Horizon Claim

[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