UKPA - Moorside legal - Money claim online

krisboats

Amended Defence

This claim is being defended against for multiple reasons. Firstly, due to the particulars of the claim itself. Simply, this claim is lacking in detail and contains various errors and ommisions. The claim doesn't specify where the charges took place. It simply states "at one or more locations". The claim neither specifies the amount of parking charges or the correct dates for the charges. The claim doesn't specify what terms of the alleged contract were actually breached. There is no breakdown of the hugely inflated amount of money that is being claimed. The interest mentioned is for overdue payment, however the overdue date specified starts a day prior to the first PCN being recorded. The particular of claim that has been submitted is far worse than that seen in Chan and Akande and should be struck out.

Secondly and more specifically, the PCN's have been generated by an ANPR camera that is sited on the entrance and exit of a through-road running through the center of a large retail park. The main retail units are accessed part way down this road and is where the public car park is situated. On the opposite side of the road was a construction site, fenced off from the public and only accessible to authorised workers and vehicles. This single retail unit and forecourt were fully under the control of UCBuild contractors for the development of the new puregym branch and the parking agreement was that all vehicle registrations were recorded on a sheet to be entered onto a whitelist by the building company to ensure no PCN's were issued. During attendance for work at this site during the 4 days in question the PCN's were automatically generated despite the vehicle details in question being supplied to the contractor company and entered onto the sheet. At no point was the vehicle within the public car park to which these PCN's are intended. Multiple avenues have been tried to rectify this administration error both via the main contractor, subcontractor and email correspondence for a representative for the car park management. No avenues bore fruition and despite these details being supplied in the original UKPA PCN appeal procedure and to moorside legal, they were rejected with template rejection letters.


Thats what i have for a defence, if you could review it i would be indebted. I also have no idea of where to submit this as it isn't mentioned on the N24 form.

krisboats

1. Procedures for Amending a Defence

• Before Service: You can amend your defence at any time before it has been served on the claimant without the court's permission.
• After Service (With Consent): If the claimant agrees in writing, you can amend the defence. You must file the amended document at court and serve it on all other parties.
• Justice UK +2

2. Drafting the Amended Defence

• Show Amendments: The amended document should clearly show the changes, usually by striking through deleted text and underlining new text.
• Colour Coding: If multiple amendments are made, use the following sequence of colours for changes: Red, Green, Violet, and Yellow.
• Endorsement: The document must be clearly marked "Amended Defence" and state whether it is done by consent or by order of the court (e.g., "Amended Defence under CPR 17.1(2)(a) dated... ").
• Justice UK +4

3. Submitting to Leicester County Court

• Address: 90 Wellington Street, Leicester, LE1 6HG.
• Methods: Documents can be submitted by post, DX 17401 Leicester 3, or the court's drop-box facility for non-urgent business.
• Key Contacts:
•  Enquiries: 0116 222 5700; Email: 
• hearings@leicester .countycourt.gsi.gov.uk

So according to this i need to add this new section to the text from the original defence and underlining the new section?

Coupon-mad

I hate AI (most of the time).

That email address is WRONG.

If you don't know the right email to use for Leicester court (and can't find it on Court finder?) then ring them at 9am on the dot and send the email & attached defence while they are in the phone, insisting they confirm it is safely received and that it will be urgently referred to the Judge who ordered it.

You must cc in the solicitors for the C as well.

You should start a word doc with this Heading:

AMENDED DEFENCE, BY ORDER OF JUDGE XXXXXX - CLAIM NUMBER xxxxxx - URGENT SUBMISSION

Then copy & paste your first defence into this word doc. then strike through in red, anything you are removing from it.

Just strike through the first, second and last paragraphs of the template defence. Then add your added paragraphs right at the bottom.

Every paragraph needs a number.

I think this added bit should read more like this and will presumably be para 9 once three paras are struck through (and once you've added my paragraph - I think as para 8?) and the required renumbering is done:

9. Any breach of terms is denied and the Defendant is not liable for any sum at all. The Defendant is reduced to guessing what this is about, where these 'various locations' were and how many parking charges are being pursued and why. There are no pleaded details or allegations to answer. This feels highly unfair and prejudicial but because the Defendant has been ordered to file and serve an amended defence, the Defendant's best guess is the following:

9.1. The Defendant recalls that there were some parking charges incorrectly issued due to an ANPR camera that is poorly sited on the entrance and exit of a through-road, running through the centre of a large retail park. The main retail units are accessed part way down this road and is where the public car park is situated.

9.2. On the opposite side of the road was a construction site, fenced off from the public and only accessible to authorised workers and vehicles. The Defendant was an authorised worker and at no time parked in the retail park. This single retail unit and forecourt were fully under the control of UCBuild contractors for the development of the new Puregym branch and the arrangement was that all vehicle registrations were recorded on a sheet to be entered onto a whitelist by the building company to avoid parking charge notices ('PCNs') from being issued in error.

9.3. At no point was the vehicle within the public car park to which some or all parking charges might possibly relate, assuming this Claim is about that matter. The Defendant provided the vehicle details to the contractor company and the numberplate was entered onto the 'exempt vehicles' sheet. However, some PCNs were issued in error. The Defendant did everything required of them and had not breached any 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' (POFA 2012 pre-requisites).

9.4. Multiple avenues have been tried to rectify this administration error both via the main contractor, subcontractor and email correspondence. These facts were supplied in the original appeal and were further disputed to Moorside Legal in an attempt to narrow the issues. All the Defendant's concerted attempts to resolve the dispute without court were rejected with template rejection letters.

——————————————-

All additions should be in a colour.

Finally, at the end, you must add the full statement of truth and your signature and date (take a photo of your signature on a white piece of paper and then crop that image and put it at the end with today's date under it).

Then save as a PDF. If need be, compress it to make thr PDF smaller so it will attach to the email to court and cc the solicitors.

DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE AND TRY TO DO THIS BY MIDDAY AT THE LATEST.

krisboats

The changes you've made are fantastic and overwhelmingly appreciated. Thank you. My original defence only had 9 paragraphs as i've seemingly used an older template but i've cross referenced the standard defence and removed 1, 2 and final paragraphs (these were 1,2 and 10 in the template). This now leaves me with this (section 8 and subsections 8.1 etc are in red text):

Amended Defence by Order of Deputy District Judge Vickers dated 28th January 2026 - URGENT SUBMISSION

Defence and Counterclaim
Claim number [Redacted]
Claimant UK Parking Administration Ltd
Defendant [Redacted]

How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.

Defence

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.

1.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'.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5.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'.

6.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'.

7.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.

8. 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))'.

8. Any breach of terms is denied and the Defendant is not liable for any sum at all. The Defendant is reduced to guessing what this is about, where these 'various locations' were and how many parking charges are being pursued and why. There are no pleaded details or allegations to answer. This feels highly unfair and prejudicial but because the Defendant has been ordered to file and serve an amended defence, the Defendant's best guess is the following:

8.1. The Defendant recalls that there were some parking charges incorrectly issued due to an ANPR camera that is poorly sited on the entrance and exit of a through-road, running through the centre of a large retail park. The main retail units are accessed part way down this road and is where the public car park is situated.

8.2. On the opposite side of the road was a construction site, fenced off from the public and only accessible to authorised workers and vehicles. The Defendant was an authorised worker and at no time parked in the retail park. This single retail unit and forecourt were fully under the control of UCBuild contractors for the development of the new Puregym branch and the arrangement was that all vehicle registrations were recorded on a sheet to be entered onto a whitelist by the building company to avoid parking charge notices ('PCNs') from being issued in error.

8.3. At no point was the vehicle within the public car park to which some or all parking charges might possibly relate, assuming this Claim is about that matter. The Defendant provided the vehicle details to the contractor company and the numberplate was entered onto the 'exempt vehicles' sheet. However, some PCNs were issued in error. The Defendant had not breached any relevant contract or relevant obligation.

8.4. Multiple avenues have been tried to rectify this administration error both via the main contractor, subcontractor and email correspondence. These facts were supplied in the original appeal and were further disputed to Moorside Legal in an attempt to narrow the issues. All the Defendant's concerted attempts to resolve the dispute without court were rejected with template rejection letters.

Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true
[Redacted]

Then photo of signature and contact details follow as per the MCOL pdf

Coupon-mad

Remove 'Defence and Counterclaim' because you aren't counterclaiming.

Strike out 2, 6 and 7.

Looks like you forgot to add your first new paragraph that I told you to include as it was fine. About Chan& Akande.

Your SoT is a hundred years out of date (I did say 'full' for a reason to tip you off that it isn't short).

Don't trust AI!

You can find the proper SoT literally everywhere on this forum.

krisboats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81889214#Comment_81889214

okay, 2 6 and 7 have been removed, its been renumbered again, the reworded paragraph you wrote is in as section 5 and SoT is updated from the basic one on their form/pdf of the defence. All areas of strike through are in red and the newly added sections are in red text also.

Amended Defence by Order of Deputy District Judge Vickers dated 28th January 2026 - URGENT SUBMISSION

Claim number
Claimant UK Parking Administration Ltd
Defendant

How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.

Defence

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.

1.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'.

2. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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'.

6. 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'.

7.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.

8. 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))'.

5. This claim is being defended against for multiple reasons. Firstly, due to the particulars of the claim itself. Simply, this claim is lacking in detail and contains various errors and ommisions. The claim doesn't specify where the charges took place. It simply states "at one or more locations". The claim neither specifies the amount of parking charges or the correct dates for the charges. The claim doesn't specify what terms of the alleged contract were actually breached. There is no breakdown of the hugely inflated amount of money that is being claimed. The interest mentioned is for overdue payment, however the overdue date specified starts a day prior to the first PCN being recorded. The particular of claim that has been submitted is far worse than that seen in Chan and Akande and should be struck out.

6. Any breach of terms is denied and the Defendant is not liable for any sum at all. The Defendant is reduced to guessing what this is about, where these 'various locations' were and how many parking charges are being pursued and why. There are no pleaded details or allegations to answer. This feels highly unfair and prejudicial but because the Defendant has been ordered to file and serve an amended defence, the Defendant's best guess is the following:

6.1. The Defendant recalls that there were some parking charges incorrectly issued due to an ANPR camera that is poorly sited on the entrance and exit of a through-road, running through the centre of a large retail park. The main retail units are accessed part way down this road and is where the public car park is situated.

6.2. On the opposite side of the road was a construction site, fenced off from the public and only accessible to authorised workers and vehicles. The Defendant was an authorised worker and at no time parked in the retail park. This single retail unit and forecourt were fully under the control of UCBuild contractors for the development of the new Puregym branch and the arrangement was that all vehicle registrations were recorded on a sheet to be entered onto a whitelist by the building company to avoid parking charge notices ('PCNs') from being issued in error.

6.3. At no point was the vehicle within the public car park to which some or all parking charges might possibly relate, assuming this Claim is about that matter. The Defendant provided the vehicle details to the contractor company and the numberplate was entered onto the 'exempt vehicles' sheet. However, some PCNs were issued in error. The Defendant had not breached any relevant contract or relevant obligation.

6.4. Multiple avenues have been tried to rectify this administration error both via the main contractor, subcontractor and email correspondence. These facts were supplied in the original appeal and were further disputed to Moorside Legal in an attempt to narrow the issues. All the Defendant's concerted attempts to resolve the dispute without court were rejected with template rejection letters.

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.

Coupon-mad

"Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. "

It isn't a WS it is a defence, so change that.

Otherwise get it emailed asap and certainly before 4pm.

krisboats

Okay i phoned the civic national center and they texted me the email address for the leicester court. She agreed that the email header, content and attached pdf were correctly done and that the cc to moorside was correct. CCBC@justice.gov.uk was also included, she said it wasn't required but was a good idea as a backup. The address for the leicester court was confirmed as hearings.leicester.countycourt@justice.gov.uk.

The amended defence as written above with signature and correct personal details was sent and a confirmation email response from both from leicester courts and moorside legal has been recieved.

Leicester courts response is as follows:

Thank you for your email to The County Court at Leicester.

 

Please DO NOT duplicate any email sent with a hard copy by post or DX.  If a hard copy is required it will be printed by the Court.

 

We have a target of 5 working days to deal with incoming work which we strive to work towards, however, due to an increased workload, we are currently progressing work at approx. 29 days. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

It greatly assists the Court responding to emails quickly if you put your case number and the next hearing date (if there is one) in the subject line.

 

When sending an email to the County Court it is your responsibility to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 5b and guidelines set by the Court.  Any email which does not comply with these requirements will be responded to saying why it has been rejected, and then deleted.

 

• An email plus all its attachments may not be larger than 10mb
• When printed, an email plus attachments must not be more than 50 sides of A4 paper in total.  (excluding Local Authorities and CAFCASS)
• Any Court process that requires a fee to be paid cannot be sent by email. (excluding Local Authorities).

For the full guidance issued by HMCTS please visit our website.

The rules set out in the Civil Procedure Rules can be viewed by clicking here.

This is an automatically generated reply.

Bazarius

CCBC email is wrong (not used anymore) no idea why they suggested that it’s a good back up …

Coupon-mad

Agreed.

CCBC@justice.gov.uk is very out of date but there was no need to cc in them.