Court Claim from Moorside Legal on behalf of UKCPS ltd.

krazykillerxx

Note: I have read everything on the newbies thread. I just want to post about my situation to see if I actually have a leg to stand on, as I intend on defending my case and feel like I should not have to pay this. I have never been in this situation before, so this world of legal / civil stuff is completely new to me.

Details of claim: Submitted from Moorside Legal on behalf of UKCPS ltd.

1. The defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a parking charge issued to the vehicle ###### at ###.
2. The PCN was issued on the 15/01/2024 on land managed by C.
3. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on C's signs (the contract), thus incurring PCN. 
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCN is outstanding and has been escalated.
AND the claimant claims
1. 170.00 being the total of the PCN.
2. Costs and Court fees.
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 01/04/2024 to 10/12/2024 on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.04.

Current amount outstanding: 264.39 (inc. court fee and legal representative costs.)

My defense thus far (Further explains my situation) I do need feedback on this, as currently the best evidence I have is anything I receive from my SAR I sent to UKCPS and Moorside Legal. This is not the first time I sent a SAR request either. First time I received nothing and was ignored.

This defence is filed in response to a baseless claim brought by

the claimant. The defendant contests the claim on the grounds that

no breach of contract occurred, as the defendant was given verbal

permission to park on the land in question. Furthermore, the

claimant and their representatives have acted in bad faith by

ignoring previous correspondence, forwarding the case between

multiple parties, and failing to provide key communications, all

of which undermine the validity of their claim.

 

Key Defence Points

 

Permission to Park:

The defendant was granted verbal permission to park by ####,

whch were confirmed to be given to staff at ####. ei. This overrides any alleged terms and

conditions displayed at the site.

 

Unfair Practices and Multiple Legal Entities:

The claimant (or their agents) has forwarded the case between

multiple legal representatives and sent conflicting letters,

causing confusion and stress.

The claimant has ignored the defendant’s written response dated

15/05/2024, failing to address the concerns raised or acknowledge

the permission granted to the defendant.

 

Missing Communications:

Key communications related to this case are missing, which the

defendant has the right to request under a Subject Access Request

(SAR). Until these documents are provided, the claim cannot be

properly assessed.

 

Failure to Meet Legal Standards:

The claimant has failed to follow the principles of fairness and

proportionality required by the British Parking Association (BPA)

Code of Practice (if applicable) or other relevant standards.

The amount demanded is excessive and does not reflect any genuine

loss.

 

Fraudulent/Unreliable Conduct:

Evidence from public sources, including Google reviews, suggests

the claimant has a pattern of filing unsubstantiated claims,

casting doubt on their integrity and the legitimacy of this case.

 

No Criminal Matter:

This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The claimant's actions

and use of aggressive tactics, including forwarding to debt

collectors, have been disproportionate and harassing.

(END OF CURRENT) - I do plan on addressing each point of the claim they have made, as I know if they are not acknowledged, the court presumes I agree with them.

Key points to add to my situation which I feel are important to note and get help with

Rookie error. I did not keep hold of any letters I received from them. Trust be told, I did not believe it would get to this stage from what I have been told by others. Lesson learned for next time.

With this, I am unable to access my original claim or original SAR request which was submitted via my appeal (I think!) may have been by post. It was months ago.

I do feel awfully confused after reading the newbies post on here. I have submitted a AOS on the 19/12/2024. Issue was given on the 11/12/2024 but wasn't received in the post until the 16/12/2024. I am unsure what to use as part of the defence template in my defence that suit my circumstances.

Other key details: colleagues of mine have had these fines wiped in the past as we were granted permits. At the time this fine was given, we were awaiting new permits, but had permission to use the car park as it is never used by the company that issues the permits. It was used for staff by a company next door to us, yet they only used 1 out of the 2 carparks. I was new working at the time, and colleagues said if I get one through, I can easily explain to them where I work and that we have permission to park and it would get wiped. That did not end up being the outcome in my case, yet other colleagues have had no issues getting them struck out.

Any advice or feedback I can get from this forum will be greatly appreciated. I want to thank everyone that contributes to this to help people fight back! It's my first time here and it's amazing to see people coming together against these fraudulent con artists.

krazykillerxx

Just to add to this thread, the image of the car parks are here. The one circled in red is the one I got permission to park on which is never used anymore. The highlighted yellow one is what the company use for their staff, and they give us permission to use the one circled in red.

Fruitcake

They are not fines. 

It appears that the particulars of claim are inadequate and fail to provide a cause of action. The Chan case is therefore relevant and should be included in your defence, spelled with a c, not an s. Pedantic I know, but the law is a pedant so you must user the correct terminology. 

Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP, is still the best option.

Never use words like fraudulent, and reference to this not being a criminal case is irrelevant.
Keep your defence concise and to the point.

UKCPS are IPC members, so reference to the BPA is irrelevant.

As far as I can tell, the main points are that the driver had permission to park therefore there was no breach of parking contract, and the claimant has failed to specify the reason for issuing the claim. Was it for failure to pay, an overstay, parked outwith the markings of a bay, failure to stand on one leg and sing the Australian national anthem, or something else?

Show us your draft defence, and only the parts of the defence template that you have amended, but otherwise use the whole template when you submit it by email.

Zbubuman

Cel V Chan & Other Judgements . The particulars of the claim are vague and should be thrown out! What are you defending against ? breach of terms does not explain what you did wrong ( did you fail to display, parked over the lines, forgot to do the hokey pokey and run around the car 3 times? ).

krazykillerxx

Fruitcake said:

They are not fines. 

It appears that the particulars of claim are inadequate and fail to provide a cause of action. The Chan case is therefore relevant and should be included in your defence, spelled with a c, not an s. Pedantic I know, but the law is a pedant so you must user the correct terminology. 

Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP, is still the best option.

Never use words like fraudulent, and reference to this not being a criminal case is irrelevant.
Keep your defence concise and to the point.

UKCPS are IPC members, so reference to the BPA is irrelevant.

As far as I can tell, the main points are that the driver had permission to park therefore there was no breach of parking contract, and the claimant has failed to specify the reason for issuing the claim. Was it for failure to pay, an overstay, parked outwith the markings of a bay, failure to stand on one leg and sing the Australian national anthem, or something else?

Show us your draft defence, and only the parts of the defence template that you have amended, but otherwise use the whole template when you submit it by email.

Thank you for your feedback regarding my situation.

When you say complaint to the land owner / MP, are you referring to UKCPS and my local MP? Just want to clarify before hand.

I will make those ammendments this weekend and post my draft version of my defence before submitting. Yeah, rookie error. I keep mixing c and s. Actually unsure what the difference is as they both look correct lol

KeithP

krazykillerxx said:

I have submitted a AOS on the 19/12/2024. Issue was given on the 11/12/2024 but wasn't received in the post until the 16/12/2024. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th December, and 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 three 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 Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

krazykillerxx

Zbubuman said:

Cel V Chan & Other Judgements . The particulars of the claim are vague and should be thrown out! What are you defending against ? breach of terms does not explain what you did wrong ( did you fail to display, parked over the lines, forgot to do the hokey pokey and run around the car 3 times? ).

I will include the Cel V Chan in my defence as it was recommended by Fruitcake also.

In order for me to use this, I'm referring to the link here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80516020#Comment_80516020

Which elements of this do I copy and paste into my defence? I am unsure of how much of this is relevent to my case besides the first 8 points under 'Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out!'

Again, apologies for my silly questions. Do I need to edit where it says 'See Exhibit xx-01'? or keep them as they are and is it a simple copy and paste job within my current drafted evidence points (which are yet to be ammended)?

Thank you for your help!

Fruitcake

krazykillerxx said:

Fruitcake said:

They are not fines. 

It appears that the particulars of claim are inadequate and fail to provide a cause of action. The Chan case is therefore relevant and should be included in your defence, spelled with a c, not an s. Pedantic I know, but the law is a pedant so you must user the correct terminology. 

Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP, is still the best option.

Never use words like fraudulent, and reference to this not being a criminal case is irrelevant.
Keep your defence concise and to the point.

UKCPS are IPC members, so reference to the BPA is irrelevant.

As far as I can tell, the main points are that the driver had permission to park therefore there was no breach of parking contract, and the claimant has failed to specify the reason for issuing the claim. Was it for failure to pay, an overstay, parked outwith the markings of a bay, failure to stand on one leg and sing the Australian national anthem, or something else?

Show us your draft defence, and only the parts of the defence template that you have amended, but otherwise use the whole template when you submit it by email.

Thank you for your feedback regarding my situation.

When you say complaint to the land owner / MP, are you referring to UKCPS and my local MP? Just want to clarify before hand.

I will make those ammendments this weekend and post my draft version of my defence before submitting. Yeah, rookie error. I keep mixing c and s. Actually unsure what the difference is as they both look correct lol

I am referring to the landowner of the site where the alleged event occurred, which will not be the unregulated private parking company, and your MP.

Coupon-mad

krazykillerxx said:

Zbubuman said:

Cel V Chan & Other Judgements . The particulars of the claim are vague and should be thrown out! What are you defending against ? breach of terms does not explain what you did wrong ( did you fail to display, parked over the lines, forgot to do the hokey pokey and run around the car 3 times? ).

I will include the Cel V Chan in my defence as it was recommended by Fruitcake also.

In order for me to use this, I'm referring to the link here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80516020#Comment_80516020

Which elements of this do I copy and paste into my defence? I am unsure of how much of this is relevent to my case besides the first 8 points under 'Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out!'

Again, apologies for my silly questions. Do I need to edit where it says 'See Exhibit xx-01'? or keep them as they are and is it a simple copy and paste job within my current drafted evidence points (which are yet to be ammended)?

Thank you for your help!

Search the forum for  Moorside Claim and copy any other one. They are all the exact same and there are now two appeal cases to cite: Chan and Akande.

Copy a defence that has both.  Easy stuff!

krazykillerxx

I have used the template of defence with the Chan case. I have kept points 1-4 on the template of defence, and added my own 5-8.

Any feedback on this would be appreciated!

5. The car was there as the defendant was granted verbal permission to park. Permission was given by owners of (inserted my workplace), which had verbal permission to use from (neighbouring workplace), which use both car parks for staff. At the time the PCN was issued, the defendant was awaiting new permits.

6. The claimant (or their agents) has forwarded the case between multiple legal representatives and sent conflicting letters, causing confusion and stress. The claimant has ignored the defendant’s written response dated 15/05/2024, failing to address the concerns raised or acknowledge the permission granted to the defendant

7. The claimant fulfilled a subject access request (SAR) dated 20.12.24, but failed to provide all communications between multiple legal representatives: TRACE group and Moorside Legal, that are related to the case. The defendants SAR stated to request all ‘correspondence, evidence, contracts and any communications related to this case’. Communications and contracts as per the POC are missing

8. This defence is filed in response to a baseless claim brought by the claimant. The defendant contests the claim on the grounds that no breach of contract occurred, as the defendant was given verbal permission to park on the land in question. Furthermore, the claimant and their representatives have acted in bad faith by ignoring previous correspondence, forwarding the case between multiple parties, and failing to provide key communications, all of which undermine the validity of their claim.

Anything missing, need changing or adding? Want to get this defence submitted before the deadline on the 13th January. Thanks for the help!

Coupon-mad

Akande is missing. Here's your defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Remove pretty much all of your paragraphs above. Too much detail. And communications with solicitors are protected by 'legal professional privilege' so they never had to disclose that.