Moorside Legal (NCP Parking) - Case struck out

Savemethemoney67

I am particularly intrigued by the fact that they have produced Images of signage at the location which differs completely to those I have taken and produced as evidence. Additionally, when you compare the images they have provided of my vehicle entering/exiting the car park to the one they have taken of signage on the entrance, you cannot see the signs in the one with my vehicle! Do I mention that in a further statement or hold that back for court since they’ve left me no time for a response.

Gr1pr

Email a supplementary WS to the court and copy in Moorside Legal

Coupon-mad

No you aren't doing a shortened defence.

You are at WS & evidence stage, as you saw when (ages ago) you read NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

This stage isn't 'shortening the defence'. Far from it. It is a proper bundle with exhibits like the Claimant has submitted.

Surely you were able to use the tab for 'see other dates' or click on the top left arrow to change the image date on Google Street View, to see the old pages? Or are you saying there are no historical photos of this place on GSV?

Show us your draft WS this weekend and read the exhibits list in the NEWBIES thread. The bit in post 2 of it that nobody ever seems to read. The section shouting politely but clearly at all defendants to read the stuff under the sub heading in red capitals: 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

Because it's Moorside Legal I would expect them not to turn up, but the advice here is that you MUST meet the deadline to file and serve your bundle and you MUST go along, and you should ask for your wasted costs at the end, when you win.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861695#Comment_81861695

I don't think they've done a WS yet. There was just talk of shortening the defence, not a proper WS with exhibits?

Apologies to the OP if you have done a proper bundle with numbered exhibits, but we never saw one to comment on! Would have needed Chan and Akande as exhibits for starters.

Savemethemoney67

@Coupon-mad My witness Statement was posted before on Page 3 which was submitted for the first hearing in December making the amendments you suggested and adding the exhibits - that part was last minute so don’t think I got around to putting it on here which I will do tonight.

The reason I said short the defence (meant WS) was because how the first judge came across during the hearing as though he hadn’t read it all.

I wasn’t aware of the ability to change the date on Google street view so will look into that but provided images in one of my exhibits - will put that on here too

Moorside did not attend the first hearing and when providing the WS they have stated they do not intend on being at this hearing

Coupon-mad

…which a better judge will be annoyed about!

Savemethemoney67

1. I XXXXX deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 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'). Procedural History and Non-Compliance

3. The initial hearing listed on 9 December 2025 was adjourned because the Claimant failed to serve the Defendant with its Witness Statement or any of the evidence upon which it intended to rely. The presiding Judge ordered that the Claimant must serve this material by 9 January 2026.

4. Despite that clear direction, the Claimant has failed to comply. As a result, I remain unable to understand the factual basis of the claim or to properly prepare for the hearing.

5. This ongoing non-compliance is prejudicial and unreasonable and has already caused me to incur unnecessary expense, including the cost of parking near the court. If the matter is adjourned again due to the Claimant’s continued default, further unnecessary costs will inevitably be incurred. Preliminary Matter – Claim Should Be Struck Out

6. The facts in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. By contrast, the Claimant, National Car Parks Ltd (“NCP”), relies on a generic and incoherent cut-and-paste statement of case. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 3 and 7, as they do not set out the material facts necessary to establish a cause of action.

7. The PoC do not identify the conduct alleged to amount to a breach, the contractual term relied upon, nor how the sum claimed has arisen. It is therefore impossible to understand the case being pursued or to plead a fully particularised response. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4. Page | 1

8. Although issued via Money Claim Online, where character limits apply, the Claimant was required to serve fully particularised PoC within 14 days, pursuant to Practice Direction 16 paragraph 3. No such document has been served.

9. The Court is invited to consider two recent persuasive appeal judgments: • Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref: E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023), where PoC were struck out for failing to identify the conduct said to amount to a breach (See Exhibit 1); and • Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref: K0DP5J30, 10 May 2024), where the Court confirmed that PoC must plead the basic facts relied upon (See Exhibit 2). The present PoC are even less detailed than those struck out in those cases. See Exhibit 3 for a series of claims struck out on this basis. Substantive Defence

10. The vehicle is recognised and I was the registered keeper at the time. Given the location of Pipers Row, Wolverhampton WV1 3LA in relation to my workplace, it is accepted that I was likely the driver.

11. NCP will concede that no financial loss has arisen. In order to recover a parking charge, NCP must demonstrate both: • (i) a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation; and • (ii) adequate notice of the charge by way of clear and prominent signage.

12. Neither requirement is met. The charge is penal and not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is clearly distinguished on the facts. Inflated and Unlawful Add-On Sums

13. The core parking charge cannot exceed £100. It is denied that any additional “debt recovery” or “damages” were incurred or paid by NCP. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, which is not pleaded; and

(ii) how the inflated sum has been calculated, including the improper application of interest to an enhanced amount.

14. NCP’s business model already includes the cost of automated correspondence. In Beavis, the Supreme Court held that the parking charge itself more than covered such costs. The DLUHC Impact Assessment confirms that parking charges sufficiently cover operational costs, and that debt recovery agents do not charge for unsuccessful recovery. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”)

15. Section 71 of the CRA places a duty on the Court to consider fairness. Terms seeking disproportionate sums or indemnity costs are unfair and unenforceable.

16. The CRA requires contractual terms and consumer notices to be prominent, transparent and fair. NCP failed to erect large, clear, or well-positioned signage comparable to that in Beavis. Any alleged terms were hidden in small print and incapable of binding a driver. Page | 2

17. The Claimant has therefore breached sections 62 and 68 of the CRA, having regard to Schedule 2 examples 6, 10, 14 and 18. ParkingEye v Beavis Distinguished 18. Unlike Beavis, this case involves:

• unclear and inconspicuous signage;

• no legitimate interest in deterrence; and

• an unconscionable added fee. The penalty rule therefore remains engaged.

19. Binding authorities confirm that onerous terms must be prominently displayed before a contract is formed, including: • Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461;

• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2; and

• Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106.

20. If this claim relates to an unpaid ticket, the signage at Pipers Row is ambiguous and fails to clearly communicate any contractual obligation. Exhibit 4 compares the signage at this site with that in Beavis, demonstrating the material differences and includes a map pinpointing the location of signs displaying the charge, highlighting the inadequacy.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Savemethemoney67

Exhibit 1 - CHAN Transcript

Exhibit 2 - AKANDE JUDGEMENT

Exhibit 3 - 6x Judgements taken from the suggested exhibits on the NEWBIES thread

Exhibit 4 - Presentation showing where signage is on the Car park showing how someone could park and not come across any signs detailing the terms and conditions, in particular the possible PCN

Coupon-mad

OK so is that the WS that already went in? Looks far too long to be a Supplementary WS now.

Savemethemoney67

that’s the original WS doesn’t address the images they’ve supplied which appear to be from 2021 as the signs on the entrance were not there after that according to street view