CCJ Defence Moorside Legal NCP Parking

Saver_Robot

Hi all, I've read the newbies thread and seen a few other examples of successful defences on here of winning county court claims against unfair parking charges. I've been served a CCJ and have written a defence using the extremely useful resources on here and several other similar threads. I have zero experience and a complete newbie but no defeatist and keen at least give this a bit of a fight. I would very very much appreciate the experienced heads on here giving it a look over and hopefully it might prove useful for others finding themselves in a similar position.

Background:

My case is very similar to one posted last year by @L17Limited. They were able to get their charge cancelled by NCP at the POPLA appeals stage. As mine is at the CCJ stage I think that ship might have sailed for me. You can see that thread here:
NCP "Pay Later" appears on website for car park but not available in reality - I now have Penalty — MoneySavingExpert Forum

A few months back I parked in an NCP car park, Adams Street, Cardiff. Last time I parked there was back in 2018 and regularly used it when it was a pay on exit system. NCP have since changed it to a pay on entry system and have completely removed any and all ability to pay later from the machines. Not only that, they've installed ANPR cameras but not made it a ticketless car park, meaning you can't pay later online or through the NCP app. There are a few signs in the car park that say "Please pay on arrival" and that is all that warns you. I ran afoul of this when taking an emergency 40 minute phone call from my mentally ill brother after parking there. I tried calling NCP but they just directed me to their "Pay Later" section on the website. I entered my vehicle reg and just got an automatic "No invoices found!". I emailed NCP within 24 hours, explaining and asking how I can pay for parking. A response 5 days later said essentially "You need to have paid within 24 hours" (not mentioning at all how) and that I can expect a PCN in the next weeks. Fine, I mentioned that I was going to be out of the country for a few months and if they could please forward onto my temporary address or send via email. I got a response a few weeks later saying not possible because the matter had been passed onto debt recovery. I was out of the country longer than I anticipated and when I got back home a few days ago I saw that I now had a CCJ claim form on top of a few letters from Moorside Legal debt recovery services.

PoC Details

On the claim form under Particulars of Claim (PoC) it states this:

"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge issued to the vehicle XXXXXXX at Cardiff Adam Street Cardiff CF24 2FH. 2. The PCN was issued on 26/03/2024 on land managed by C. 3. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on C's signs (the contract), thus incurring the 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 escalated. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. 170.00.being the total of the PCN. 2. Costs and Court fees. The claimant claims interest under the section 69 of the Country Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 04/06/2024 to 16/12/2024 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.

Solicitor is Moorside Legal Services. Claimant is National Car Parks.

Amount claimed: £177.23
Court fee: £35.00
Legal Representatives costs: £50.00
Total amount: £262.23

Its worth mentioning here that the PCN issue date 26/03/2024 and date of 04/06/2024 are complete nonsense because the incident actually happened on the 20/09/2024.

The Defence

Since the PoC doesn't state what the breach was I believe that the CEL vs CHAN defence used by @hharry100 can be applied here. So I have reworked the template defence on post 2 of the template defence thread to include this with many many thanks to @Coupon-mad for creating and keeping this updated. Paragraph 5 I have highlighted in bold I would really appreciate some help on if its too much unnecessary information or needs more.

Defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Myself                    

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 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

2. 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.

3. 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

**INSERT ALL THE PICS OF CEL VS CHAN HERE** 

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, at the time of parking was not aware that the car park had been changed to a pre pay system rather than a pay at the end of stay. All previous instances of parking at the location the Defendant had been able to pay at the end of stay and no signage at the car park makes it clear that the change has been made. 

5.1. The Defendant attempted to use the online pay later facility, however was given the error “No invoices found!”. The information that the car park is not ANPR ticketless is only available online not on the signage at the location. 

5.2. The Defendant contacted the Claimant within 24 hours asking how to retrospectively pay the charge and was advised 5 days later that a PCN may be issued and no information was given in the reply on how to avoid it.

5. 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.

6. 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.

[THE REST OF THE DEFENCE READS AS PER THE DEFENCE TEMPLATE FROM POST 2 OF THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE THREAD FROM PARAGRAPH 6. ONWARD]

Any and all help is greatly appreciated. I have about 3 weeks left to submit a defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Your thread title mentions a CCJ - a County Court Judgment.
I suggest you have not yet received a Judgment, just a Claim.
Please change your thread title as soon as you are able - you'll need several more posts before that can be done.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Le_Kirk

Your defence seems to be doing the job for the claimant by answering claims that are not in the POC!  Keep it simple and save the story for the witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Good research but too much info in the draft defence.

A Moorside Legal (or Gladstones) Defence should be like this one by @Lilacsoftcotton with a single URL link to Chan and Akande and other judgments:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81189878/#Comment_81189878

I might replace the link in the Template Defence third para with that one instead of the old hharry100 version that only mentions Chan.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I might replace the link in the Template Defence third para with that one instead of the old hharry100 version that only mentions Chan.

@Coupon-mad, would it help to have a separate Dropbox link just for Chan_Akande to go alongside the Judgments link?

Coupon-mad

Yes I think it would.

LDast

Have the CPRs been amended to allow hyperlinks in a Defence document rather than hard copy (embedded or attached) transcripts?

Given the lack of explicit provisions regarding hyperlinks, especially in Practice Direction 5b, wouldn't it be advisable to provide all necessary documents directly within or with your submission to ensure they are properly considered?

Coupon-mad

I think anything goes in small claims so why not hyperlinks? It's normal to see URL footnotes in skeleton arguments so why not in a defence?

Saver_Robot

Many and more thanks for the advice and steer in the right direction!

In response to @KeithP, yes my mistake this is just a claim, I will update the post as soon as MSE allows and also correct my paragraph numbering. Issue date was 17/12/2024. I filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 30/12/2024 so I think I have now until the 19th of January to send the defence but I plan on sending it well before then.

Below is the modified defence. I shamlessly stole most of the wording of the defence from @Lilacsoftcotton and @Coupon-mad. It is however tailored to the parking location which does have signs (I happened to be walking by there last night anyway and stopped to check) but you can't see them without highbeams on and a comically large magnifying glass.

Defence Version 2:

[PARAGARHPS 1-2 SAME AS POST 1]

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 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

**LINK TO DROPBOX WITH JUDGEMENTS.PDF HERE**

4. 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 10 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 linked above).

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Defendant asserts that it is completely unclear from the reading the signs at the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached. Further, this Claimant's signage at the location does not have a full list of Terms and conditions, has poor area lighting and font too small to be read by a motorist. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

[PARAGARHPS 7-32 SAME AS THE DEFENCE TEMPLATE]

KeithP

Saver_Robot said:

Issue date was 17/12/2024. I filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 30/12/2024 so I think I have now until the 19th of January to send the defence...

Almost right but a court deadline will never be on a Sunday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's nearly 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'.

Coupon-mad

Saver_Robot said:

Many and more thanks for the advice and steer in the right direction!

In response to @KeithP, yes my mistake this is just a claim, I will update the post as soon as MSE allows and also correct my paragraph numbering. Issue date was 17/12/2024. I filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 30/12/2024 so I think I have now until the 19th of January to send the defence but I plan on sending it well before then.

Below is the modified defence. I shamlessly stole most of the wording of the defence from @Lilacsoftcotton and @Coupon-mad. It is however tailored to the parking location which does have signs (I happened to be walking by there last night anyway and stopped to check) but you can't see them without highbeams on and a comically large magnifying glass.

Defence Version 2:

[PARAGARHPS 1-2 SAME AS POST 1]

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 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

**LINK TO DROPBOX WITH JUDGEMENTS.PDF HERE**

4. 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 10 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 linked above).

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Defendant asserts that it is completely unclear from the reading the signs at the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached. Further, this Claimant's signage at the location does not have a full list of Terms and conditions, has poor area lighting and font too small to be read by a motorist. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

[PARAGARHPS 7-32 SAME AS THE DEFENCE TEMPLATE]

Very good!