NEWBIE - CCJ Defence Needed - Moorside Legal (NCP Parking)

Savemethemoney67

Hello all,

I've read through the newbies thread and seen a few of the examples of successful defences against unfair parking charges. I've been served a CCJ (Issue date 21st MARCH 2025) and have written a defence using the resources on here and several other similar threads. I have no experience in this area but felt from reading the threads that it was worth fighting. Acknowledgment of service completed on the moneyclaim website on the 2th MARCH 2025 which if my calculation are correct gives me until 23rd APRIL to submit my defence to the relevant email address.

Background:

The location of Wolverhampton Pipers Row was a regular parking place for me, and I have hundreds of parking receipts (Digital – on the mobile App). Having looked back at the offence date it does appear that made a payment on that date and therefore accept that there may be a valid claim against me. However, I followed some poor advise and ignored every PCN, follow up letters and threatening mail, without making any complaints or contacting NCP directly.

PoC Details

On the claim form under Particulars of Claim (PoC) it states this:

"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge issued to the vehicle XXXXXXX at Wolverhampton Pipers Row, WV1 3LA. 2. The PCN was issued on 08/05/2024 on land managed by C. 3. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on C's signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN. 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCN is outstanding and has escalated. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. 130.00.being the total of the PCN. 2. Costs and Court fees. The claimant claims interest under the section 69 of the Country Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 10/07/2024 to 20/03/2025 on £130.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.03.

Solicitor is Moorside Legal Services. Claimant is National Car Parks.

Amount claimed: £137.18
Court fee: £35.00
Legal Representatives costs: £50.00
Total amount: £222.18

PCN issue date 08/05/2024

 

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 difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. The Defendant can accept from viewing their parking receipts from the incident location that no payment was made on this date. However, the Defendant asserts that the quantum of the claim is grossly exaggerated, as the alleged parking ticket would only have amounted to £4.50. Furthermore, there were no damages incurred by the Claimant, and thus the Defendant questions the legitimacy of the claim’s value.

6.1. The Defendant further challenges the clarity and accessibility of the signage at the location. Specifically, the Claimant’s signage does not display a full list of terms and conditions, which is necessary for informing motorists. Additionally, the signage suffers from poor lighting and a font size that is too small to be legible for drivers. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding these allegations and should provide evidence that the signage met the legal requirements for informing a motorist of the terms. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so, the Defendant requests that the claim be struck out pursuant to the relevant authorities regarding proper notice and clarity.

6.2. The Defendant would also like to highlight a further issue with the Claimant’s mobile application. The application clearly stated that alternative payment methods included “Pay Later via the Website”; however, when the Defendant attempted to use this method within 24 hours of parking, the option was not available for this particular car park. Additionally, another alternative payment method suggested in the mobile app—“Pay via the payment machine at the car park before you exit”—was not a viable option at the car park where the Defendant regularly parked during the relevant period. While this specific issue may not be directly applicable to the incident at hand, it serves as further evidence of the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the Claimant’s payment system, which contributes to unfairly trapping motorists into receiving PCNs.

7. ONWARDS FROM HERE IS AS SEEN ON NEWBIES THREAD

Gr1pr

I don't believe that you have received a CCJ, not for one second,  I believe that you have been served with an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  a civil court claim by Moorside Legal on behalf of NCP

I congratulate you on providing the key information above and the deadline seems correct too, good research is key.

The 2 judgments version of the defence seem appropriate because the alleged breach is not specified in the POC 

Wait for further replies regarding the lower paragraphs 

Savemethemoney67

You are correct in that it is an N1SDT just noted this at the bottom of the forms. I take it this does not effect the requirement for me to submit the defence as outlined in the Newbie post.Gr1pr said:

I don't believe that you have received a CCJ, not for one second,  I believe that you have been served with an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  a civil court claim by Moorside Legal on behalf of NCP

I congratulate you on providing the key information above and the deadline seems correct too, good research is key.

The 2 judgments version of the defence seem appropriate because the alleged breach is not specified in the POC 

Wait for further replies regarding the lower paragraphs 

fedupwithstuff2025

Is the PCN issue date correct on the NTK?  Does the claim date match the NTK?
I am also dealing with Moorside

Savemethemoney67

fedupwithstuff2025 said:

Is the PCN issue date correct on the NTK?  Does the claim date match the NTK?
I am also dealing with Moorside

I cant find any of the original documentation unfortunately, i think took the ignore approach a bit to far and being angry and annoyed at the ticket i probably just discarded it.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this:

6. The Defendant can accept from viewing their parking receipts from the incident location that no payment was made on this date. However, the Defendant asserts that the quantum of the claim is grossly exaggerated, as the alleged parking ticket would only have amounted to £4.50. Furthermore, there were no damages incurred by the Claimant, and thus the Defendant questions the legitimacy of the claim’s value.

6.1. The Defendant further challenges the clarity and accessibility of the signage at the location. Specifically, the Claimant’s signage does not display a full list of terms and conditions, which is necessary for informing motorists. Additionally, the signage suffers from poor lighting and a font size that is too small to be legible for drivers. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding these allegations and should provide evidence that the signage met the legal requirements for informing a motorist of the terms. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so, the Defendant requests that the claim be struck out pursuant to the relevant authorities regarding proper notice and clarity.

6.2. The Defendant would also like to highlight a further issue with the Claimant’s mobile application. The application clearly stated that alternative payment methods included “Pay Later via the Website”; however, when the Defendant attempted to use this method within 24 hours of parking, the option was not available for this particular car park. Additionally, another alternative payment method suggested in the mobile app—“Pay via the payment machine at the car park before you exit”—was not a viable option at the car park where the Defendant regularly parked during the relevant period. While this specific issue may not be directly applicable to the incident at hand, it serves as further evidence of the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the Claimant’s payment system, which contributes to unfairly trapping motorists into receiving PCNs.

Reasons to remove all the above:

DO NOT MAKE ADMISSIONS, SAVE THE DETAIL FOR WS STAGE, UNCLEAR SIGNS ARE ALREADY WELL COVERED IN THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE LOWER DOWN, AND DON'T RESPOND TO AN ALLEGATION THAT SIMPLY ISN'T THERE ON THE POC.


Instead have para 6 as this:

6. The location of Wolverhampton Pipers Row was a regular parking place for the Defendant, who was a regular customer of NCP (not any more) and used the mobile App. Sometimes it failed to work but it is impossible for the Defendant to respond in more detail because  the incoherent POC do not even state the date or time of the incident. Given that NCP invariably use remote ANPR to send PCNs by post weeks later, the POC stating that "the PCN was issued on 08/05/2024" just appears to tell me the date that they say their letter was posted, which fails to narrow the date/time of event down. The POC doesn't even state the term allegedly breached which could have been 'parked over bay lines', parked in an accessible bay', 'paying too late', 'paying an insufficient sum', overstay', 'obstructive parking', making a typo in the VRM, or even paying for the wrong car on the App - who knows? The Defendant cannot respond to allegations not made out. The Defendant can say that they were a paying patron for months and whilst the tariff list was on the NCP signs in large lettering, any 'penalty' certainly was not. They did not agree to pay more than the usual £4.50 per stay. The Defendant denies the extortionate interest calculation and the POC assertion: "130.00 being the total of the PCN" because no PCN on private land can exceed £100, the current industry cap. 

Savemethemoney67

Coupon-mad said:

Remove all this:

6. The Defendant can accept from viewing their parking receipts from the incident location that no payment was made on this date. However, the Defendant asserts that the quantum of the claim is grossly exaggerated, as the alleged parking ticket would only have amounted to £4.50. Furthermore, there were no damages incurred by the Claimant, and thus the Defendant questions the legitimacy of the claim’s value.

6.1. The Defendant further challenges the clarity and accessibility of the signage at the location. Specifically, the Claimant’s signage does not display a full list of terms and conditions, which is necessary for informing motorists. Additionally, the signage suffers from poor lighting and a font size that is too small to be legible for drivers. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding these allegations and should provide evidence that the signage met the legal requirements for informing a motorist of the terms. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so, the Defendant requests that the claim be struck out pursuant to the relevant authorities regarding proper notice and clarity.

6.2. The Defendant would also like to highlight a further issue with the Claimant’s mobile application. The application clearly stated that alternative payment methods included “Pay Later via the Website”; however, when the Defendant attempted to use this method within 24 hours of parking, the option was not available for this particular car park. Additionally, another alternative payment method suggested in the mobile app—“Pay via the payment machine at the car park before you exit”—was not a viable option at the car park where the Defendant regularly parked during the relevant period. While this specific issue may not be directly applicable to the incident at hand, it serves as further evidence of the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the Claimant’s payment system, which contributes to unfairly trapping motorists into receiving PCNs.

Reasons to remove all the above:

DO NOT MAKE ADMISSIONS, SAVE THE DETAIL FOR WS STAGE, UNCLEAR SIGNS ARE ALREADY WELL COVERED IN THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE LOWER DOWN, AND DON'T RESPOND TO AN ALLEGATION THAT SIMPLY ISN'T THERE ON THE POC.


Instead have para 6 as this:

6. The location of Wolverhampton Pipers Row was a regular parking place for the Defendant, who was a regular customer of NCP (not any more) and used the mobile App. Sometimes it failed to work but it is impossible for the Defendant to respond in more detail because  the incoherent POC do not even state the date or time of the incident. Given that NCP invariably use remote ANPR to send PCNs by post weeks later, the POC stating that "the PCN was issued on 08/05/2024" just appears to tell me the date that they say their letter was posted, which fails to narrow the date/time of event down. The POC doesn't even state the term allegedly breached which could have been 'parked over bay lines', parked in an accessible bay', 'paying too late', 'paying an insufficient sum', overstay', 'obstructive parking', making a typo in the VRM, or even paying for the wrong car on the App - who knows? The Defendant cannot respond to allegations not made out. The Defendant can say that they were a paying patron for months and whilst the tariff list was on the NCP signs in large lettering, any 'penalty' certainly was not. They did not agree to pay more than the usual £4.50 per stay. The Defendant denies the extortionate interest calculation and the POC assertion: "130.00 being the total of the PCN" because no PCN on private land can exceed £100, the current industry cap. 

Thank you for the advise around the admissions, perhaps I have misinterpreted part of the newbies post around what information to put in this section and will take onboard what you have suggested as a replacement paragraph.

Savemethemoney67

I submitted my defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk on the 3rd APRIL 2025 and received the automatic reply to say it had been received, but have not had the questionnaires sent through, can anyone shed any light on what the usual wait time for these is?

MSE_ForumTeam5

Hi @Savemethemoney67 - we've moved your post to your existing thread. The 'newbies' announcement thread is for information only, not discussion or q&a

Coupon-mad

Savemethemoney67 said:

I submitted my defence to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk on the 3rd APRIL 2025 and received the automatic reply to say it had been received, but have not had the questionnaires sent through, can anyone shed any light on what the usual wait time for these is? 

But the likely timeline is already stated in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

ChirpyChicken

You might not get one for months