UKPA - Moorside legal - Money claim online

krisboats

Perfect, thank you both. I'll spend this week getting something together and post it here before i send anything off.

Le_Kirk

You don't need to "get something together" just use the template defence, which is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum and incorporate Chan & Akande (short versions) as the POC are sparse.

ChirpyChicken

And you dont send it off.. You log the template defence using the MCOL web link

krisboats

Le_Kirk said:

You don't need to "get something together" just use the template defence, which is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum and incorporate Chan & Akande (short versions) as the POC are sparse.

Hi, sorry i've been crazy busy with work and not had chance yet. what do you mean by incoporate chan and akande?

ChirpyChicken

You need to prioritise this matter and get your defence logged.

Coupon-mad

krisboats said:

Le_Kirk said:

You don't need to "get something together" just use the template defence, which is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum and incorporate Chan & Akande (short versions) as the POC are sparse.

Hi, sorry i've been crazy busy with work and not had chance yet. what do you mean by incorporate chan and akande?

We mean use the special one for Moorside cases that you can copy and adapt in ten minutes flat!

It's linked in the Template Defence thread. Calling for you to just go and copy it... 

krisboats

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.



So this is the defence i have so far. Its a straight copy and paste adding in the chan post for section 3 as its a moorside claim. Do i need to add in anywhere that this was a anpr on the entrance and exit of the land and doesn't reflect that i was parked within the confines of a building site that was fenced off with no public access and my registration details were filled out each day for management to inform UKPA i was on site in order to whitelist me from getting a ticket?

I appreciate i've left this very late and apologise to any that have helped so far. i'll check back during work today and if no replies or ammendments to be made i will send this in the defence section for mcol.

Kind regards

chris

Coupon-mad

Do i need to add in anywhere that this was a anpr on the entrance and exit of the land and doesn't reflect that i was parked within the confines of a building site that was fenced off with no public access and my registration details were filled out each day for management to inform UKPA i was on site in order to whitelist me from getting a ticket?

Nope because they have not pleaded any breach, so you must not fill in the gaps for them!

That defence is fine.

Please stick around and do the Public Consultation (see thread on page one right now).

krisboats

Perfect, thank you. Submitted via mcol and double checked its uploaded to the case.

krisboats

Well theyve responded 

Re:		Our Client: UK Parking Administration Ltd
		Our Ref: UKPA/*****
		Claim Number: M6*********

We write in relation to the above matter.

 
Your Defence
 
We have reviewed your Defence and respond as follows: 
The terms and conditions of using the parking facility are clear.
Failure to comply with the rules and regulations of parking at the location in question will result in a charge. It is the vehicle driver's responsibility to ensure that the rules and regulations are followed.
 
Whilst our Client is willing to proceed to Court, we can offer a settlement - £470 (the original charge for the ticket £100 per PCN, plus legal costs)
 
This will clear the debt and close the file.
 
If you are facing financial difficulties, our team can assist you by creating a personal instalment plan.
 
If an instalment plan is agreed, we will need to proceed to mediation to have a settlement agreement drawn up. In this instance, please continue to follow the Court’s directions, including filing a Directions Questionnaire.
 
Based on the evidence we currently hold, 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.
 
If you fail to make payment, and this matter proceeds to a Court hearing, further costs including hearing fee expenses will be claimed.
 
If in Court you are deemed liable to pay and a CCJ is issued, this could have a negative effect on your credit rating, ability to obtain a mortgage, loan requests, as well as posing other such difficulties. You may have to detail this CCJ in your future job applications, which could prevent you from securing the role.
 
How to pay
There is still time to make payment to avoid the need for a Court hearing. You can do so in any of the following ways: -

• You can call us on 0330 828 5850 to make the relevant payment arrangements. You will need you customer reference number - 10225904; or

• You can make payment via bank transfer to the following account -

Account holder name: Moorside Legal Services Limited
Bank name: Lloyds bank
Sort code: 306541
Account number: 49689760
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.
Yours sincerely
Kai Ali

If you choose to make payment, via bank transfer you must use the following reference as your payment reference 10225904  to ensure we can quickly allocate the payment to your matter. If you do not, we may not be able to allocate the payment to your matter

That email was sent 11/09/25 and i missed it. My partner says theres a letter with some paperwork in it, the mcol page online seems to show questionairre was submitted by them on 12/09/25 although it wont let me view it digitally.