UKCPS Moorside Legal Court Claim Defence

NeonZebra

Hello All, 

I've recently had a court claim through from UKCPS for a PCN issued a couple of years ago. I had previously appealed this on the basis that the NTK was sent to me more than 14 days after the incident with no luck and ignored from there.
I did as part of the appeal make an offer for payment at a reduced rate, I don't know how that might impact my case? 

Claim form was received on 03/04/25 and AoS submitted via MCOL on 08/04/25. 

POC:

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge issued to the vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXXX. 
2. The PCN was issued on XX/XX/XXXX 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. 170.00being the total of the PCN. 2. Costs and Court fees. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.04.

I have been reading similar threads on here and put together a defence (below), any advice would be much appreciated!

Paragraphs 1-5 Alternate defence for CEL/ Moorside 

6. The defendant has made an attempt to respond to the POC as follows:

6.1 Paragraph 1 is denied in its entirety, The defendant denies any debt owing to the claimant based on a failure to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) within the relevant period as specified within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch. 4 para. 9(5). Further, the PCN was not issued to the vehicle at the address stated within the POC but rather by post.

6.2 It is not clear based on the POC weather the vehicle was parked in breach of the Claimants terms. The Defendant denies agreement to any contract on the basis that the signage provided at the car park was unclear as is typically the case with this Claimant to entrap motorists.

6.3 The Defendant does not agree to pay the sum stated within the PCN nor had the Defendant agreed to pay any sum within 28 days (of an unspecified date). The Claimant had refused to enter further discussion with the defendant despite attempts at reasonable resolution.

6.4 The costs specified within the POC appear exaggerated and unjustified; no other heads of costs are broken down beyond £170 in respect of the claimed PCN. 

6.5 Liability for any sum in respect of this claim is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all issues raised in this defence.

Paragraph 7 - 33 Standard defence template 

Gr1pr

Received date is irrelevant,  post the issue date please

Was a windscreen pcn issued on the date in the POC   ?

Was the issued date correct in the POC   ?

Coupon-mad

Defence looks good! Nice research.

1505grandad

Typo  -  "6.2 It is not clear based on the POC weather the vehicle...."

NeonZebra

Thanks for the assistance!

Gr1pr said:

Received date is irrelevant,  post the issue date please

Was a windscreen pcn issued on the date in the POC   ?

Was the issued date correct in the POC   ?

Apologies, I wrote received date but 03/04/25 was the issue date. 

Nothing on the windscreen, NTK was issued by post and received over a month after the incident date. 

I can't find the NTK, I think the date is slightly wrong but obviously without the NTK I can't prove that. 

Gr1pr

So 4pm on 6th may is your deadline for submitting the defence,  as long as the AOS is completed 

The issued date should in theory be the date they issued and posted the NTK PCN letter to you 

It should definitely not be the incident date,  because that would precede the issue date by several days or more 

So 3rd April was the issue date,  regardless of when the claim form was received  (we always require the issue date) the deadline is 33 days later 

Coupon-mad

NeonZebra said:

Thanks for the assistance!

Gr1pr said:

Received date is irrelevant,  post the issue date please

Was a windscreen pcn issued on the date in the POC   ?

Was the issued date correct in the POC   ?

Apologies, I wrote received date but 03/04/25 was the issue date. 

Nothing on the windscreen, NTK was issued by post and received over a month after the incident date. 

I can't find the NTK, I think the date is slightly wrong but obviously without the NTK I can't prove that. 

You don't need to prove it. Add the usual words seen about the issue date as used in the defence by @shahib_02