UKCPS/Moorside Legal Court Claim 2025

101Labradoodles

Hello, 

I have recently received a Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal relating to a Private Parking Charge from UKCPS. I have been following this forum and have read through the Newbies thread but would just like some advice to ensure I am taking the right course of action. 

For background, the original Parking Charge is a No Stopping fine from Gateway House Piccadilly issued 5/11/23. I was dropping a friend off at Manchester Picadilly Station, Apple Maps took me down this road, once I had turned off the main road onto this road I could see signs but it was very dark so difficult to read without stopping and getting out of the car. Also, by the time you're in the road, there is no way out other than turning around to get back onto the busy main road I was on. I stopped to check my map where to go and realised we were right by the station so my friend got out and I got redirected back home and left. I would have been actually stopped for no more than 1 minute. 

Prior to receiving the Letter of Claim, I hadn't taken any action other than complaining to the DVLA for giving my details to this Parking Company. When I received the Letter of Claim, I emailed Moorside Legal with an email template from the thread including the question about VAT but received no response from them. 

It has now been nearly 30 days so I understand the next stage is that I will get a County Court Claim and I would be grateful for advice on what I do at this stage. Thank you.

Gr1pr

Well known trap site, notorious on various forums, there was a group thread on here about it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6071461/ukcps-no-stopping-parking-charge

Come back to this thread when any claim pack arrives from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

If even one claim is issued, we can expect dozens or hundreds of UKCPS claims via Moorside for that sc#m site 

Coupon-mad

Await the claim. 

Defend and win.

  

101Labradoodles

Hello, I received the Claim Form and will attach the POC (standard rubbish with no detail I have seen in other threads). The issue date is 6th Feb and I completed an AOS online on 12th Feb. 



I would be very grateful for your help in formulating my defence. I have used the template to formulate my defence but have only included "the facts known to defendant" section due to word count and making little changes elsewhere.

I would be grateful for advice with the following;
- I realise the advice is not to mention anything that is not detailed in the POC. However, as there is literally nothing in the POC I didn't want to fail to mention information I may rely on in my defence if this did go to court, so I have included information from the original PCN and my recollection. Is this okay?
- I am not sure if the ParkingEye v Beavis section is relevant to my case and relevant to include in my defence?
- Should I include key points from "facts known to the defendant" in the Conclusion?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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.

5. The defendant had driven to the area following directions for Piccadilly train station. The defendant turned off a 30mph road onto what they believed was a public road and car park, however, this led to a dead end. The defendant turned the car around and stopped briefly to check directions before leaving the area.

6. The POC states the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Claimaint’s signs. The defendant argues that the car was never parked. The defendant has had to refer to the original PCN as the POC fails to detail what Terms were breached. The original PCN fails to specify any period of parking, which is in breach of the Protection of Freedom Act, and details the reason for issue as “no stopping”.  

7. The defendant understands that being lost and disorientated due to the roadways and confusing signs constitutes a reasonable excuse for stopping momentarily, in order to verify directions. 

8. The private parking sector single Code of Practice states that no stopping zones are private roads clearly marked with clear lines, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass. There is an annual report from POPLA, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs. 

9. The defendant argues that this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone. The access road is laid out to appear like a public road and include double yellow lines next to kerbs. There is no barrier at this site to deter trespassing as outlined in the Code of Practice and means it falls in the definition of a “road” as per Section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable only by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004. 

10. The signs are not at eye level, they are raised and it is not possible to read the signs while driving meaning drivers would need to stop and get out of the vehicle to read the Terms and Conditions, immediately breaching the Terms and Conditions. The “no stopping” term was forced upon the defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

(i)            “A term which has the object of effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.” 

11. 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.

12. 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.

KeithP

101Labradoodles said:

I received the Claim Form....
The issue date is 6th Feb and I completed an AOS online on 12th Feb. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th March 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

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


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

It is alleged that 'the vehicle was parked in breach the Terms on the 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.

101Labradoodles

Thank you @KeithP
I have used the template to start formulating a defence. I have posted the “facts known to defendant” section below the picture of the POC. I would be grateful for your thoughts. 

Le_Kirk

Regular @KeithP pointed you towards the template defence and there you will find a defence by @hharry100 which uses Chan (& Akande will be added by you) where are sparse and/or vague POC. Also click on my user name, find my threads and click on the one called Chan_Akande and have a read.

101Labradoodles

Thank you for your support. I have used the Template Defence to formulate the below defence - I have shortened some paragraphs I have not edited to comply with the character count. 

Please could I have help with the following;

1. I wonder if I need to remove paras 6 - 13? These are not relevant to the POC and stem from my own recollection but I didn't want to fail to mention something that I may rely on if this went to court.
2. I would also be grateful if you could advise if all sections (i.e. CRA breaches and Parking Eye vs Beavis) are relevant to my defence as I am really only defending that the POC is inadequate. 

DEFENCE

 

1.  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 valid terms.  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

2. The Defendant draws to the attention....

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande 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 first 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

-------- 4 x Chan images 

The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript below).

-------- 4 x Akande images 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief...

5. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 05/11/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Neither does the Claimant have anything on their signage about adding some imaginary £70 'fee/cost' which is unjust enrichment only seen from this rogue industry. It is impossible for the Claimants to argue that £170 was a matter of 'agreed contract' and they are put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

6. The defendant had driven to the area following directions for Piccadilly train station. The defendant turned off a 30mph road onto what they believed was a public road and car park, however, this led to a dead end. The defendant turned the car around and stopped briefly to check directions before leaving the area.

7. The POC states the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Claimaint’s signs. The defendant argues that the car was never parked. The defendant has had to refer to the original PCN as the POC fails to detail what Terms were breached. The original PCN fails to specify any period of parking, which is in breach of the Protection of Freedom Act, and details the reason for issue as “no stopping”. 

8. The defendant understands that being lost and disorientated due to the roadways and confusing signs constitutes a reasonable excuse for stopping momentarily, in order to verify directions. 

9. The private parking sector single Code of Practice states that no stopping zones are private roads clearly marked with clear lines, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass. There is an annual report from POPLA, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs. 

10. The defendant argues that this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone. The access road is laid out to appear like a public road and include double yellow lines next to kerbs. There is no barrier at this site to deter trespassing as outlined in the Code of Practice and means it falls in the definition of a “road” as per Section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable only by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004. 

11. The signs are not at eye level, they are raised and it is not possible to read the signs while driving meaning drivers would need to stop and get out of the vehicle to read the Terms and Conditions, immediately breaching the Terms and Conditions. The “no stopping” term was forced upon the defendant, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

(i)            “A term which has the object of effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”

12. 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.

13. 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

14. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

15. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

16. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees...

17. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities...

18. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn)...

19. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

20. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

21. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains... 

22. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable...

23. This Claimant has not incurred costs...

24. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective...

25. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides....

26. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred.

CRA breaches

27. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts...

28. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

29.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith.

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

30.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness.

31. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests by inadequately signing the area as a no stopping zone. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

32.  Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t." The number of PCNs triggered in this area is clear evidence that there is a lack of clarity of Terms and notices in this area. 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

33. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement...

34. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)...

Conclusion

35. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

36. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

37.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."   

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts...

Signature:

Gr1pr

We only wish to see just the paragraphs you have changed,  nobody here is going to read the full defence , especially what you have not changed at all

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I'd remove para 7 and 8.

You are pleading their case for them if you say what the alleged breach was!  

1505grandad

Are you filing the Defence in accordance with KeithP post (i.e. by email) which stated:-

"To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.