Prohibition of Stopping charges contravene IPC CoP (unless at airports or similar)

York_MoSavE

Hello Forum, it has become time to reinvigorate this since we now have Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims track. 12 Feb 26 the district Judge had struck out Moorside Legal Particulars of Claim but they did resubmit before the deadline and I now have a deadline 4pm 26 Mar to send an Amended Defence.

I have been through a variety of posts trying to discern current practice regarding No Stopping Charges, Bilbrough and Moorside Legal.
It appears to my understanding that Moorside may be adapting to some of the successful defences. These posts seems closest but not to have progressed to an amended CoP:
NoStopping - Gateway House, Manchester 2022 - Moorside Legal Money Claim has a defence written but I'm uncertain of applicability on 2 counts, that CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7 defence works given the below PoC and whether there are any material differences between Gateway House and Bilbrough regarding signage "This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs"

Moorside Legal(UKCPS) N1SDT Claim form - Please help :) this is a Bilbrough defence post but it hasn't been tested to the point of Moorside backing out of the claim but could form my amended defence, I had previously included Chan and Akande but consider they may not be relevant now.

The amended PoC from Moorside are as follows:

1. The Claimant seeks recovery of the sum of £182.78 for an unpaid private parking charge notice and interest, together with the fees and costs of the Claim, totalling £267.78.

2. At all material times the Claimant was a company whose primary business was managing parking on private land, and therefore manages the car park at Private Roadways, Bilbrough, York YO23 3NX (‘the Land’). The Claimant was authorised by the landowner to manage the Land at all material times, pursuant to a Land Agreement between the Claimant and the Landowner.

3. The Defendant was the keeper of a vehicle that was issued with a private parking charge notice (‘PCN’) on the Land. A copy of the PCN can be found at Exhibit 1.

4. The Claimant managed the Land by displaying signs setting out the rules of parking (i.e. the ‘Contract’) and explaining that the Claimant would issue private parking charge notices to any vehicles found parked on the Land without complying with the Terms of the Contract. These signs constitute a legally binding contract between the Claimant and any motorist who enters the land. A copy of the signs can be found at Exhibit 2.

5. Any vehicle parked in compliance with the Terms of the Contract, did so under a license. Any vehicle found to be parked in breach of the Terms would not have been granted the same.

6. The Contract made it clear that a £100.00 PCN would be issued for any breach of the Contract and that amount would escalate if debt recovery action was required to recover it.

7. This PCN was issued on 11 May 2024 to a my vehicle with the registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper. The said vehicle was observed parked on the land when the signage specifically said, ‘No Stopping’, which breached the terms and conditions of use of the land. Photographs of the parking incident can be found at Exhibit 3.

8. The PCN was payable by the Defendant as the Keeper within 28 days of issue but remains unpaid, therefore the Claimant now seeks full recovery of the escalated amount of the PCN.

9. The Claimant also claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date that debt recovery action began until the date of issue and continuing at a rate of 8% per annum from the date payment was due until Judgment or sooner payment (but limited to one year).

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

(1) The parking charge and interest of £182.78;
(2) Continuing interest as aforesaid;
(3) Court Fees;
(4) Costs.

Exhibit 2 is a 17 photos of the signs throughout the site (date stamped 22/12/2021) along with a graphic of the sign below which has no contract terms since it is a prohibition only.

Exhibit 3 shows my vehicle at a stop on a section of double yellow lines with a car door open and a minute later with a car door shut.

IPC Code of PracticeV9 V4 applied at the time of event and stated:
13.3 Prohibition on stopping
The provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where awheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g. within airports. Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from the IPC following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.

So I want to iron out if any differences are relevant for me to adjust the Moorside legal defence post version based upon the amended PoC.

Thank you to the site gurus for looking at this for me.

Coupon-mad

That graphic says (bottom left):

'Managed by Company name'.

That's their evidence?!

Show us their site pics of signs & lines. Double red lines? Or yellow?

And show us the NTK, both sides.

Did you ever appeal & 'out' the driver?

Car1980

Looking on Streetview the lines are yellow.

The contract is obviously too small to be seen, let alone read from a moving vehicle. They are of course incapable of forming a valid contract due to their absurd "by stopping to read this contract you agree to pay £100" nature.

This mini roundabout offers the driver a choice - fail to comply with the contract and collide with another vehicle or pedestrian, or comply with the contract and be charged £100 for not causing injury or death.

Coupon-mad

Gawd that's appalling.

Castle

How would you use the "PowerFoam Jet Wash" without stopping!

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81925392#Comment_81925392

From Companies House

UKCPS LIMITED

Company number 05090613

Coupon-mad

Yep … but the sign is just a mock-up without a company name even shown!

York_MoSavE

Thanks for the responses so far.

I'm quite content that the claim in nonsense for the absence of double red lines, the failure to follow the IPC code that was in place at the time plus other reasons.

@Coupon-mad I've followed the forum info through appeal to UKCPS and not bothering with an appeal to IPS, I never identified the driver as I did not see the benefit. I have submitted a previous defence and the Judge had struck out Moorside Legal Particulars of Claim per above post. But Moorside have persisted with an amended CoP.

I wonder if any of you have any opinion on the request in my post to see if the manner in which they have worded their amended CoP has any impact on the defence shown in Moorside post I mentioned as that is what I will utilise as the basis for mine.
Or any other advice for my defence at this time.
Deadline for my amended defence submission is 4pm 26 Mar.

Ref the signage, this is the best view they have offered in Exhibit 2, the company details section doesn't even look identical to the one in the graphic they provided.

:

Coupon-mad

Show us the defence you put in.

Was the NTK POFA compliant?

If you want to cross anything out, put the original defence into a word doc and strike through a sentence or paragraph in red.

If you want to add to your defence, put new paragraphs - in red - at the bottom with a fresh SoT and signature & date.

York_MoSavE

Driver has not been admitted. I use the phrase I in these posts purely since I am speaking rather than because I am identifying myself as driver. I am the keeper.

I can't figure out how to underline so hyperlinks are in bold.

NTK from May 2024 as follows:

I appealed at the NTK stage as follows:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence.

The Notice to Keeper you have issued is non-compliant with POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges 9 (2):

1. You have not established the ‘relevant land’ or ‘the period of parking’.
2. You have not established the “parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking”.
3. With no parking charges possible you cannot provide “the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose”.

Additionally:

The notified Reason for Issue is “No Stopping”, not for parking so no ‘unpaid Parking Charge’ can be established.

The photograph in the Notice to Keeper shows a vehicle at double yellow lines. The meaning of double yellow lines is no parking and no waiting. Therefore no breach of purported terms of ‘no stopping’ can be established.

Your ‘parking charge’ can only be payable where a breach of contract can be established. Since you suggest breach of ‘no stopping’ there cannot be an established contract for a prohibition which has no consideration of contracted terms.

I consider your request to pay vexatious, predatory and intended to harass. I look forward to your response to confirm you will desist from this harassment.

RIGHT TO OBJECT

Since you have not established a contract and not complied with POFA it is clear that you have not complied with the DVLE KADOE contract:

B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided B2.1.a “seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4”.

You have therefore collected and used my data unlawfully.

I wish to exercise my right under data protection law to object to the processing of my personal data.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the Information Commissioner’s Office website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.

Please send a full response within one calendar month confirming if you will comply with my request.

If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me.

END OF APPEAL

They rejected it as follows:

Thank you for your appeal dated dd May 2024, having noted your comments and checking evidence gathered when issuing the Parking Charge. I regret to inform you that your appeal has been declined and I have outlined the reasons for this decision below:

The area where the vehicle was parked is designated as private land where parking, stopping, or waiting is strictly prohibited at all times.

At the time of the event, the vehicle was parked, stopped or waiting in this area, and as a result, the driver contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.

Attached, you will find photographic evidence/Signage showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.

I have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced amount of, £60.00, until 20/06/2024, after this date, the full amount of £100.00 will be due.

APPEAL REJECTION ENDS

Below was my original defence. I'm uncertain how far the standard defence goes in arguing against a parking charge for no stopping So I'm thinking that para 3 may no longer apply but I don’t really understand the CPR and PD to know whether Chan and Akande apply to the new Moorside POC (as above). I could argue circumstances of stopping on the double yellow lines but is that even necessary? I've crossed out the last sentence of para 2 so that I'm not claiming something that I might be able or have to argue in court.

Should I stick with the original defence I had used from your standard defence template, should I additionally argue in a new defence against the specific POC from Moorside:

• Throughout they claim a contract for parking with ‘rules of parking’ displayed when the signs only say ‘no stopping’ which cannot form a contract.
  • You’ve also pointed out the generic graphic signage they have submitted in Exhibit 2
• There are only double yellow for no parking and no double red for no stopping.
• Even on double yellow brief stopping is still allowed and they only demonstrate the vehicle was stopped for one minute in their exhibit 3.
  • LAURA JOPSON - v - HOMEGUARD SERVICES LIMITED, 29 June 2016 CM14P02455/CH13P02050 para 20
  • “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration”
• The IPC code of conduct states that no stopping should only be used for security purposes or safety, neither of which apply here.
  • IPC Code of Practice V9 para 13.3
  • That isn’t a legal breach but it is evidence of bad practice by the CPC

Since I’m emailing this new defence to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk and DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk I presume I no longer have a line limit. Should I include exhibits like the non-compliant NTK, my appeal against the charge along with their rejection which was boiler plate. I’m thinking they have had an opportunity to recognise they are not following law and code and therefore have been pursuing this claim vexatiously - How would I add those as arguments in the defence?

Original Defence from Aug 25

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

I appreciate this is a big post, but I've added more context since I am now outside the line limit from MCOL. I have tried to understand all the forum guidance but given that Moorside have gone for a second POC I cannot tell what the advice is for this stage, hence posting here to ask for further advice and seeking to make my submission fit as a legal argument rather just layman waffle, after all the standard template is not something most people could write or understand from a legal perspective.

Thanks all.