DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 20, 2026, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You also need to come up with explicit questions for the
claimant, knowing that they won’t turn up (their choice) and
their representative will probably be useless. Ask questions
specific to the case and let the court come to conclusions about
their inability to answer them.
It’s very likely that their drone solicitor will only have read
anything about the case 5 minutes before the hearing. Use their
lack of knowledge to your advantage.
#Post#: 122593--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: ParkingLobster72
Date: June 22, 2026, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The original NtK is massively non-compliant and this needs to
be drawn to the attention of the Court if this hearing does go
ahead.
>
> I can provide extra commentary for you to take with you on the
day - this can then be used to walk the Judge through the
non-compliance.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes please, this would be a massive help.
I am so out of my depth right now, I need to understand exactly
how it is non-compliant myself.
It is only the POFA legislation in my witness statement, I also
talk about how they rely on ANPR timings if there is anything to
back that up?
Any help is so appreciated right now. I cant thank this forum
enough.
#Post#: 122594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 22, 2026, 1:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you able to ring the Court again today to see if the fee has
been paid?
#Post#: 122623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: ParkingLobster72
Date: June 22, 2026, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Are you able to ring the Court again today to see if the fee
has been paid?
>
--- End Quote ---
yes I can do that on the way home..
They have sent me this today:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a Solicitor in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors
Limited, who act for the Claimant in this
matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the
supervision of my principal. The matters to which I
refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge
or based on information provided to
me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where
expressly stated to the contrary. I am
duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on their
behalf.
2. I make this supplemental witness statement in response to
matters raised for the first time within the
Defendant’s Witness Statement dated 19 June 2026.
3. Save where expressly admitted, the Claimant joins issue with
the matters raised by the Defendant and
relies upon my witness statement dated 17 June 2026.
Driver Identity
4. The Defendant now asserts that she was not the driver of the
vehicle on the material date and that the
vehicle was instead being used by her former partner.
5. This allegation was not pleaded within the Defendant’s
Defence.
6. The Defence did not state that the Defendant was not the
driver, did not identify any alternative driver
and did not rely upon any circumstances involving a former
partner.
1
7. The Notice to Keeper expressly invited the Defendant, if she
was not the driver, to provide the full
name and current serviceable address of the driver within 28
days so that liability could be transferred.
8. No such information was provided. Instead, the first
allegation that another individual was driving
appears within the Defendant’s witness statement served shortly
before the hearing, more than two
years after the material event and only after proceedings had
been issued.
9. Had the Defendant identified the alleged driver within the
period specified in the Notice to Keeper, the
Claimant would have had the opportunity to investigate that
individual and consider recovery directly
from them. The Defendant’s late assertion has deprived the
Claimant of that opportunity.
10. The Claimant respectfully submits that the Defendant cannot
now seek to avoid liability by making a
late and unsupported assertion regarding an alleged driver whose
identity was not notified to the
Claimant when requested. The allegation is unsupported by any
documentary evidence, witness
evidence or other corroborative material and the Court is
invited to attach limited weight to an
assertion raised for the first time more than two years after
the material event and only shortly before
trial.
Keeper Liability
11. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant cannot establish
liability against her as registered keeper.
12. The Defendant admits that she was the registered keeper of
the vehicle at the material time.
13. The Claimant therefore maintains that keeper liability is
available in this matter pursuant to
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
14. The Defendant identifies no specific defect in the Notice to
Keeper, nor any particular provision of
Schedule 4 with which the Claimant is alleged to have failed to
comply.
15. In those circumstances, the Defendant’s challenge to keeper
liability amounts to a general
assertion by any identified statutory non-compliance or pleaded
factual basis.
ANPR Evidence
16. The Defendant suggests that ANPR evidence alone is
insufficient to establish a breach.
17. The Claimant does not rely solely upon ANPR timestamps. The
Claimant also relies upon its
parking management records, which identified no payment
associated with the vehicle registration
during the material parking event.
18. The vehicle was recorded entering the Site at 13:50 and
exiting at 17:00, remaining on site for 3
hours and 10 minutes. No payment was identified in respect of
that parking event.
2
19. The Defendant does not dispute the vehicle’s presence at the
Site, the duration recorded, or that no
payment was made.
Claimant’s Non-Attendance
20. The Defendant criticises the Claimant’s decision not to
attend the hearing and suggests that adverse
inferences should be drawn from that decision.
21. The Claimant has complied with the Small Claims Track
procedure and has filed and served a Notice
of Non-Attendance pursuant to CPR 27.9.
22. The Civil Procedure Rules expressly permit a party to
request that a claim be determined in its absence
where the relevant procedural requirements have been satisfied.
23. The Claimant respectfully submits that no adverse inference
should be drawn from the proper exercise
of that procedural right.
Additional Costs
24. The Defendant challenges the additional costs claimed.
25. The Claimant maintains that the sums claimed are properly
pleaded and recoverable. In the alternative,
should the Court decline to award any element of the additional
costs claimed, the Claimant maintains
its entitlement to the principal parking charge, court fee,
fixed legal costs and applicable interest.
26. In any event, the existence of a dispute regarding
additional sums does not affect the Claimant’s
entitlement to recover the principal parking charge, applicable
court fees and interest should the Court
find liability established.
27. Save as set out above, the Claimant relies upon the evidence
and submissions already filed and served
and respectfully invites the Court to enter judgment in favour
of the Claimant.
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.
#Post#: 122624--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 22, 2026, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are entitled to do this, so I would suggest you stick to
the non-compliance with PoFA 2012, prepare questions, and
hopfully use the input from [member=6750]InterCity125[/member].
#Post#: 122630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 22, 2026, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If I had the misfortune of representing a parking company, I'd
probably also point to the fact that the assertion around the
driver was disclosed at a late stage, and draw attention to its
omission within the defence.
Looking at the points around the driver, in your case I would
try and avoid Gladstones using any weaknesses in your defence to
distract from the weaknesses in your case. The starting point is
that it is for the Claimant to prove their case. Therefore, if
they allege you are the driver, they should prove this on the
balance of probabilities. I would draw attention to the fact
that they have provided no evidence that the Defendant was the
driver, and are relying on assumptions, which are disproved by
your evidence. Even if your evidence is to be accorded little
weight (which you assert it should not be), they have offered no
evidence that you were the driver.
It then becomes a question of keeper liability.
#Post#: 122646--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 22, 2026, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Parking PCN Notes.
The Claimant is reliant on Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(POFA) in order to invoke what is known as 'keeper liability'.
In order to invoke keeper liability, the Claimant (parking
operator) issued Notice to Keeper (NtK) is required to meet ALL
the requirements of POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) conditions
(a) to (i).
Partial compliance is not sufficient as the legislation requires
total compliance - this is stated in the wording of Paragraph
9(1) and again within the wording of Paragraph 9(2)(f) which
specifies that keeper liability only occurs 'if all the
applicable conditions under this Schedule are met'.
The notice is not PoFA compliant for the following reasons;
Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies that-
The notice MUST inform the keeper that the driver is required to
pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of
parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(b) therefore sets out two
requirements of the sentence which must be set out in the
operators NtK, namely;
1. That the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect
of the specified period
AND
2. That the parking charges have not been paid in full.
The operator's NtK contains no sentence which draws the keepers
attention to either of the two requirements set out in Paragraph
9(2)(b).
This is immediately fatal to the Claimant's reliance on POFA as
the notice does not meet the conditions of 9(2)(b).
Further,
Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies that-
The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
We are therefore looking for the section of mandatory wording
immediately followed by the two limbed 'invitation to the
keeper' which Paragraph 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) sets
out - the two limbs must be separated by the word "or" thus
presenting the keeper with the invitation to do one OR the
other.
An examination of the NtK reveals that the statutory wording is
not present - the legislation specifies that the notice "MUST
STATE" this information.
(Neither is there any other statement which fits the requirement
of the mandatory wording)
Furthermore, the two limbed invitation to the keeper is never
presented in the manner prescribed by the legislation - namely;
a two limbed invite immediately following the prescribed wording
- additionally, there is no specific invitation to the keeper to
pay the unpaid charges.
Once again, this is fatal to the Claimant's reliance on POFA
keeper liability.
Further,
Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that-
The notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
The Claimants NtK does not replicate the required statutory
wording or meaning.
The wording is significantly altered to such an extent that the
statutory intent of 9(2)(f) is not conveyed - namely;
1. The Claimant's notice simply says, "If after 28 days...."
when the legislation requires it to state, "If after the period
of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice
is given"
2. The Claimant's notice says that they have the right, "to
recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the
keeper of the vehicle and further costs may be incurred" when
the legislation requires it to state that, "the creditor will
(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)
have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount
as remains unpaid" - the Claimant's revised wording materially
alters the warning given since it warns the keeper that 'further
costs may be incurred' when the legislation makes it clear that
the Claimant may only recover so much of the amount that remains
unpaid - the Claimant has altered the statutory wording in an
effort to persuade the keeper that they can recover more than
the amount of the original parking charge.
Once again, the non-present / incorrect wording / wrongly stated
statutory intent is immediately fatal to the Claimant's reliance
on POFA.
#Post#: 122656--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 22, 2026, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've got some other defence points in relation to their
supplementary WS which quite frankly is nonsense.
They were obviously hoping to railroad the Judge down the
'assumption that the keeper was the driver' route.
#Post#: 122767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: ParkingLobster72
Date: June 23, 2026, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve had an email to say due to the weather the hearing has been
moved to a court over an hour away instead of the one 20 mins
away.
Will it hurt my case to ask them to postpone it until it can be
heard closer?
I won’t be able to get there in time after dropping my daughter
to school.
#Post#: 122774--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Court Papers received - Water Gardens
Harlow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 23, 2026, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It cannot hurt to try.
This is an extreme situation.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page