Moorside legal

NewYorkRoadRunner

After not corresponding with any typical debt collector letters I have now received a claim form attached:

My wife had unknowingly parked my car in a private car park for about 10 minutes. Unclear signage. I am the registered keeper but I was not the driver.

I intend to file an Acknowledge of Service and start a defence but do I have a defence?!

Le_Kirk

Yes, see the NEWBIE sticky and the template defence, using the @hharry100 defence and include Chan & Akande due to the POC on the claim form being inadequate. 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th February, you have until Monday 24th February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

As @Le_Kirk says, those Particulars are totally inadequate.
Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

patient_dream

Moorside are new kids on the block who must understand that such court claims adding amounts that are considered a scam

They have added £70  which is called the OSNA scam, debt collectors called ZZPS which is  part of thr BPA/IPC code of practice ?   Of course such a copde is unregulated and is NOT A LAW

The 8% is outdated and maybe a judge would explain where nowadays 8% interest can be obtained .....  we could all enjot that ?  Most Judges will dismiss this

When was the fake £70 addded. Was it a debt collecror letter and by whom, was it Moorside ?
Any mention of VAT ???

Coupon-mad

It's a Claim Form, not a Letter of Claim, just to be clear. Don't read the wrong part of the NEWBIES thread!

Your easy defence is done by just searching the forum for Moorside defence and copying what others did in January. Wording already shown including Chan & Akande.

NewYorkRoadRunner

Getting ahead of the game, defence almost complete - double checking it. AOS will be submitted end of the week. As ever thanks for the help.

Coupon-mad

Please show the first 6 paragraphs here to be checked and to help others who are searching for the same defence example as you did.

We DON'T want to see the rest of our Template Defence! But you will use it.

NewYorkRoadRunner

Here we go, how does this look? A question though, I was not the driver but am named keeper. Paragraph 6, how should i refer to the defendant? The driver or defendant? 

Claim No.:  XXXXXX

Between

XXXXXXXXXXX

- and -  

XXXXXXXX

 (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. 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. 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:

 

Full Akande transcript to go here: 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=tyeuyjzj&dl=0

 Full Chan transcript to go here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&st=dsazx4f1&dl=0

 

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 but not the driver.

 

5. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on 05/03/2024.  Paragraph 3 is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle "was parked in breach" of an unspecified term. The POC fail to specify any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract', nor do they even state what the supposed 'term' was or how the driver allegedly breached it. Paragraph 4 is denied; whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver, who did not 'agree to pay within 28 days'. It is not accepted that any prominent term was capable of binding the driver to any charge or deadline to pay. The Defendant is not liable and the Claimant has not even stated whether or not they can rely on the optional 'keeper liability' provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land). The Claimant has failed to break down the heads of cost: in fact the added £70 is not part of the supposed PCN at all; it is a false 'fee' which was never paid to any third party, cannot attract interest and appears to be their solicitor's attempt at double recovery, being an abuse added in addition to the MoJ's intended 'capped' £50 legal fee. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations (whatever they are) and the basis under which the Defendant vehicle keeper is being pursued for a sum which exceeds the 'maximum sum' set out in the POFA.

 6. The driver, at the time of the incident, called into the Co-op supermarket. The vehicle was parked for around 10 minutes. A supermarket receipt shows payment made at 13.08 (include?). The supermarket is located opposite to where the driver parked the car.

6.1. The driver had not noticed any signage close to the where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

6.2. The driver, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign on the building wall distant from view.

 

Add all paragraphs suitably numbered here, beginning:

 

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has…………….

Gr1pr

4) should have an ending,  so perhaps this  ?  ,  but not the driver. 

6) should state driver, twice,   because the Defendant was not the driver , according to your post above 

6.1) driver 

6.2) driver 

NewYorkRoadRunner

Amended my post as above - thanks

Coupon-mad

As this is a Moorside Legal POC and defence, I'd change para 5 to this:

5. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on 05/03/2024.  Paragraph 3 is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle "was parked in breach" of an unspecified term. The POC fail to specify any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract', nor do they even state what the supposed 'term' was or how the driver allegedly breached it. Paragraph 4 is denied; whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver, who did not 'agree to pay within 28 days'. It is not accepted that any prominent term was capable of binding the driver to any charge or deadline to pay. The Defendant is not liable and the Claimant has not even stated whether or not they can rely on the optional 'keeper liability' provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land). The Claimant has failed to break down the heads of cost: in fact the added £70 is not part of the supposed PCN at all; it is a false 'fee' which was never paid to any third party, cannot attract interest and appears to be their solicitor's attempt at double recovery, being an abuse added in addition to the MoJ's intended 'capped' £50 legal fee. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations (whatever they are) and the basis under which the Defendant vehicle keeper is being pursued for a sum which exceeds the 'maximum sum' set out in the POFA.