Moorside Legal (NCP Parking) - Case struck out

Savemethemoney67

Yes the PoC are one again insufficient and leaving out the location is illogical. It is no doubt in my mind the same location so I will look into the Henderson case.

The signage they relied upon in the last case was £100 albeit those signs were not present with google street view showing they were taken down sometime between 2022 and 2023.

All the claimants images appeared to be taken around 2019, with the signage changing year after year.

I’ll shall try and share some of the exhibits I created

The ultimate goal here would be to have this one thrown put at a much earlier stage than the last one

Gr1pr

The Point about Henderson is that NCP should have found ALL the outstanding invoices and claimed for all of them, not piecemeal bites of the cherry one after the other , prolonging the adversarial process, hence estoppel, they should be estopped from multiple claims

Plus Chan and Akande due to no proper dates and no alleged breaches were pleaded in the deficient poc

Savemethemoney67

• Thoughts on Paragraph 1 and 3? I will include the rest of the defence template on submission, MCOL word limit allowing

1.The Defendant submits that the present claim constitutes an abuse of process pursuant to the principle established in Henderson v Henderson (1843), which requires parties to bring forward their whole case in one proceeding. On 13 February 2026, a previous claim brought by the same Claimant against the Defendant, concerning an alleged parking charge from May 2024, was struck out. The Claimant was, at that time, fully aware (or ought reasonably to have been aware) of the additional alleged parking charges arising in June and July 2024. These matters should have been included within the earlier proceedings. The Claimant’s failure to do so, and subsequent attempt to pursue them in separate litigation, is oppressive and amounts to impermissible claim-splitting, and is causing the defendant great stress. Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the present claim.

2.The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice, and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene, and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

3. The allegation(s) are vague, and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, however, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 07/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 12/04/26 and before or on 26/04/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 11/05/26

Coupon-mad

You need the Chan & Akande para 3 instead.

And you forgot the point I made…

Savemethemoney67

I realise my mistake as I had Chan & Akande as Paragraph 4, so will just delete the above paragraph 3.

@Coupon-mad In regards to your point, from what I have seen the main MSE website it states that the administrators have dated all PCN are still valid, although that post doesn't cover claims, so I have drafted the below which I propose putting in as point 2 (and getting rid of paragraph 10 if the MCOL word count does not allow);

2. The Defendant contests that the Claimant, being a company currently in administration, lacks the requisite authority to pursue this claim, being absent of explicit sanction from its appointed administrators. Pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986, once a company enters administration, control of its affairs, business, and property rests with the administrators, and any legal proceedings instituted or continued in the company’s name must be authorised by them. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating that such authority has been granted, the Defendant submits that the claim is improperly brought and should not be allowed to proceed.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's what I meant. Good!