*UPDATE* Court date received, NCP Moorside court claim received.

Char27

Sent off my defence by email, received this email today. Given I didn’t get any letters how could I appeal?! 

My defence clearly states I haven’t received any letters so how could I know of anything. 

Says they intend to proceed if I don’t pay. 

Anyway, what happens now? I’m not paying it 

We write in relation to the above matter. 
  
Your Defence

You should be aware that we are familiar with these types of defences, which we know are templates produced by internet forums for the use of the public. 

Your Defence provides no details of why you actually dispute your liability for the debt. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with our Client’s position to try and reach an amicable resolution. 

We will respond substantively to the Defence in our Client’s Witness Statement if this matter proceeds to a Court hearing.  

Our Client submits that the Particulars of Claim are compliant with CPR Rule 16.4 as they have set out a clear statement of fact.    

Please find attached copy NTK and Reminder which were send to your current service address.  No appeal is noted as being received. 

In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible. 

Gr1pr

Everybody gets that template letter,  ignore it and keep following the 12 steps,  even though you failed to read step 7

Char27

Thank you! 

Char27

My husband opened this for me today as I am out of the UK with my work. 

I don’t even know what to do with it, my defence was not all copied and pasted and in my defence I clearly stated I’d had no letters so I don’t know what my ‘crime’ is. 

Car1980

Right, well they've sent you the NTK. A bit daft since they could have kept quiet and made you struggle.

Can you show it to us?

Char27

Sorry for being thick what is it you want to see the defence? Is this paperwork even legal or some rubbish the parking lot have sent me? 

Car1980

Please find attached copy NTK and Reminder which were send to your current service address.  No appeal is noted as being received. 

You say you've never had any letters until the court claim, but they say they enclosed the letters here?

The court letter is genuine. We have 6 days to create a new defence.

Coupon-mad

Char27 said:

Sorry for being thick what is it you want to see the defence? Is this paperwork even legal ? 

It's clearly a real court order.

You MUST re-do the defence and we can help. Show us the NTK (BOTH SIDES of the first PCN, NOT the reminder) and any other evidence Moorside attached to their reply to defence.

kryten3000

Oh !!!!!!, now the judiciary are in on the scam?!  Who got to this judge I wonder?

Coupon-mad

Char27 said:

 I was in Bishop Stortford on the 12th and have a ticket for that. But not the 10th I can’t say I wasn’t there but I wouldn’t have not paid given I know what these companies are like. 

Address is correct so I’m confused as to why I haven’t had any letters. 

This was the 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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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 very difficult to respond.

6. No parking charge (nor any reminder letters) were served, so the Defendant quite genuinely and literally has no knowledge of this purported '£170 PCN' a year ago, let alone what the terms were, who was driving nor even what the driver is alleged to have done wrong. Even the purported location is unclear but the Defendant can say that the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but liability is denied.

6. Referring to the woefully inadequate POC:

6.1.  re paragraph 1: it is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant and further, the location which the POC says was 'Bishops Stortford MSCP' gives no street name or postcode and this is wholly insufficient to identify the site. The Defendant Googled those words and found that NCP runs over half a dozen car parks in Bishops Stortford, and because the Defendant received no letters from NCP in 2024 (at all) it could be any of those sites. The one that the Defendant thought it might possibly be is not private land and seems to be run by East Herts District Council, confirmed on their own website and on Parkopedia where a review in 2023 warns "Avoid. The machines don't work and signs are misleading. Ended up with a ticket unfairly."

6.2.  Paragraph 2 is denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, no private PCN was "issued on 10/02/2024" (neither affixed to the vehicle nor 'issued' on that date by post). The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, if it is the Council MSCP then the site cannot be 'managed by the Claimant' under contract law because only actual Penalty Charge Notices would apply on such land under a Parking Places Order, and these notices cannot be pursued on the small claims track.  It is absurd that the Defendant is having to guess and piece together information but is still unable to narrow the issues due to these boilerplate POC.

6.3.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable as registered keeper and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent contractual terms nor even knows who was driving or which car park is alleged to be the location. No driver of this car 'agreed to pay' NCP £170 within 28 days or at all, and it is denied that any 'requests' were served this past year, despite the fact that NCP must have the Defendant's address because they have served a claim form. Nothing was seen prior to that, and to proceed with a court claim to a new address as the very first 'request' when any previous request(s) must have been known by this Claimant not to be served there, breaches the CPRs, the pre-action protocol and the industry Code of Practice. The BPA Code requires all recovery action to be 'paused' and a fresh PCN to be reissued at the original rate, as a mandatory requirement when it is discovered that the keeper did not receive the PCN and had no opportunity to appeal.

6.4. The Claimant is put to strict proof and to explain the purported cause of action against the keeper. If this is the Council MCSP site, then the limited statutory right to 'keeper liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) does not apply because that site is not 'relevant land'. Contractual 'parking charge notices' cannot be issued in Council car parks at all (whether POFA-worded or not) unless NCP own or lease the site but they have not pleaded their case that they hold title in the land, merely that NCP apparently 'manage' it.

6.4. The quantum is hugely exaggerated. £170 cannot be 'the total of the PCN' as has been pleaded. That acronym has not been explained (a 'PCN' could be a Parking Charge Notice - private - or a Penalty Charge Notice - Local Authorities only - and they are very different creatures). If it is the Council MSCP site, this could only have been an official Penalty Charge Notice (effectively a fine) capped at £50 and not issued under contract law.  Even if this was a private invoice 'PCN', the BPA Code of Practice caps these at 'up to £100'.  Notably, these POC do not specify any other heads of cost, losses or damages, only '£170 - the total of the PCN' which is impossible under any PCN regime.

6.5.  The interest calculation also cannot be correct because it cannot possibly be calculated on the exaggerated '£170 PCN'. In all respects this claim is a template mess; an abuse of the court process.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations

etc.

(Rest of template defence followed)

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

I am astonished, given the start of the defence was as above (bespoke to the claim and location, not a template!).

I thought he was a rookie Judge but no, he's been a DJ for 11 years:
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/district-judge-list/

@Char27 - this never happens but you must send a fresh (signed & dated) defence by email to the Plymouth court immediately (when we've discussed the new defence) and cc in Moorside Legal.

Are you back in the country now?

You MUST re-do the defence and we can help.

Do you recognise the car park?

Do you use it for work or travel? I'm guessing it's not near enough for you to take a photo of the sign, if your local court is in the South West?

Do you recall a time when the app or machine didn't work?

Show us the NTK and any other evidence Moorside attached to their reply to defence. They say they have attached the NTK, so let's see it (BOTH SIDES of the first PCN, NOT the reminder). We want to see the allegation and whether it was POFA worded.