Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Skinnyfinger on September 29, 2025, 04:27:34 pm
-
Yes, just bear in mind that the operator will ignore anything you say in your response, you’re simply responding to document your disagreement to the courts in due course if necessary. A court claim will follow, which you will defend, and it’s unlikely that it will ever actually get to court, but it’s suggested that you always assume that it might and act acordingly.
-
Thank you. I can't quite find a similar case where the reason for disputing the PCN is that a car park with ANPR should not have generated a payment amount if a wrong vehicle registration was entered, which is making me a bit pessimistic. In any case I'm planning to respond to the Letter Before Claim with the following:
On 16 March 2025, my vehicle entered the car park at The Galleria Hatfield. I paid £3 by card. Evidence of the payment is enclosed. Your client has confirmed that it located and mapped this payment to my vehicle. This is therefore not a case in which the parking tariff was unpaid or deliberately avoided.
Your client’s position is that only “XX22” was recorded rather than my complete registration. However, “XX22” was entered as a search term, not as the registration against which I intended to purchase parking. I had parked at this car park on numerous previous occasions and had consistently followed the same process. I entered “XX22”, after which the ANPR-linked terminal identified and displayed my vehicle. I selected the vehicle shown and the system calculated the amount payable by reference to its recorded entry time. Because this process had worked successfully on previous visits, I reasonably understood that entering “XX22” searched the live ANPR records and allowed me to select my full registration. I did not knowingly purchase parking against an incomplete registration.
On the date concerned, the terminal generated a tariff and accepted my payment without warning me that the vehicle had not been correctly identified or that the transaction was invalid.
There is therefore a genuine factual dispute as to whether the terminal:
- identified my vehicle but failed to retain or link the full registration correctly;
- accepted payment without retaining the vehicle selected on screen; or
- accepted a partial search without adequately warning that the parking session had not been linked to a complete registration.
The fact that your client has found and mapped the payment supports my position that the payment related to this vehicle and parking event.
-
If you’re going to defend this claim, then you need to reply to the letter from Gladstones with reference to https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct,
the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed
, or you search the forum for other replies to similar letters.
You do not have to use their “form” or their portal for this, it’s just a letter in response to a letter.
You then need to think of your defence for the likely county court claim that will follow. We can advise on the mechanics of this, but you need to examine the Particulars of Claim that will be on the N1SDT form and reply to them, with a defence which is specific to their allegations and your reasons why you deny the claim.
Do not use the long boilerplate/template defence which goes on about the process, because increasingly this is being struck out by the courts as not being specific enough to the claim.
If you want more information, I suggest you search the forum for similar cases.
-
An update on the PCN. I have received a Letter Before Claim for the Horizon PCN from Gladstone Solicitors. I paste the content below. I would really appreciate any advice on dealing with this please.
I still believe there was a system error as there shouldn’t have been a parking fee if I had entered the wrong number plate given it was ANPR. I had tried numerous times after the PCN, entering a wrong number plate it never returned an amount to pay. Very puzzling.
Thank you!
Content of letter:
We act on behalf of Horizon Parking Limited and are instructed to commence legal proceedings against you to recover unpaid parking charge notice(s) as detailed above (full details of them having been sent to you by our client already). If in the next 30 days the amount due is not paid in full, or a valid legal reason for non-payment is not provided, we will commence court proceedings against you without further notice.
The amount due includes £70.00 claimed by our client for the time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice(s) pursuant to its ATA's Code of Practice and the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, which was entered into upon the driver of the vehicle entering the Relevant Land. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contribution to our client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment.
We refer you to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraph 7) (the 'PAP') and the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 13-16) contained in the Civil Procedure Rules ('CPR'); regarding the Court's powers to impose sanctions for any failure to comply with the Practice Direction or the Protocol.
If you dispute the amount due you should respond via the reply form. In accordance with the PAP, which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately. This can be completed on our website www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk or alternatively, you can request a paper version (see overleaf). Before completing the online reply form you will be required to create a login, you will need your reference to do this.
Warning regarding the issue of Court Proceedings
If you fail to pay the amount due or provide reasons as to why you dispute the debt within 30 days, our client reserves all its rights, including the right to commence Court proceedings which will incur further costs and interest (as detailed below), which will be added to the value of the claim. Following which, a County Court Judgment ('CCJ') may be entered against you.
If a CCJ is obtained in default, this will show on your credit record immediately and if payment of the CCJ is not made within 1 calendar month of the date of entry of the Judgment, the CCJ will not be removed and will be applied to your credit record for a period of 6 years.
This may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future, or result in higher rates of interest being applied to any credit you are able to obtain.
Please Contact Us
Our team is ready to try to work with you to resolve this matter without the need for Court proceedings so it is important you contact us upon receipt of this letter.
-
TBH I thought it was ridiculous and didn't take it seriously, and definitely should have come here for advice when I received the initial notice (but I only just found this forum). I'll come back if/when I receive a LoC. Thank you all for what you do here.
-
A reminder is as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. We need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) will ALL dates and times visible.
It's a pity you did not come here for advice before appealing to both Horizon and POPLA. However, you are where you are.
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will advise on how to beat this and not have to pay a penny to Horizon.
-
Yes, the driver is me and I have identified myself. Please see below for the PCN final reminder
(https://imgur.com/HgMCNgr)
https://imgur.com/HgMCNgr (https://imgur.com/HgMCNgr)
-
Can you post a copy of the PPN?
with personal details redacted but leave dates.
Has the driver been identified in any appeal?
-
The driver parked at Galleria Car park, Hatfield on 16th March, which is operated by Horizon Parking. The car park uses ANPR and pay before return to car. The driver had been there many times and normally when typing in the first few letters of the registration, the payment system would match it to a car that entered the car park that day, automatically complete it, and generate the correct amount to pay. The driver paid for the session and left.
On 4th April, they received a PCN claiming they did not pay for the session, and appealed to the operator with the credit card statement as evidence. The company replied that they couldn't find a payment against the car registration and lowered the fine to £15. The driver appealed again; the company then wrote back:
"After further investigation, I can confirm that payment for parking was made under vehicle registration XX22 however, your vehicle registration is XX22 XXX.
As payment for parking was not made under the correct registration, we were unable to
reconcile the payment that you made with the vehicle you were using, and a Parking Charge
was therefore issued.
The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules
and regulations. When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they
adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.
Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this
occasion your appeal has been rejected."
The driver was baffled because it was impossible to pay for the session without the system identifying the vehicle and generating an amount to pay. They appealed to POPLA, intending to attach a video they made on a recent visit, showing how the payment system worked (and how it would not generate an amount to pay if the registration was not recognised) as evidence. However, POPLA website did not accept video upload, so the driver included a link to Google Photos to access the video.
Horizon reviewed the video and claimed that the video was not relevant because it was not made during the original visit (but they were missing the point - the point was it was not possible to pay!). POPLA worker rejected the appeal because they cannot access evidence that was not uploaded, and said if the driver had intended to use the video they should have contacted POPLA directly, rather than attaching a link to view it.
The driver received a Parking Charge Final Reminder issued on 14th Sept demanding £95 outstanding charge. If full payment is not received within 14 days (which has passed) this case may be passed to a debt recovery agent which may result in court proceedings to recover the outstanding amount and additional fees may be incurred.
The driver still believes it was system error, but Horizon insisted that there was no error. What is the best option now? Any advice is appreciated.