UKCPS/Moorside Legal Court Claim 2025

101Labradoodles

@Gr1pr I did originally post only the paragraphs I had changed but then was referred to the template defence so just posted the entire defence (with unchanged paragraphs mostly removed) so it was clear I had used the template defence. 

@Coupon-mad thank you, I have removed para 7 and 8. 

101Labradoodles

Below is "The facts known to the Defendant" section of my defence as the rest of the template remains mostly unchanged. I have removed para 7 and 8 in my previous defence as per coupon mad but I'm wondering if paras 7 - 9 below also suggest that the alleged breach was a no stopping event?

Please could I ask if all sections of the template (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. 

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. 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 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. 

8. 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. 

9. 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.”

10. 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.

11. 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.

Coupon-mad

Very good and yes - use all the template, suitably re-numbered.

101Labradoodles

Coupon-mad said:

Very good and yes - use all the template, suitably re-numbered.

Thanks very much, really appreciate the help

101Labradoodles

I just wanted to ask the following questions before submitting my defence:
1. Should I remove/amend para 9 as this also makes reference to having to breach "no stopping" terms in order to read signage and the PoC does not make reference to the alleged breach?
2. Would it be appropriate to add the following in the conclusion of the Template Defence?
The PoC in this case are inadequate and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (1)(3) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. The PoC 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. There are persuasive Appeal judgments to support the Court striking out the claim in these circumstances, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Once again, thank you all very much for your advice and comments. 

Coupon-mad

Yes to both, that will be fine.

101Labradoodles

I emailed my defence on Monday 3rd March and received the auto-reply stating to expect a response in 10 days. As my defence is due by Tuesday 11th March do I need to do anything to ensure it is acknowledged prior to this?

Le_Kirk

That auto response is the acknowledgment you require, the next you will see is on your status page on MCOL.

101Labradoodles

Le_Kirk said:

That auto response is the acknowledgment you require, the next you will see is on your status page on MCOL.

Thank you @Le_Kirk currently my MCOL just has the AOS recorded on 06/02/25. Again, I assume it will update that my defence has been received once they actually read my email but its fine for that to happen after the date as I have got the auto reply?

Gr1pr

Correct,  he submission date was acknowledged by the email auto response,  effectively signed for 

When they get round to it they will record it onto the MCOL system and your claim history will be updated accordingly,  same as everyone else.   They have been known to be tardy,  so check your claim history every few days until its updated,  vigilance but patience too. ( ps, they dont work weekends   )

Your thread title is now incorrect,  so please change it to something like 

UKCPS , Moorside Legal court claim 2025

Or similar