06-05-2026, 08:24 PM
@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:
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:
Quote: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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Several signage photographs appear to be dated June 2022 and February to May 2023, whereas the alleged parking event was on 1 November 2023.
- 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.
- One of the ANPR images is extremely dark and of limited evidential value.
- 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
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
