*UPDATE letter received defence not accepted* NCP Moorside court claim received.

Coupon-mad

Here are the starting paragraphs to the alternative defence (for your Moorside Claim) below ...

TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE REST OF THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE:

(USUAL HEADINGS AT THE TOP)

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 in the event that the allocating Judge does not agree with the two appeal authorities above and strike out the claim without a hearing, as dozens of Judges have with similar cases in the past 18 months.

8. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards that continues with:

'The Claimant will concede that...'

and re-number all paragraphs below this. 

Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs). 

See the Template Defence thread.

Char27

Thank you so much Coupon Mad, that is so helpful. I’ve been stressing about this all day. 

Char27

So I’ve have started the AOS process but either the claim no or password is wrong I’ve entered both several times but no cigar. Who am I supposed to contact about this? Can anyone advise please? Thank you 

Gr1pr

You have to create a gov login FIRST, your own gov gateway account 

Then use the details from the claim form after looking at the mcol section 

Char27

Hello, I’ve done all of that I’m at this stage but when I put in the claim no from the top right of the claim form and their password on the bottom part it says one of them is wrong. 

Gr1pr

Make sure you are using exactly what it shows, no spaces, no extra characters, no full stops etc, upper case and lower case as shown,  so case sensitive in both parts

Char27

Gr1pr said:

Make sure you are using exactly what it shows, no spaces,  upper case and lower case as shown,  so case sensitive in both parts

I’m doing exactly that I’ve done it several times now. This is such a pain in the neck! 

Char27

Right I’ve done it turns out their small case l is actually a capital I 🙄 you’d never believe I wasn’t this stupid in real life. 

Gr1pr

OK plan b

Download the AOS pdf document,  fill it in and email it to the AOS email address in the first post in the defence template thread in announcements,  so to the CNBC in Northampton,  checking for the email auto response from them in your inbox and spam folder,  keep it in a new folder named court or similar in your email account 

Ps, I think its the N9a, but check your paper form first 

Coupon-mad

Char27 said:

Right I’ve done it turns out their small case l is actually a capital I 🙄 you’d never believe I wasn’t this stupid in real life. 

I was about to suggest it was that. Seen it before!