NCP and autopay - CCJ set aside: in-person hearing in August

Car1980

Yep, we're still waiting to see if any Moorside NCP claims actually make it to a hearing after the Adminstrators handed them thousands of claims. I can't see how since it'll be impossible for them to attend hundreds of cases around the country per week.

fyonn

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82053798#Comment_82053798

I've no idea if it's my local court as I don't know where the courts are, but it's 15 miles away from warrington where I live…

In terms of submitting stuff.. where? do I email it in to the address I sent the N244 form to? do I submit it to St Helens Court? is there a portal or something?

Coupon-mad

It would help us to help you if you please edit your thread title to include:

CCJ set aside: remote hearing in August

I keep having to look back to find out what you are asking about because the thread title doesn't instantly tell us this is a CCJ case.

"do I email it in to the address I sent the N244 form to?"

No. Your case is now at St Helens court and they don't have a portal but they will have a hearings or enquiries email address that's easy to Google.

Obviously you must cc in the C's solicitors.

fyonn

Good evening everyone,

@Coupon-mad I did send in your argument, many thanks for that.

I have also updated the title as your requested, though it's an in-person hearing, not remote.

In addition, I received an email from moorside legal today telling me that they will not be attending, and they attached a 135 page PDF witness statement.. it responds to a number of the points I made in my submission. Most of the pages seem to be the contents of legal lease documents, most of which is redacted out.

Should I post here the parts that directly relate to me?

Car1980

yes please

fyonn

okay, here's the content of the email:

Dear Mr XXX,

We write in relation to the above matter and upon having received notice of the Hearing to hear your application to set Judgment aside listed for 7 August 2026. 

By way of service upon you, please find attached our Witness Statement for the hearing. 

Please accept this letter as our client’s notice of non-attendance sent in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) 27.9.  We confirm compliance with CPR Part 27.9 paragraphs (a) and (b). 

We will now await the Court’s decision

You may wish to seek independent legal advice. 

Yours sincerely

YYY ZZZ

and some relevant parts of the attached PDF

Here's the main intro:

THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF YYY ZZZ

I, YYY ZZZ, of Moorside Legal Services Limited (“Moorside”), Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham, England, OL8 3QL, will say as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Moorside are the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant and I am a Paralegal employed by Moorside. I am supervised by <another person> who is responsible for the conduct of this matter.

2. Unless I state otherwise, the facts and matters set out in this Statement have been provided to me by the Claimant and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on their behalf.

3. I make this statement in opposition to the Defendant’s application to set Judgment aside dated 12 April 2026 for the hearing listed on 7 August 2026.

PARTIES

4. 5. The Claimant is a company whose primary business is to manage parking on private land. It does so by displaying signs on the land setting out the rules of parking and issuing private parking charge notices to any vehicle found parked on that land without following the Rules.

The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in relation to an unpaid private parking charge notice issued by the Claimant on 26 April 2025 for parking without payment of the parking charge (“the PCN”).

ACCREDITATION

6. At the time the PCN was issued the Claimant was a member of the British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA is one of the two Accredited Trade Associations (“ATA”) for the parking industry. To maintain its membership the Claimant must follow the BPA Code of Practice (“the Code”).

THE LAND

7. At the time the PCN was issued the Claimant was instructed by the Landowner to manage parking on private land located at Manchester Circle Square, Manchester, M1 7ED (“the Land”).

8. Specifically, the Claimant was instructed and authorised to; display signs on the Land detailing the parking rules that motorists must follow whilst on the Land, issue PCNs to those found contravening the rules, collect payment of the PCNs, and take steps to recover payment from those motorists that do not pay.

9. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH1”) is a redacted copy of the Agreement between the Claimant and the Landowner. All material sections demonstrating the Claimant’s instruction remain visible. The redacted sections contain commercially sensitive information or information that bears no relevance to this matter.

10. The Claimant’s management practices are compliant with the Code.

MANAGING THE LAND

11. The Claimant manages parking on the Land by displaying prominent signs that set out the rules of parking. The signs are large, written in plain English and highly visible to anyone entering the Land. Any motorist entering the Land would be able to see and easily understand the signs.

12. Legally speaking, the signs constitute a unilateral offer to park and form a Contract between the Claimant and any motorist who chooses to park on the Land. The wording on the signs forms the Terms and Conditions of the Contract. Because the offer is unilateral, it is accepted by performance (i.e. by parking) and does not require verbal or written acceptance.

13. Any motorist that accepts the offer to park and complies with the Terms and Conditions can remain on the land under a contractual license granted by the Claimant. Conversely, any motorist that accepts the offer but breaches the Terms and Conditions set out in the Contract will be liable to pay the contractual charge.

14. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH2”) are photographs that have been provided to me by the Claimant showing signs in situ on the Land. I am instructed by the Claimant that these are an accurate representation of the signs displayed on the Land when the Defendant was issued with the PCN.15. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH3”) is the terms and conditions of those signs. These are included to ensure there is certainty in respect of the content of the Contract.

16. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH4”) is a site map showing where on the Land the signs were displayed.

17. It is the Claimant’s position that the contractual charge is necessary to ensure the Land is used appropriately and fairly for the benefit of nearby residents and/or businesses. It is therefore commercially justified for that reason.

DETAILS OF THE PCN

18. The vehicle with registration number <my reg> was observed parked on the Land parking without payment of the parking charge. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH5”) is the Claimant’s photographic evidence of the vehicle parked as described.

19. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions because the signs stated the following:

“A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions (which can be found in and around this car park). This includes the following breaches:

Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking”

20. In view of the fact the vehicle was parked on the Land in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Contact, the driver was liable to pay the contractual charge of £100.00.

21. To request payment of the charge, the details of the Registered Keeper were obtained from the DVLA. The Claimant has the right to make this request pursuant to Section 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Once those details were received a ‘Notice to Keeper’ compliant with Section 9 of POFA was given, requesting payment. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH6”) is a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to <my address>.

DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY

22. I am informed by the Claimant that the Defendant is liable because they had parked the vehicle on the Land at the time the PCN was issued.

23. The Claimant believes the Defendant was the driver because they appealed the charge and admitted the same.

APPEAL

24. The Claimant provides motorists with the option to appeal a parking charge if they believe it was issued incorrectly. In relation to this PCN, the Defendant did appeal to the Claimant, however the appeal was rejected because autopay was currently disabled at this location and therefore Park Now should have been used within the App to make a manual payment.

25. If the Claimant rejects an appeal, the motorist can submit a second appeal to the ATA’s independent appeals board. In this case, the Defendant did not submit a second appeal.

26. Exhibited to this statement at (“MH7”) is a copy of the Appeal and Appeal response.

ADDITIONAL CHARGE

27. As the parking charge continued to be unpaid by the Defendant, the Claimant escalated the matter to debt recovery action, and levied an additional charge in the sum of £70.00, increasing the amount owed to £170.00. This additional charge is levied by the Claimant to protect their legitimate interest; the increase of the PCN amount represents a deterrent to encourage debtors to pay at the earliest opportunity, without the need for matters to escalate further. In this regard I refer to the Contract (i.e. the terms and conditions) which stated the following:

“If you do not comply with these requirements we may issue you with a Parking Charge Notice requiring you to pay any unpaid parking charge(s), together with an additional amount representing an estimate of the additional expenses we will incur as a result of your non-compliance (including without limitation debt recovery costs)”.

28. The above clause of the Contract was agreed in the same way and at the same time the other Terms and Conditions were. If the Defendant had paid the charge at the outset, the Claimant would not have needed to take any such ‘debt recovery’ action including taking the time and resource to instruct Solicitors, and as such the Claimant would not have increased the PCN amount.

29. The additional charge is in line with the limits set by the Code of Practice and is not more than is necessary to protect the Claimant’s legitimate interest. The additional charge is sought as an increase of the PCN amount.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

30. In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, on behalf of the Claimant, Moorside sent a letter compliant with the Protocol to the Defendant to his current residence dated 10 September 2025. A copy is exhibited at (“MH8”).

31. The Claimant did not receive payment nor was any settlement agreed between the parties. As such, the Claimant had no option but to issue a Claim.

32. The Claim was issued on 10 December 2025 and deemed served on 15 December 2025 to <my address> Moorside sent a letter notifying the Defendant of the Claim dated 12 December 2025 which is exhibited to this statement at (“MH9”).

33. Due to a lack of response the Claimant was at liberty to request Judgment, which was issued on 22 January 2026. Moorside sent a letter to the Defendant to notify them of the Judgment by Default on 27 January 2026. A copy of this letter is exhibited to this statement at (“MH10”).

34. To try and engage with the Defendant, Moorside sent a further letter on 25 March 2026. A copy of this letter is exhibited to this statement at (“MH11”).

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION

35. The Claimant’s response to the Defendant’s application is as follows:

CPR 13.2

The Defendant states in his Application: “I then discovered that my household had received letters from the Claimant’s solicitor about this fine but which had been filed away without my knowledge. However, even looking through all the family files, I have failed to find any notification from the court system of this claim coming to court and thus was unaware that I had to act quickly at the time.”

The Claim was served correctly pursuant to CPR 6.9 at <my address> which is the same address confirmed by the Defendant to be his current residence in his Application to set Judgment aside.

It is the Claimant’s position that service was effective. The Defendant himself confirms receiving correspondence that was filed away. The Claimant notified the Defendant that the Claim had been issued and that Judgment had been entered as per the letters exhibited at (“MH9”) and (“MH10”). A further letter was also sent as exhibited at (“MH11”). Therefore the Claimant had three letters sent to his current residence informing him of the Claim/Judgment.

As such, the Claimant is unwilling to pay the cost for the Defendant’s application when service was correct and further correspondence was sent to encourage the Defendant to respond. It is not the fault of the Claimant that the documents were filed away without the Defendant’s knowledge.

CPR 13.3

The Defendant states that he was not informed that autopay was disabled. It is the Claimant’s position that an email was sent to all customers who use AutoPay informing them that AutoPay was disabled. It is also the Claimant’s position that everything was done to notify the Defendant of the same.

36. Respectfully, the Claimant reminds the Court that the burden of proof falls on the Defendant to prove his application. A Judgment is also intended to have a serious impact and not be easily removed.

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

37. The Court should consider the three-stage test arising from the case of Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

a. Firstly, was the breach serious and significant? The Defendant’s failure to respond to the Claim Form, which resulted in the Judgment by Default, is serious and significant.

b. Secondly, is there an explanation as to why the breach occurred. The Defendant has not provided any reasoning relevant to the breach. He has confirmed he received some correspondence but denies receiving the Claim Form from the Court despite it being sent to the correct address. He has also confirmed that other correspondence was filed away.

c. Lastly, the Court has to consider all the circumstances of the case. The Defendant does not deny that he was the Driver nor that he was not present when the PCN was incurred. The Defendant has presented no further circumstances and has not confirmed why he did not check his bank account to make sure that payments had gone out. He simply states that he did not receive any communication concerning the disabling of Autopay. On this basis, the Claimant submits that the application does not satisfy the requirements for the Court to grant relief from sanctions by setting aside the Judgment and the application could be dismissed on this basis alone.

DELAY/PROMPTNESS

38. The Defendant made his application on 12 April 2026, which is 81 days after the Judgment was entered and 76 days after receipt of the Claimant’s letter confirmingthat Judgment had been entered against him as exhibited at (“MH10”). In Regency Rolls Ltd & Anor v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379 Lord Justice Simon Brown stated the below:

“I would accordingly construe “promptly” here to require… that he has acted with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances…30 days was altogether too long a delay.”

39. Additionally, in Core-Export Spa -v- Yang Ming Marine Transportation Corp [2020] EWHC 425 (Comm) it was held that a delay of 23 days was found not to be prompt. HHJ Pelling QC stated the below:

“…the existence of a realistically arguable defence is clearly outweighed by the history of delay, inaction, and non-engagement…”

Therefore, the Claimant submits that if the Court is still minded to set the Judgment aside, it should dismiss the Defendant’s application based on the Defendant not making the application promptly.

CONCLUSION

40. It is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has proven on the balance of probabilities why the Judgment is valid and should remain, and the application is entirely without merit.

41. The Claimant seeks that the Defendant’s application be dismissed.

42. Should the Court conclude that Judgment is to be set aside, the Claimant asks that they are not found responsible for the costs of the Defendant’s application as all documents and letters were served at the correct address and the it is not the fault of the Claimant if the documents were filed away.

43. The Claimant does not propose to submit a cost schedule because no profit costs are claimed above the fixed costs already mentioned. The Claimant will seek the fee paid for Advocate attendance anticipated to be £200.00, but to be confirmed at the hearing if appropriate.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am authorised by the Claimant to make this statement.

Signed: YYY ZZZ

Name: YYY ZZZ

Date: 23 July 2026

Position: Senior Paralegal

This is followed by 126 pages of assorted attachments:

• Lease between Aviva Life and Pesions UK Limited, S&K Carp Park Management Ltd, Secure Parking PTY Limited (much redacted)
• Estate Plan (a map of the area)
• Building plan (a map of a building… doesn't look familiar tbh but maybe it's a part of the car park I can't see…)
• Site acceptance pack (pictures of a payment machine, signs in the car park and the entrance)
• Terms and conditions of the car park
• Site map (satellite pic of the car park
• Pics of my car entering and exiting
• Copies of the letter NCP have sent to me, and my appeal, and their response to the appeal
• Letters from moorside

that's it… I think I have anonymised everything personal.

Many thanks

Castle

• Lease between Aviva Life and Pesions UK Limited, S&K Carp Park Management Ltd, Secure Parking PTY Limited (much redacted)

So where does NCP come into this given that their witness states NCP has a agreement with the Landowner; (at para 9).

1505grandad

FWIW - the filing history at Companies House for:-

"S&K CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD

Company number 07401550"

show the following:-

"31 Dec 2025	Notification of Times24 Uk Limited as a person with significant control on 1 December 2025	View PDF (2 pages)
31 Dec 2025	Cessation of National Car Parks Limited as a person with significant control on 1 December 2025"	View PDF (1 page)

Coupon-mad

OK so this hearing is in-person (my bad) so edit your thread title again please!

"The Defendant states that he was not informed that autopay was disabled. It is the Claimant’s position that an email was sent to all customers who use AutoPay informing them that AutoPay was disabled. It is also the Claimant’s position that everything was done to notify the Defendant of the same."

Was it though? Where's the proof?

NCP is in administration (all financials being handled by a third party, PWC I think) so who exactly was the source of the 'facts' in this hearsay WS from a non-witness?

We don't know because Moorside don't say.

Have they failed to append any evidence (at all) that you were definitely informed that Autopay was disabled?! Clearly you weren't because if you had been, you wouldn't have relied on Autopay!

I'm not sure they've even said WHEN it was disabled, unless I missed that? I mean, is there any evidence at all about the date of this Autopay change or is it vague hearsay from an unconnected paralegal?!

That's what you say to the judge.

Also:

Even if emails had gone out to some users, that wasn't anything like enough to alert users. Changing the continuous payment arrangements in a car park and pulling the rug in Autopay required far more prominent notice because it is material information and a change in the car park rules and obligations on drivers.

Thus, the Code of Practice clause about 'changes in restrictions' was in play, which required extra signage at the entrance saying something like:

'WARNING: CHANGE IN CAR PARK TERMS - AUTOPAY IS NOW DISABLED AND CANNOT BE USED'

The CoP required that extra signage like that was up and at the entrance very prominently displayed for at least 4 months.

Do the images show extra, conspicuous "WARNING - CHANGES!" signs at the entrance like that?

Show us their images of the entrance signs.

Without that, nobody who used Autopay would have known this! You wouldn't have had cause to approach a P&D machine or read the small print on any signs just in case Autopay had been 'retired' overnight.

Why would you?! This is madness.

HOWEVER:

They have made a major point about lack of promptness. That's huge (it will be the most difficult hurdle for you to overcome. i reckon) and I did tell you about acting promptly, in March. Hmmm… you said:

"I only discovered the judgment when I struggled to get finance"

So when was that, exactly? When did you actually learn about the CCJ on your record? March? When?

Last questions:

Did you put in a draft defence yet? Did it go with your N244?

How many PCNs are in this claim?

fyonn

OK so this hearing is in-person (my bad) so edit your thread title again please!

done 👍🏻

"The
Defendant states that he was not informed that autopay was disabled. It
is the Claimant’s position that an email was sent to all customers who
use AutoPay informing them that AutoPay was disabled. It is also the
Claimant’s position that everything was done to notify the Defendant of
the same."

Was it though? Where's the proof?

NCP is in administration (all financials being handled by a third party, PWC I think) so who exactly was the source of the 'facts' in this
hearsay WS from a non-witness? We don't know because Moorside don't say.

Have they failed to append any evidence (at all) that you were definitely informed that Autopay was disabled?! Clearly you weren't because if you had been, you wouldn't have relied on Autopay!

I'm not sure they've even said WHEN it was disabled, unless I missed that? I mean, is there any evidence at all about the date of this Autopay change or is it vague hearsay from an unconnected paralegal?!

That's what you say to the judge.

yeah, that was my thought…

1. I'm not sure that one single email counts as "everything was done"
2. No idea where they got their info from, the pack doesn't seem to say, it just asserts it.
3. the evidence pack doesn't seem to contain a copy of the email they sent me.. maybe they can't find it either?
4. They do not say in this pack when autopay was disabled, in fact all these emails say is that autopay was disabled for this site. It was only in a call with NCP after my failed appeal that they said it was disabled for all sites but they didn't say when exactly.. I think it was supposed to be late 2022 but I'm not sure.

Thus, the Code of Practice clause about 'changes in restrictions' was in play, which required extra signage at the entrance saying something
like:

'WARNING: CHANGE IN CAR PARK TERMS - AUTOPAY IS NOW DISABLED AND CANNOT BE USED'

The CoP required that extra signage like that was up and at the entrance very prominently displayed for at least 4 months.

Do the images show extra, conspicuous "WARNING - CHANGES!" signs at the entrance like that?

Show us their images of the entrance signs.

I can't see anything in the T's and C's about changes in restriction but no, there was nothing in the car park to indicate that autopay was disabled and infact if you google "NCP autopay" right now then it gives you this page: https://ncpparking.com/?_ve=autopay#autopay where they still talk about autopay being a thing and my favourite line is:

With AutoPay, we will automatically charge you when we see you using the car park and you will get a receipt each time.

By being registered with AutoPay, you will not have to queue to pay for your parking as we take responsibility for properly billing you!

As far as I can tell, they basically told me not to worry about it and they they wold bill me. they did not.

in terms of the images, here you go:

this is the machine they told me not to go to.

If you think this pic is pretty unreadable, I'd say you're right

This pic seems to tell me that the equipment required to do autopay is still there.

This pic tells me that the car park is ticketless, which I knew… I was expecting to use a ticketless payment method

and this is a pic of the entrance… not sure why…

They have made a major point about lack of promptness. That's huge (it will be the most difficult hurdle for you to overcome. i reckon) and
I did tell you about acting promptly, in March. Hmmm… you said: "I only discovered the judgment when I struggled to get finance"

So when was that, exactly? When did you actually learn about the CCJ on your record? March? When?

the date I discovered it was when I signed up for an experian account to run my credit report and see what it said. I have a "welcome to experian" email in the evening of the 31st march.

I still feel that I should have received a letter from the court, but I've searched high and low and can't see one.

Last questions:

Did you put in a draft defence yet? Did it go with your N244?

How many PCNs are in this claim?

I put a witness statement in my N244 which was sent in some time ago, and I think most of the content of it was posted earlier on this thread. and I put in the extra you suggested about double recovery more recently. I am working up some notes for the in person court appearance which will be absed on that witness statement and the stuff above.

and there is only a single PCN. I don't think I've parked in an NCP since I got this fine… possibly out of spite… :)

many thanks