PCM UK LTD / MOORSIDE LEGAL CLAIM

Umkomaas

MrTottenham123 said:

Maybe they got that part wrong, about paying within 30 days as their previous email stated:

“You were given the opportunity to pay a discounted charge of £60.00 if paid within 30 days and failed to do so. So, the balance now stands at £170.00” 

But from the attached sign it clearly states 14 days lol. 

That's a Highview Parking sign. I thought you were being pursued by PCM UK?  What is the name of the Claimant as shown near the top of the claim form (not Moorside, they're just their legal reps). 

Gr1pr

The opening post was about PCM UK LTD  and Moorside Legal,  so I suspect that this new claim is Group Nexus and dcb legal,  so should have been in a new thread with the correct details 

The OP should press the report button on the correct post and ask the administrator to split the thread for clarity 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th December, you have until Monday 30th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

KeithP

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

It is alleged that 'The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's signs (the contract)'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

MrTottenham123

Gr1pr said:

The opening post was about PCM UK LTD  and Moorside Legal,  so I suspect that this new claim is Group Nexus and dcb legal,  so should have been in a new thread with the correct details 

The OP should press the report button on the correct post and ask the administrator to split the thread for clarity 

This post is still about Moorside Legal & PCM UK Limited. That picture of the sign looks to be an older one from google street view that I got today, I’m assuming before PCM took over. It’s the same location and area where my vehicle was parked. No need to report lol 

im clueless at this whole process, but I know when to create new thread

MrTottenham123

KeithP said:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

It is alleged that 'The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's signs (the contract)'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Thank you for the assistance & some added confidence! @keithp

i will look to spend my Sunday going through this all and drafting a defence, not sure on what grounds I will base my defence but ill have a work through and keep you updated 👍🏼

Gr1pr

Then the Highview picture is irrelevant and sidetracks those trying to help you , it should not have been posted 

The top left of your claim form has the claimant details and the legal company below,  I have no idea why you didn't mention them,  they are important details,  same as the issue date of 11th December 2024

So follow the advice of KeithP and coupon mad,  with the alternative defence based on woeful POC

No more non facts thank you,  but please change the thread title to something that is relevant,  like 

PCM UK Moorside Legal court claim 

Le_Kirk

MrTottenham123 said:

KeithP said:

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

It is alleged that 'The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's signs (the contract)'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Thank you for the assistance & some added confidence! @keithp

i will look to spend my Sunday going through this all and drafting a defence, not sure on what grounds I will base my defence but ill have a work through and keep you updated 👍🏼

Use the @hharry100 defence that is linked from the Template Defence

MrTottenham123

Hi all, after spending a few days going through the different forums my mind is at currently at a road block and I'm struggling to finalise it. I have posted the start of the defence below and would kindly ask 1) for some slight assistance & 2) confirmation that I have copied the correct defences from the newbies thread & @hharry100
defence.

"The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

2. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that '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 in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

(THIS IS WHERE THE CEL v CHAN TRANSCRIPT IS THEN INSERTED)

I HAVE ALSO BEEN REFERRED TO THE CPMS v AKANDE CASE AND WONDERING HOW TO WORD MY PARAGRAPH TO INCLUDE THIS WITHIN MY DEFENCE AND SECONDLY THE DROPBOX LINK WITHIN THE JUDGEMENTS LINK THREAD SAYS THAT THE CONTENT HAS NOW BEEN DELETED. SO HOW CAN I FIND THE TRANSCRIPT TO INCLUDE THIS IN MY DEFENCE ALSO. IS THE AKANDE CASE NEEDED ON TOP OF THE CHAN MATTER OR IS THIS TOO MUCH?

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

4. THIS IS WHERE I WILL BE EXPLAINING MY DEFENCE IN MY OWN WORDS, THIS IS WHERE I'M GETTING STUCK. In my particular case I was parked in a private car park whilst going to the gym opposite. The businesses that operate in line with those car parks were closed and I was advised by a friend who attends the same gym that this was the only parking for said gym and there were plenty of cars parked in the same place as me so thought this was correct. Obviously I need to file my defence and state why I was parked there, but do I just leave this as vague as possible and simply say I was attending the gym and not mention anything to do with the yellow box markings on the floor, poor signage, etc. As I don't want to give them any ammo to respond to as their POC were so vague and didn't mention any of this. If anyone has something basic I can type up here or some guidance on where to start that would be great as this is where my mind freezing lol.

5.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

The rest of the defence is then following on from the template within the newbies thread and assuming I am keeping all of this as this relates to exaggerate claim costs but correct me if I'm wrong. 

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government 

AND THE REST OF THE DEFENCE HERE...

Sorry for all the questions, this is my time doing this and just got myself really confused and want to get my defence out as soon as possible.

Thank you all for the help!!

Gr1pr

Use paragraph 3 in the link below instead of your paragraph in your 4,  adjusting the date in section 2 that rebuts the POC 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6530301/civil-enforcement-fine/p5

Which coupon mad said earlier,  because the issue date would not have been the incident date and you are denying the rest 

Yes the rest of the unchanged template is included as well,  all of it

Leave the stories for your future witness statement,  dont be so eager to explain stuff at this stage