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.

Coupon-mad

krisboats said:

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

Good.

That's addressed the battle. Now for the war...

I'm taking a close look this week and we'll walk you through the Public Consultation so pleeease bookmark the thread and come back this month!

I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week. There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus.

Whilst there won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.