UKPA - Moorside legal - Money claim online

Le_Kirk

That mediator seems to have overstepped the mark (sounds like you gave them what for!)  As stated above it is supposed to be a mediation about money not the case.  You could report them to scmreferrals@justice.gov.uk

krisboats

Hi all, i've not heard anything extra about the case until today, when a letter arrived:

General form of judgement or order In the county court at leicester: 28 january 2026

UK Parking administration 1st claimant

My name 1st defendent

Before deputy district judge vickers sitting at the county cour at leicester, 90 wellington street, leicester, le1 6hg

IT IS ORDERED THAT unless the defendent files at court and serves on the claimant an ammended defence which responds to the claim and sets out his factual defence by 18th February 2026, his defence will be struck out.

Dated 20 january 2026




Thats all it says, i've not had anything regarding a date or hearing and not sure why they want an ammended defence. A quick google suggests this is a ccj letter for a hearing thats already taken place? Could really use some help on what to do now….

krisboats

I've checked money claim online and the last entry is simply:

A claim was issued against you on 14/07/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/07/2025 at 21:47:54

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 28/07/2025 at 01:06:57

Your defence was submitted on 18/08/2025 at 06:40:12

Your defence was received on 18/08/2025 at 08:06:07

DQ sent to you on 12/09/2025

DQ filed by claimant on 12/09/2025

You filed a DQ on 14/10/2025

Your claim was transferred to LEICESTER on 03/12/2025

Coupon-mad

 A quick google suggests this is a ccj letter for a hearing thats already taken place?

I hate AI replies on Google, they are hopeless. Of course it's not a CCJ.

It's what it says: a grumpy judge wants a more concise defence from you.

Despite the fact that the POC doesn't even plead a contract term or breach…

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863361#Comment_81863361

Okay, well thats great news. i agree on google AI, i do try and cross refernece or fact check it but couldn't find anyone with n24 forms asking for further details. It also doesn't specify what ammendments would be required or where i would need to submit them.

Coupon-mad

IIRC @Char27 had to do this. Read her thread.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81864102#Comment_81864102

Okay i've read through that thread and it would appear her defence was ammended to include more specfics relating to her actual circumstances. It would seem both of our judges dislike the template response and whether thats the correct approach or not it seems they would prefer something more specific to our cases.

I've drafted up something similar that relates more to my own case:

With respects to points 1 and 3 on the Particulars of claim the defendent ( D ) disputes their validity as the vehicle in question was not parked within the publicly accessible car park that is controlled by the claimant ( C ). Rather the vehicle was parked within the confines of a building site that was gated, fenced and controlled by the principle contractor for the Puregym Installation with no access for the general public or unauthorised vehicles. This compound was accessed via the through road, hence being recorded on the automated ANPR cameras, and was not connected to the main publicly accessible car park to which the PCN's are intended.

With respects to point 2 of the Particulars of claim it is stated the PCN's were issued between 29/07/2024 and 30/07/2024. To comply with the amount being claimed of £680 this would equate to £340 per PCN rather than the £170 per PCN that has been listed on all correspndance so far. Conversely if the £680 being claimed is correct then the dates supplied in point 2 of the PoC would be inacurate or incomplete. Such an obvious mistake within the limited boilerplate particulars of claim should be grounds to strike out the claim in its entirety as it would call into question the validity and accuracy of any of the supplied information from C relating to the case.

With respects to point 3 of the particulars of claim. No details of the breach are mentioned within the sparse Particulars of claim that is supplied. 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'."

With regards to point 4 of the particulars in claim no agreement to pay within 28 days was ever supplied. In fact the PCN was appealed by D due to the nature of the parking signage for the public car park not being applicable within the confines of the building site. The appeals were rejected by C with an automated template denial response that showed no specifics to the appeal itself.

Coupon-mad

Assuming Moorside didn't follow this claim up with full particulars within 14 days, the judge is blind!

That POC is appalling.

It doesn't even specify where this took place ('one or more locations'?) or how many parking charges are the subject of the claim, the actual dates of the unknown number of invoices, the term(s) allegedly breached, or a breakdown of the hugely inflated money claimed, let alone an explanation of why they are attempting to claim pre-loaded interest as if all (no idea how many) 'PCNs' were overdue from the day before the first alleged date that the vehicle was in these various unidentified pieces of land. This POC is far worse than that seen in Chan and Akande and should be struck out.

However what you have drafted reads like Chat GPT wrote it (sorry). I'd instead put together an amended defence without AI, based in what I said above, then your story:

Worked on a building site in metoer retail park, derby, last year. single road going through with an entrance/exit each end and main car park to the left, building site fenced off to the public and no parking signage put up within the confines of the building site. ANPR on entry and exit of the road, not the car parks. Building company was supposed to record and whitelist registration details but never bothered and washed their hands of it.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81864409#Comment_81864409

Yeah, no chat gpt. That was all me, hopefully it's not THAT bad 😂 I was trying to copy the style of the defence template, worrying it already sounded too informal. Do i need to point out all of these mistakes in the POC, even i missed the interest dated 28th.

Coupon-mad

Yes this is your chance to start again with a simpler new defence. Add everything the judge should know.

But show us your draft first. A mix of my words then your story but in the third person and don't use 'C' and'D' shortenings.