UKCPS/Moorside Legal Court Claim 2025

101Labradoodles

*UPDATE*
Received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) Letter today
Hearing will be on 21st October and my witness statement is due by 29th September
It does state the claim will be struck out if the claimant does not pay the trial fee of £27.00 by 26th September

On reading other threads I suspect they may discontinue before the hearing date but in the meantime I will get on with drafting my witness statement

101Labradoodles

Hi, I will be waiting to see if I receive a WS from Moorside Legal prior to submitting mine (within the time frame) but I have drafted the following WS and would be grateful for any feedback

Also I have included pictures taken from this thread but I am unsure whether this is acceptable given they are not time stamped? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6323721/gateway-house-picadilly-manchester?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=piccadilly+gateway+house+photos


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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

 

1.I am XXXXXX and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I will say as follows; 

2. I make this statement in support of my Defence dated XXXXXX . The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. I shall refer to Exhibits supplied with this statement. 

 

Circumstances of the Alleged Incident

3. On XXXXXXX, I drove to Gateway House Piccadilly when following Apple Maps directions for Manchester Piccadilly train station. I turned off a 30mph road onto what I believed was a public road and car park. 

4. I have included images (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) of the entrance onto this road from the direction I was driving (turning left onto the road). I do not have images from the specific time of the alleged parking breach and therefore I have included an image obtained from an online forum from January 2022 (Exhibit 1) and a further image from Google Street View from April 2025 (Exhibit 2) to cover the timespan of the alleged parking breach.

5. I continued down the entry road believing I was being directed to Manchester Piccadilly train station. Exhibit 3 is an image of an “Entrance” sign on the entry road, which will mislead drivers into entering the “no stopping zone”. 

6. On following the road, I was surprised to reach a dead end. Therefore, I turned the car around, stopping briefly to the side of the road to check my map and directions. At this point, my passenger noted Piccadilly train station was a short walk away and left the vehicle to walk to the train station. From recollection, I was not stopped for any longer than a minute to check directions before leaving the area. 

7. On leaving the area, I did notice a “No Stopping” sign. Exhibit 4 is of a “No Stopping” sign, however, this is not facing drivers entering the area. You can also see this “No Stopping” sign in Exhibit 3, positioned below and perpendicular to the Entrance sign and therefore not visible to drivers entering the area. As this “No Stopping” sign was not visible to me on entering the area, I was misled by the “Entrance” sign directing me into the “no stopping zone”.

8. Exhibits 1-3 also demonstrate that the road markings in this area do not suggest this is a “no stopping zone”. The access road is laid out to appear like a public road and includes double yellow lines next to kerbs. There are no red lines suggestive of a no stopping zone. There is also no barrier at this site to deter trespassing.

9. Due to inadequate and misleading signage, I was not aware of the terms and conditions on entering the area or prior to stopping and therefore no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed. 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’.

 

Reiteration of Defence Points

10. Inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC) – 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, making it difficult for me to construct a robust defence and putting me at a disadvantage. There are persuasive Appeal judgements to support the Court striking out the claim in these circumstances, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

11. Exaggerated claim and ‘market failure’ - there is evidence that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows that the usual letter -chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. 

12. CRA breach – 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 and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen. 

 

Conclusion

13. 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 His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Services. 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))’.

14. In the matter of costs, I ask for (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14 and (b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

You'll need to add Chan and Akande as two exhibits - like the WS in the thread by @aza123 - and yes, photos from that thread you linked are a good idea.

They'll almost certainly discontinue.

1505grandad

"I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true."

Witness Statement

101Labradoodles

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good.

You'll need to add Chan and Akande as two exhibits - like the WS in the thread by @aza123 - and yes, photos from that thread you linked are a good idea.

They'll almost certainly discontinue.

Thank you! I've just looked at the WS, very helpful, thanks for signposting me to it

101Labradoodles

1505grandad said:

"I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true."

Witness Statement

Ah, thank you for picking up on this! Corrected