Defending claim from UKCPS / Moorside Legal

Herbiedog3

Coupon-mad said:

In that case you are in danger of a CCJ at any moment. This is now a race.

Abandon the usual email.

I'd say: don't delay to ask us what to remove beyond the below: put it in on MCOL immediately, which allows 122 lines only.

Remove the headings and remove the entire second half of the Template, making sure the final sentence you can fit in (whatever it is) is complete so it makes sense. Bung it in. Hit SUBMIT.

Consider it done. Is that because it’s received quicker online than via email? 

Is there any reason not to submit the full version via email too?

The court person said a CCJ wouldn’t be granted immediately, it would still go to a hearing, just without the judge having heard my defence prior? 

Coupon-mad

Herbiedog3 said:

The court person said a CCJ wouldn’t be granted immediately, it would still go to a hearing, just without the judge having heard my defence prior? 

The CNBC person was very wrong. There is no court involvement, no judge, no hearing. Nobody even reads their claim.

All it takes is Moorside pressing a button.

ChirpyChicken

Just get it kogged

Herbiedog3

Already submitted early this morning. There was no judgement entered on MCOL at the time so hoping that means I’ve beat them to it and my defence must be considered 🤞🏼

Coupon-mad

Yes you won that race! Now re-read the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

Out of interest please copy & paste the defence that fitted in please? I'm keen to see if my next version of the template defence could be concise enough to fit on MCOL.

Herbiedog3

Coupon-mad said:

Out of interest please copy & paste the defence that fitted in please? I'm keen to see if my next version of the template defence could be concise enough to fit on MCOL.

Here is what I submitted - I managed to squeeze an extra paragraph or 2 from the standard defence template in - wanted to use as much as possible, but did so in a rush!

Obviously it will depend somewhat on how much people add of their own points at paragraph 6. Also that was entered with spaces between paragraphs so could remove those to squeeze some more lines in if needed. 

Does cutting it down and losing the majority of the main defence template weaken the case much do you think? 

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 SOULD 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 will be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage.

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. Neither the PCN initially issued by the Claimant nor the Particulars of Claim specify an accurate or detailed location of
parking. The postcode on the POC (LS14 6UH) is not the postcode in which the Defendant was parked (LS14 6YN) on 29/11/2023 (the date of the alleged visit). The Claim is therefore illegitimate and the
Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the
allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

7. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the POC are denied. The residential development in question has inadequate signage which is not in line with industry standards. Clear signage was not displayed on each entrance and throughout the area of controlled land, as per
IPC Code of Conduct. The Claimant themselves corroborated this when they provided a site map during the internal appeals procedure, which failed to identify the entrance which the Defendant entered the street in which they parked. Signage thereafter was not sufficient in number so that this was clearly visible to motorists, as set out in the IPC Code of Conduct. In the absence of sufficient signage, the Defendant could not and did
not enter into any contract with the Claimant, and is therefore not liable.

8. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land, given the industry PCN cap is £100) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

9. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: (i) a strong
'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which,
in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

10. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

11. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

12. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks
and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure' and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly more weight than the industry's own self-serving version.

Coupon-mad

Does cutting it down and losing the majority of the main defence template weaken the case much do you think? 

Nope. A lot of what you removed is now slightly outdated waffle(!) that doesn't matter or can wait till WS stage.

Your defence covers all the bases and ends on a strong note that you can build on when it comes to your WS bundle.

I would have removed most of the DLUHC stuff earlier but because the (now MHCLG) announcement / Government Public Consultation is coming shortly, I'm waiting for that before I do a re-write.

I really want the template defence to fit on MCOL in future, so that people can avoid the all-too-common CNBC unfair CCJ admin mess-ups of them repeatedly losing defence emails. I might plagiarise the one @Johnersh wrote last week and add something about the MHCLG once we know the Labour Government's likely stance. 

Herbiedog3

Email received from Moorside Legal:

We write in relation to the above matter. 
  
Your Defence
 
We have reviewed your Defence and respond as follows: - 
  
You should be aware that we are familiar with these types of letters, which we know are usually templates produced by internet forums for the use of the public. 

Such templates often bear no relevance in matters like this one, and very rarely seek to resolve the dispute, rather they just frustrate the matter and serve to waste the time of the other party. 

For that reason, we do not intend to respond substantively to correspondence like this. We invite you to properly address the matter at hand, and if you do not believe the debt is owed, explain why and provide evidence to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk

If you continue to send correspondence of this type, please be aware that we do not intend to respond as it does not assist with narrowing the dispute and any time spent responding is, in our view, disproportionate to the matter.

Our Client provided the benefit of parking on private land, in return for compliance with the terms and conditions. By parking in breach of the terms and conditions, our Client is entitled to seek repayment for the debt due.

By parking on the private land, the vehicle driver entered into a contract with our Client, whereby they agreed to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs, and if not, to pay the parking charge incurred.

The debt due under the parking charge notices ("PCNs") is not excessive or unreasonable. The amount is sufficient to act as a deterrent and escalation to encourage motorists to comply with the terms and conditions when parking on the land. 

These charges apply to all vehicles.

As payment was not made previously, the Claimant has instructed Moorside Legal. As a result, additional charges are applied.  

In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible. 

How to pay

• Call 03308285850 to make a credit or debit card payment 

Please ensure you use the reference 10063935 as the payment reference to ensure we can quickly allocate the payment to your matter.

If you choose to make regular card payments to us these will be made under a Continuous Payment Authority ('CPA'). This authorises us to take the agreed amount on a regular basis. CPAs can be set up weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. If we are unable to take your payment, we will attempt to take the payment later that day. If that fails, we will reattempt the next working day.
 
If you wish to provide an alternative payment proposal, please contact us within 7 days of receipt of this email.

If the Claim is not settled
  
We hope this matter can be settled without further Court action, however if we are not able to reach a settlement, please be aware that our Client intends to proceed with the Claim. 
  
If the Claim proceeds, the Court will ask both Parties to file and serve a Directions Questionnaire, therefore we attach a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire and confirm the same has been filed with the Court.

Email Service

As you provided this email address when you defended the Claim, we intend to use it to serve documents on you throughout these proceedings and will do so in PDF format. We will assume you agree to this course of action unless you tell us otherwise within 7 days. In accordance with Practice Direction 6A, if there are any limitations to your agreement to accept service by such means, please let us know within 7 days.

Subject to your agreement, we will also agree to accept email service to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Coupon-mad

Herbiedog3 said:

Email received from Moorside Legal:

We write in relation to the above matter. 
  
Your Defence
 
We have reviewed your Defence and respond as follows: - 
  
You should be aware that we are familiar with these types of letters, which we know are usually templates produced by internet forums for the use of the public. 

Such templates often bear no relevance in matters like this one, and very rarely seek to resolve the dispute, rather they just frustrate the matter and serve to waste the time of the other party. 

For that reason, we do not intend to respond substantively to correspondence like this. We invite you to properly address the matter at hand, and if you do not believe the debt is owed, explain why and provide evidence to 

litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk

If you continue to send correspondence of this type, please be aware that we do not intend to respond as it does not assist with narrowing the dispute and any time spent responding is, in our view, disproportionate to the matter.

Our Client provided the benefit of parking on private land, in return for compliance with the terms and conditions. By parking in breach of the terms and conditions, our Client is entitled to seek repayment for the debt due.

By parking on the private land, the vehicle driver entered into a contract with our Client, whereby they agreed to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs, and if not, to pay the parking charge incurred.

The debt due under the parking charge notices ("PCNs") is not excessive or unreasonable. The amount is sufficient to act as a deterrent and escalation to encourage motorists to comply with the terms and conditions when parking on the land. 

These charges apply to all vehicles.

As payment was not made previously, the Claimant has instructed Moorside Legal. As a result, additional charges are applied.  

In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible. 

How to pay

• Call 03308285850 to make a credit or debit card payment 

Please ensure you use the reference xxxxxxx as the payment reference to ensure we can quickly allocate the payment to your matter.

If you choose to make regular card payments to us these will be made under a Continuous Payment Authority ('CPA'). This authorises us to take the agreed amount on a regular basis. CPAs can be set up weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. If we are unable to take your payment, we will attempt to take the payment later that day. If that fails, we will reattempt the next working day.
 
If you wish to provide an alternative payment proposal, please contact us within 7 days of receipt of this email.

If the Claim is not settled
  
We hope this matter can be settled without further Court action, however if we are not able to reach a settlement, please be aware that our Client intends to proceed with the Claim. 
  
If the Claim proceeds, the Court will ask both Parties to file and serve a Directions Questionnaire, therefore we attach a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire and confirm the same has been filed with the Court.

Email Service

As you provided this email address when you defended the Claim, we intend to use it to serve documents on you throughout these proceedings and will do so in PDF format. We will assume you agree to this course of action unless you tell us otherwise within 7 days. In accordance with Practice Direction 6A, if there are any limitations to your agreement to accept service by such means, please let us know within 7 days.

Subject to your agreement, we will also agree to accept email service to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Instead of posting that here, search the forum for the first line or a specific short phrase including an acronym, phone number or unusual few words...

...you'll see!

Herbiedog3

Coupon-mad said:

Instead of posting that here, search the forum for the first line or a specific short phrase including an acronym, phone number or unusual few words...

...you'll see!

Ok so ignore and wait for DQ from the courts? Is there any reason I shouldn’t reply to the email to reiterate my evidence and affirm that I am prepared to defend in court (may persuade them to drop the case?)?

Is there any reason I should refuse email service? I would prefer that to post tbh but just checking I’m not missing anything.