DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97952--------------------------------------------------
Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 13, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, have received a legal claim from Horizon Parking who are
being advised by Gladstones. I intend to defend in court.
Any advice will be greatly appreciated. I will upload relevant
documents shortly.
HTML https://limewire.com/d/S3kw2#Rt27XRwViY
#Post#: 97968--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 13, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to re-post covering your MCOL password!
#Post#: 97969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 13, 2025, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have the original PCN?
#Post#: 97970--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 13, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> You need to re-post covering your MCOL password!
>
--- End Quote ---
The claim number is obscured
#Post#: 98097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: b789
Date: November 14, 2025, 3:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
as they do not state the cause of action. They simply say that
the driver breach a contract without specifying what terms in
the contract were breached. It could be because the car is red
and only green cars are allowed to park on that day of the week.
Who knows?
With an issue date of 5th November, you have until 4pm on Monday
24th November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 8th December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 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. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a).
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive
appellate cases:
>
> - Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ
Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
>
> - CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ
Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
>
> In both cases, the claim was struck out due to materially
similar failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
>
> 5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of
its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial
reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County
Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply
with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that,
given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management
steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set
out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 16, 2025, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much.
I have now acknowledged the service of the claim. Unfortunately,
can't seem to locate the original parking charge 'PCN' or the
NTK. It has slipped from my memory, but I remember never
receiving some of the documents. Any way, I have written to the
Parking provider and made a Subject Access Request and also
written to Gladstones and asked to make disclosure of the
documents that they have referenced in the particulars of the
claim.
There is one thing I do know that I had received a PCN from
Horizon re: a different incident a little time before this one
and I successfully argued Non-compliance with PoFA 2012 at POPLA
on account of the wording around 28 days to pay. I am confident
that the same fatal error must have occured in this case.
HTML https://ibb.co/Jwf2G13P
HTML https://ibb.co/k2dXgvYq
HTML https://ibb.co/JwzsZQbd
HTML https://ibb.co/Q7g0WMSk
HTML https://ibb.co/WNgyKx5f
HTML https://ibb.co/Ps2M7DQ0
#Post#: 98777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 19, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just recieved a response from Gladstones and they have
only provided me the letter that I already have. I do not think
they have any other document in their possession. Neither the
PCN not the NTK. They have provided NTK reminder notification
(which I already have) and It says Parking charge issue date 20
Oct 2024 and date of breach 14 September 24. That's more than 14
days in between the alleged contravention and the PCN issue.
Surely this is not enforceable. Any thoughts?
NTK reminder
HTML https://ibb.co/WNgyKx5f
Letter from Gladstones
HTML https://ibb.co/YF70tmsv
#Post#: 98781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 19, 2025, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you the registered keeper with the correct details on your
V5C?
#Post#: 98786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 19, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am.
#Post#: 98806--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: b789
Date: November 19, 2025, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without seeing what you put in your response to their LoC, it is
difficult to advise much more. It seems that you may have
referred to some CPR points that are not relevant to the small
claims track.
There is no real value in responding to Gladstones at this
point. Your defence is already filed and it squarely raises CPR
16.4(1)(a) non-compliance. Their CPR 31.14 reply comes after
that, and on small claims CPR 31.14 doesn’t strictly bite
anyway. All you really need to do now is:
Keep their letter as an exhibit. It confirms they have not
provided the original NtK, only a reminder, and that they
propose to “supply the core documents (PCN/NTK…)” later in their
evidence bundle.
When you come to your witness statement, you can rely on this:
note that, despite a specific request, they failed to disclose
the NtK pre-hearing and therefore have not, to date, evidenced
any PoFA-compliant notice capable of creating keeper liability.
That goes both to conduct (PAPDC / disclosure) and to the
substantive PoFA point.
Engaging in further back-and-forth now is unlikely to produce
the NtK (if they had it readily to hand they would have enclosed
it) and will not change the pleaded issues. Save the point for
your evidence and submissions.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page