Parking Ticket UKCPS LTD and Moorside Legal

imsparticus

I have also included at paragraph 6 after the Facts........ at para 5.

Particulars of Claim:

The defendand denies all of the POC, written out individually.

Point 5. The Defendant denies that they are liable as the Driver or Keeper.
Point 6. The Defendant was not driving and evidence will be provided in court to support this.

Are the above points sufficient?

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Yep.  Give the Defendant a link to the Template Defence thread so they can follow the first 12 steps and not panic about the first standard letter or mediation.

They won't be copying in Moorside.

imsparticus

Wonderful, I will so they understand the procedure.

So would I be correct in thinking no Defence copy to Moorside at this point only CNBC. Moorside would get a copy of the Witness statement of which is yet to come?

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Yep.        

imsparticus

Thank you and have a great day.

imsparticus

Good afternoon

A update on the ongoing claim:

The Defendant submitted the Defence to CNBC within the timeframe allowed. 
A receipt has been received from CNBC stating a copy has been served on the claimant's solicitor (moorside) 

Moorside then have sent a letter stating that the POC are insufficient to allow you to provide a Defence to the claim.

We submit that the POC are compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules part 16 as they set out a clear statement of fact.

"We note that reviewing the photographic evidence that the vehicle is clearly left stationary on the roadway on double yellow lines in a no stopping area".

(If presented to court it will be very clear that the Defendant is not the Driver)

The PCN was issued to the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The onus is on you as the registered keeper of the vehicle to provide the name and address of the driver. As you did not do this , our client is entiltled to pursue you for the debt claimed.

Our client has an agreement with KADOE, which you are not party to nor could it aid or further your Defence.
Our client is instructed by the landowner to enforce and manage parking on the private land.

Moorside have included a N180 which has been filed with the court.

The Defendant at this time has not received a N180 from CNBC.

A SAR was last requested from UKCPS ltd on 3/2/25 delivered by hand and as of yet no response. 

If there is anything further I could help them with please advise.

Luckily the sun is shining.........

Le_Kirk

imsparticus said:

Moorside then have sent a letter stating that the POC are insufficient to allow you to provide a Defence to the claim.

To who did they send this letter?  Who is this you to whom they refer?

Gr1pr

Probably says, sufficient,  not insufficient 

Doesn't matter what letter they sent to the defendant,  although it seems to contain several inaccuracies 

Pofa does not have an onus require a Registered Keeper to name the driver , it's an out, not a given

Their client does not have an agreement with KADOE  !  Their client has a KADOE  contract with the DVLA, completely different statement and shows that Moorside Legal haven't a clue what they are talking about or how it works. They dont work for you, they are not on your side and you should not be taking their letters seriously. Put them in a drawer and get on with the court process,  in stages   ( steps   )

As outlined in the 12 steps,  ignore the letter and await the CNBC posting their N180 DQ letter to the defendant,  meanwhile download the N180 form from gov and fill it in, ready to email it off.  DCB Legal always say they will win and their client has a strong case, yet there are over 510 discontinuations in the thread by Umkomaas that prove otherwise 

Stick to the 12 steps, not the drivel by new kids on the block Moorside.   I am sure that there will be a discontinuations thread about Moorside in due course,  mirroring the debacle that is DCB Legal 

imsparticus

Le_Kirk and Gr1pr 

Thank you both for your replies.

The letter was sent to a relative who is the Defendant and the you is referring to the Defendant.

The Moorside letter of which all the above is from other than the bracketed area states "POC are insufficient".

The Moorside lot are bombarding the Defendant with settlement figures of which I have said ignore and having read what you have said above the holes in their correspondence are in multiples.

I will forward a N180 to them and await CNBC direction as you mention, then send it off.

I have a copy of the twelve steps and will let you all know what transpires.

Thanks again.

Le_Kirk

Probably makes sense if it states "sufficient" not "insufficient"  Why would Moorside Legal shoot themselves in the foot by stating their own POC are insufficient?