Horizon Claim

[b789]

@mouse, these amended particulars do not exactly scream competence.

Gladstones were given a judicial lifeline after their first set of particulars was struck out for non-compliance, yet what they have now produced is still riddled with holes, contradictions and sloppy pleading. They still have not properly proved any basis to hold the keeper liable, because the July notice they exhibit is plainly far too late for PoFA and they have not even exhibited the June NtK at all. So on one hand they flirt with PoFA “where applicable”, and on the other they try to bluff their way around that by inviting the court to presume the keeper was the driver or somehow vicariously liable. That is not proper pleading. It is just scattergun nonsense thrown at the wall in the hope that something sticks.

The signage point is also awkward for them. Their own dated photos strongly suggest that the paid regime was introduced only shortly before the first alleged event, which fits exactly with your account that this used to be a free-for-two-hours car park and that regular users would not have realised the terms had changed. Yet they have produced no evidence at all of the temporary entrance notices that should have been in place to warn motorists of a material change. In other words, their own evidence helps to explain why the driver would have been caught out.

Then there is the money side of it, which is another mess. The original claim was based on £95 per PCN, but the amended particulars now retreat to £85 per PCN, so they have effectively admitted that the original figures on the claim form were wrong. They still try to bolt on £70 per PCN as “contractual costs”, yet the sign wording they rely on refers only to an £85 parking charge. Their own July paperwork then makes things worse by showing not some £70 contractual uplift at all, but a later £10 admin fee taking the sum from £85 to £95. So even their own document trail contradicts the story they are now trying to tell.

The interest claim is just as sloppy. They have used one composite figure and one start date for two separate PCNs, without showing any proper calculation, and their chosen date is impossible for the July PCN because it comes before the notice they rely on was even issued. That is the sort of careless bulk-litigation rubbish you get when a file is not being properly checked by anyone with a functioning brain.

So overall, yes, they have managed to file something longer than the original cut-and-paste drivel, but longer does not mean better. It is still incompetent, inconsistent and inept. They have not repaired the underlying weaknesses in the claim. What they have done is expose even more clearly that this has been handled in the usual slapdash Gladstones way.

I advise you to now submit your amended defence. You should submit it as a PDF. You do not need a wet signature. Simply sign the Statement of Truth by typing your full name. You will add the image of the previous free 2 hour parking sign later in your Witness Statement, if the judge does not throw out the claim first. You email it as an attachment and you CC Gladstones and yourself in the same email.

Use the following as your Amended Defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM

Claim No: [Claim number]

Between

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED
(Claimant)

-and-

[DEFENDANTS FULL NAME]
(Defendant)

---

AMENDED DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed.

2. Save where expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Amended Particulars of Claim (“APoC”).

3. The APoC, even as amended, fail to establish any lawful basis upon which the Claimant can recover the sums claimed from this Defendant.

4. The Claimant has failed to establish any right to recover from the Defendant as keeper. The APoC plead liability as driver or as registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) “where applicable”, but the Claimant’s own exhibited July 2024 PCN is dated 13 September 2024 in respect of an alleged parking event on 20 July 2024. Such a notice could not have been delivered within the mandatory 14-day relevant period required by PoFA for keeper liability. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of full PoFA compliance for each alleged event, which is denied.

5. As to the alleged event of 22 June 2024, no Notice to Keeper has been exhibited at all. In the absence of the underlying notice, the Claimant cannot establish service, timing, wording or any other mandatory condition precedent to keeper liability. Keeper liability is denied.

6. The APoC also attempt to plead that, where PoFA is not relied upon, the Court should presume that the Defendant was the driver or that the Defendant is vicariously liable. That is misconceived. There is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. Nor has the Claimant pleaded any material facts capable of giving rise to vicarious liability or any proper inference that the Defendant was driving on either material date. A bare assertion of “reasonable presumption” is not evidence and discloses no proper legal basis for liability.

7. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant has failed to establish that any contract was fairly and adequately brought to the driver’s attention on the terms now alleged. The Claimant’s own evidence shows that the payment regime and terms were changed shortly before the first alleged event. The Claimant’s signage photographs are dated 12 June 2024, only 10 days before the first alleged parking event of 22 June 2024, and show a materially different pay-and-display regime with charges of £0.40 for up to 1 hour and £0.80 for up to 2 hours.

8. The previous signage at the site showed a materially different regime, namely a free customer car park with a maximum stay of 2 hours and an £85 parking charge only for specified misconduct such as exceeding the maximum stay or parking improperly. The similarity in overall sign style, branding and layout supports the Defendant’s position that a regular user could easily miss that the site had changed from a free-stay regime to a paid regime.

9. Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires additional temporary entrance notices for not less than four months where there is a material change to pre-existing parking terms that would not be immediately apparent to a driver. The Claimant has produced no evidence at all of any such temporary entrance notices alerting motorists to the withdrawal of the previous free parking arrangement. In those circumstances, the Defendant denies that the alleged new charging terms were fairly and adequately brought to the driver’s attention and denies that any relevant contract was formed on those terms.

10. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the exact date on which the previous free parking arrangement ended, the precise date on which the new terms came into force, the contractual authority under which those terms were changed, and the temporary signage or other notices used to communicate that material change to motorists for the required period.

11. The Claimant’s standing is not admitted. The APoC merely assert that a confidential landowner agreement exists but refuse to disclose it. The Defendant is not required to accept that bare assertion. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous written agreement in force on the material dates conferring authority to impose the specific parking regime relied upon, to recover charges in its own name, and to litigate. If the landowner agreement records when the terms changed or authorises the new charging model, it is plainly relevant and should be produced.

12. The Claimant has failed properly to evidence both alleged causes of action. Although the APoC plead two separate parking events on 22 June 2024 and 20 July 2024, the documents exhibited behind the APoC include only the PCN correspondence for the alleged event of 20 July 2024. The Defendant is therefore unable to verify the date, wording, amount, service and alleged basis of the other PCN, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the complete contemporaneous notice chain for the alleged event of 22 June 2024.

13. The quantum claimed is defective, inconsistent and unsupported. The APoC plead that each PCN comprised a principal charge of £85 and “an additional £70 in contractual costs” said to be expressly permitted by the terms and signage. However, the wording of the signage pleaded by the Claimant identifies only an £85 Parking Charge Notice for failure to pay for full duration of stay. It does not identify any additional £70 contractual recovery fee. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact sign wording relied upon for such an additional sum.

14. Further, the APoC do not reconcile with the sum originally claimed on the claim form. The original claim form sought £362.94 as the substantive claim, which could only have been based on principal charges of £95 per PCN for two PCNs. The APoC now plead principal charges of only £85 per PCN, namely £170 in total, plus £140 alleged contractual costs and £32.94 interest, which totals £342.94, not £362.94. The Claimant has therefore materially reduced and contradicted its own pleaded case without properly explaining the discrepancy. This further shows that the claim was issued on an inaccurate basis and that the sums claimed have not been properly or consistently particularised.

15. The Claimant’s own exhibited July 2024 PCN correspondence also undermines the pleaded £70 add-on. The original PCN demanded £85. The subsequent reminder still demanded £85, while stating that if payment or driver details were not received within 28 days an additional charge of £10.00 would be incurred. The final reminder then demanded £95 and expressly stated that an administration fee had been applied. Those documents do not evidence any contractual entitlement to a £70 recovery sum and instead show a different and inconsistent escalation mechanism.

16. The APoC also fail properly to particularise or justify the interest claim. The Claimant claims one composite sum of £32.94, calculated at £0.07 per day from 19 August 2024. That is unexplained and wrong on the face of the Claimant’s own documents. This claim concerns two separate alleged debts on different dates. If interest is claimed at all, it must be calculated separately for each alleged debt from the date that particular sum allegedly became due. The Claimant has shown no such calculation. Moreover, in relation to the alleged event of 20 July 2024, the Claimant’s own exhibited PCN is dated 13 September 2024, so the pleaded interest start date of 19 August 2024 is impossible.

17. Further, the Claimant’s own table in the APoC identifies the location for both alleged events as “Bath Street Car Park Ilkeston DE7 9AH”, whereas the signage evidence and the exhibited July 2024 PCN correspondence identify the site as Bath Street Car Park, Ilkeston, DE7 8AH. This is a further inconsistency in the Claimant’s case.

18. The Defendant accordingly denies that the Claimant is entitled to the principal sum claimed, any alleged contractual recovery costs, any interest as pleaded, or any other relief. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Amended Defence 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:


Date:

The attachment should titled "Amended Defence - [claim number] - [surname].pdf" and be sent by email to hearings.nottingham.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC enquiries.nottingham.countycourt@justice.gov.uk; enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk (unless they used a different one if they emailed their APoC to you); and CC yourself.

The Subject of the email should be: Claim No. [claim number] – Defendant’s Amended Defence. In the body of the email just put:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached the Defendant’s Amended Defence in the above claim, filed and served pursuant to the court’s Order dated 27 April 2026.

A copy of this email and attachment is being sent to the Claimant’s solicitor, Gladstones Solicitors.

Kind regards,

[full name]
Defendant

[postal address]
[email address]