimant’s witness has no direct knowledge, and neither Horizon Parking nor any factual witness intends to attend the hearing.

109. I respectfully invite the court to refuse permission for the Claimant to rely upon its late evidence under CPR 32.10.

110. Alternatively, I invite the court to attach limited weight to that late hearsay evidence and dismiss the claim because the Claimant has failed to establish liability on any pleaded basis.

111. I also respectfully request my ordinary allowable costs, the reserved £123 application fee and such further costs as the court considers appropriate under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in view of the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.

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.

Signed: [DEFENDANT’S FULL NAME]

Date:

Make sure you check all dates referenced and add them where there is a placeholder.

The hearing bundle should contain copies of the important filed documents so that the trial judge has them conveniently available. They should be listed as procedural documents, not as DB exhibits. For example:

1. Claim form and original PoC
   
2. Original Defence
   
3. Order requiring amended particulars
   
4. Amended Particulars of Claim
   
5. Amended Defence
   
6. Notice of Allocation
   
7. N244 application and supporting witness statement
   
8. Order vacating and relisting the hearing
   
9. Claimant’s witness statement and exhibits
   
10. Defendant’s substantive witness statement and DB exhibits
    
11. Costs schedule
    

The DB exhibit numbering should be reserved only for evidence exhibited to the new substantive witness statement, such as the previous free-parking sign, the PPSCoP extract, the adjournment correspondence and proof of the £123 fee.

The matching exhibit index:

DB1 – Notice of Allocation containing the 17 July 2026 deadline
DB2 – Order dated 8 July 2026 vacating the original hearing and reserving application costs
DB3 – Notice of Trial Date listing the hearing for 17 September 2026
DB4 – Photograph of the previous free two-hour parking sign
DB5 – PPSCoP section 3.4 extract
DB6 – Full email trail seeking Gladstones’ consent to relist
DB7 – N244 application and evidence of payment of the £123 fee
DB8 – Gladstones’ covering email serving the late witness statement and giving notice under CPR 27.9

[mouse]

Thank you for that, I will get straight on with getting that done.  


I am just going through their witness statement, the amount of holes in this is mind blowing.

Is it worth mentioning the original notice to hirer that was sent to my employer The August one that actually isn't on this claim? That's where they got the details from to then backdate these claims. I don't want this claim to finish and they start up again for that one, I would like for the Judge to be able to stop them from putting another claim in.

I will post my witness statement for you to have a read over just to make sure its good to go.

Immensely grateful for all of your help and expert knowledge with this.

[b789]

If there’s anything relevant you think should be mentioned, then add it to the WS. However, it should only relate to anything your defence is based on or has been brought up by the claimant since the claim was made. 

It sounds like they are not going to waste their money on sending a local advocate so you should be able to explain your side to the judge without any issue. Remember, they have acted unreasonably throughout this claim and you must remember to ask for costs at the end. 

Hopefully the judge will be seasoned enough and familiar with the practice of incompetent firms like Gladstone to throw their claim out without having to go through everything in detail. The single most basic point is that they failed to pay the trial fee and the claim should have automatically been thrown out. 

You could point out that their WS appears to assume that the judge came down in the last rain shower. One clear example is them stating that they are not obliged to reveal their contract with the landowner, even though a judge ordered them to do so. 

As long as you understand all the points that you are making, the rebuttal of their points and how you cannot be liable as Keeper, then you’ll be fine.

[mouse]

I sent the email to court asking if my request had been put to a Judge, so hopefully I get a response tomorrow.

 With regard to the hearing bundle, the original defence, that was the one submitted through MCOL wasn't it?  Just so i'm correct with the dates I'm putting down.

They have till 20th August to pay the fee, which I would imagine they will pay it, it's been going on for two years but we can live in hope they don't. 

Nothing in the defence that states the original parking charge from August but thought it could be useful. Would I be opening a can of worms mentioning anything? I just want this to be the end of them. if I could get the Judge to stop Gladstones/Horizon from putting another claim in for that one, but not sure how it would work seen as it isn't on this claim. 


Do I wait for tomorrow to see if the court reply about the deadline or just send it with a covering letter?

Thanks again for your continued support.

[mouse]

@b789 The matching index DB is that what they should be listed as or my initials? From what I have read previously is that how it should be listed? Don't want to get anything wrong at this stage.
Just done the costs schedule, which I have attached is this ok or does it need to be in a different format?

Thanks 

  Costs _compressed.pdf (Size: 18.1 KB / Downloads: 2)