Court Claim No Stopping Leeds Armouries

Discordia2025

Hi MGMatchlessV8,

You have several defence angles, here’s a defence feel free to copy and paste. 

Defence: 

No Contract, No Stopping Zone, and PoFA Failures.

1. No Contract Formed:

The signage at the site states “No Stopping,” which is a prohibition, not an offer to park under contractual terms. As confirmed in case law (UKCPS v Masterson, Skipton County Court, 2016), forbidding signs cannot form a contract, and thus no contractual breach can arise from a brief stop. The driver was therefore incapable of accepting any contract, and the charge is invalid.

2. De Minimis and Necessity:

The vehicle is alleged to have stopped for approximately 38 seconds, during which a pedestrian was present. This was a brief pause for safety reasons, not parking, and would fall under de minimis behaviour. Such conduct is not actionable and does not justify a £100 charge.

3. Poor and Inadequate Signage:

The alleged incident occurred at 12:30am, in darkness. The signs were unlit, difficult to see, and accompanied only by yellow lines (not red route lines). The signage was not sufficiently clear to meet the requirements of forming a contract, especially at night, and would be considered unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

4. Abuse of Keeper Data Access under PoFA:

If the claimant is relying on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, this is not valid. PoFA allows access to DVLA data only for parking events on private land. A momentary stop in a no stopping zone, where no offer of parking is made, does not constitute parking for the purposes of PoFA. Therefore, keeper liability does not apply, and the DVLA data may have been accessed unlawfully.

5. Inflated and Unrecoverable Costs:

The claim includes additional costs and legal fees far exceeding the original charge. This is a breach of CPR 27.14(2) and contrary to the principles of fairness. The added costs are neither genuine losses nor allowed under small claims rules.

Coupon-mad

Discordia2025 said:

Hi MGMatchlessV8,

You have several defence angles, here’s a defence feel free to copy and paste. 

Defence: 

No Contract, No Stopping Zone, and PoFA Failures.

1. No Contract Formed:

The signage at the site states “No Stopping,” which is a prohibition, not an offer to park under contractual terms. As confirmed in case law (UKCPS v Masterson, Skipton County Court, 2016), forbidding signs cannot form a contract, and thus no contractual breach can arise from a brief stop. The driver was therefore incapable of accepting any contract, and the charge is invalid.

2. De Minimis and Necessity:

The vehicle is alleged to have stopped for approximately 38 seconds, during which a pedestrian was present. This was a brief pause for safety reasons, not parking, and would fall under de minimis behaviour. Such conduct is not actionable and does not justify a £100 charge.

3. Poor and Inadequate Signage:

The alleged incident occurred at 12:30am, in darkness. The signs were unlit, difficult to see, and accompanied only by yellow lines (not red route lines). The signage was not sufficiently clear to meet the requirements of forming a contract, especially at night, and would be considered unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

4. Abuse of Keeper Data Access under PoFA:

If the claimant is relying on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, this is not valid. PoFA allows access to DVLA data only for parking events on private land. A momentary stop in a no stopping zone, where no offer of parking is made, does not constitute parking for the purposes of PoFA. Therefore, keeper liability does not apply, and the DVLA data may have been accessed unlawfully.

5. Inflated and Unrecoverable Costs:

The claim includes additional costs and legal fees far exceeding the original charge. This is a breach of CPR 27.14(2) and contrary to the principles of fairness. The added costs are neither genuine losses nor allowed under small claims rules.

Just to explain to the OP this is not a full defence, just suggested words for para 6 within the Moorside version of theTemplate Defence.

Car1980

2. De Minimis and Necessity:

The vehicle is alleged to have stopped for approximately 38 seconds, during which a pedestrian was present. This was a brief pause for safety reasons, not parking, and would fall under de minimis behaviour. Such conduct is not actionable and does not justify a £100 charge.

I wouldn't say this is de minimis personally. The very existence of a zebra crossing clearly indicates "stop if someone is crossing". 

It's been placed there by the landowner and the intention is clear.

I'd say the doctrine of impossibility applies.

Discordia2025

Car1980 said:

2. De Minimis and Necessity:

The vehicle is alleged to have stopped for approximately 38 seconds, during which a pedestrian was present. This was a brief pause for safety reasons, not parking, and would fall under de minimis behaviour. Such conduct is not actionable and does not justify a £100 charge.

I wouldn't say this is de minimis personally. The very existence of a zebra crossing clearly indicates "stop if someone is crossing". 

It's been placed there by the landowner and the intention is clear.

I'd say the doctrine of impossibility applies.

100% Agree. The pedestrian is clearly shown in the evidence. The signage says ‘no stopping’ but Highway safety law takes priority so it’s not just a trivial stop but an unavoidable one. 

Discordia2025

@Coupon-mad Yes! thank you for clarifying, its a draft chunk only meant to plug into the Moorside defence template as a suggestion. 

Le_Kirk

Dear UKCPS & Moorside Legal
What would you like me to do if there is an employee of either of your companies using that zebra crossing?
Also the POC are sparse and don't give a reason why they are chasing you!

MGMatchlessV8

Hello all please find an update on this topic. Thank you for all your help. I had created my defence in MCOL using the template and your suggestions.
In parallel, having also complained to Leeds Armouries they then contacted UKCPS to have the charge and court case DROPPED - which is now showing as discontinued in MCOL. Thankyou.

I just wanted to share the response from DVLA/Kadoeservice with regards to them releasing data under PoFA for this "no stopping" charge. 

"We are not able to provide a definitive definition of "parking" our responsibility is limited to the lawful release of vehicle data. However, we do not consider "stopping" a vehicle in an unauthorised area to be so different from "parking" a vehicle in an unathorised area. If the vehicle is considered to be stopped (eg occupied ) or parked (eg unoccupied) in an unauthorised area, this still makes an investigation by operator necessary and fulfils the reasonable cause criteria for the lawful release of vehicle keeper details " 

I would appreciate your thoughts on DVLAs definition of "parking" and "stopping" with regards to release of keeper data according to PoFA schedule 4 and cases such as JopsonVHomegaurd that state stopping is not parking.

regards

Car1980

Dear DVLA

You state you have had sight of UKCPS's supporting evidence. Therefore could you confirm that you regard releasing details of a driver stopping in an authorised area in order to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a zebra crossing so that he can be charged £100, as in this case, as lawful release of data?

What procedures, if any, are you putting in place to prevent UKCPS obtaining driver data at this particular location again? Stating "no stopping" and then charging for stopping at a zebra crossing within the no-stopping zone is clear and obvious entrapment and in no way could be considered lawful under the "reasonable cause" prescription. It's the very epitome of UNreasonable cause.

Half_way

Wasn't parking was defined in jopson vs homeguard?

Coupon-mad

MGMatchlessV8 said:

Hello 
Im looking for help to defend a court claim received for a PCN via a Notice To Keeper from Moorside legal on behalf of UKCPS for No Stopping outside Leeds Armouries.
Subsequent photographs from UKCPS show car stopped for 38seconds at a zebra crossing within the "no stopping zone".  with either a person stood as though waiting to cross or a photo showing a another person crossing.
Appeal was rejected as UKCPS claim the passenger door is opened during this period at the zebra crossing.
It was 1230am, dark, forbidding signs are not lit, there are yellow lines not red. 

Local MP got involved by writing to UKCPS, who declined to drop charge on basis passenger car door  opened.
Ive written to Royal Armouries to complain and ask them to drop - awaiting response.
Ive written to DVLA to ask if No Stopping is a legal reason for UKCPS to ask for and DVLA to provide keeper details as part of PoFA, they have said they will investigate.

Any other help or advice appreciated.

thanks












Signage photos in daylight hours

Half_way said:

Wasn't parking defined in jopson vs homeguard?

Not really (not a precedent and it was specific only to the facts of that case with lease rights of way and furniture being unloaded at a residential estate). Not applicable here.

This one is appalling because a CCTV camera is deliberately trained on a zebra crossing and there are no double red lines, yet they are pretending it's a no stopping zone.

Abject scammery. And the DVLA enables it.

"which is now showing as discontinued in MCOL."

Please show the MCOL history. Never seen that on a case this early.