Parking Control, Moorside court claim 2025

Liolion1987

Unpaid parking "fine" and now I have a second  letter  in one month from HM Courts & Tribunal Services.

Moorside Legal are the ones taking me to court, 
I parked at Beam Park Rainham for maximum 20min and received a fine, i have parked there many times when i went to visit my friend. Many times he has done my parking via his phone but that day they didn't have space in the visitor parking space so i parked the car in a normal space for maximum 20min. It is not possible to fit all the cars in the visitor parking space , there is maybe 300flats and maybe 20 visitor parking space.

I Received  a letter before claim on 30 June 2025 from Moorside legal and i sent them one email on the 12th of July and other on the 30th of July ( i added the pictures)
But nobody has replied back to me...


I have now got a claim for £276.72 which comprises of:

Amount claimed £191.72
Court Fee £35
Legal Costs £50

I have probably ignored previous letter for the original fine ( can't  remember original fine) 

My Claim Form issued 04 AUG 2025

Thank you everyone 

Gr1pr

There was no fine, no offence, no penalty,   don't use any of those words , you received an invoice from a private parking company,  nothing more 

Name the private parking company that are using Moorside Legal 

Login to MCOL and complete the AOS online on there first, as explained in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum  ( issue date was 04 August 2025  )

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Liolion1987

Gr1pr said:

There was no fine, no offence, no penalty,   don't use any of those words , you received an invoice from a private parking company,  nothing more 

Name the private parking company that are using Moorside Legal 

Login to MCOL and complete the AOS online on there first, as explained in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum  ( issue date was 04 August 2025  )

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Hey @Gr1pr,  the parking company is Parking Control Management  Uk, 
I done my AOS last week and now im just thinking what defence i would need to use? Thank you!

Gr1pr

No actual breach mentioned in the POC 

Use the template defence and add Chan and Akande too, same as all the other recent cases with no explanation of any breach 

Coupon-mad

Which the Template Defence thread already explains and links twice for Moorside cases. You don't have to draft anything at all. 

Liolion1987

Coupon-mad said:

Which the Template Defence thread already explains and links twice for Moorside cases. You don't have to draft anything at all. 

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Liolion1987

Gr1pr said:

No actual breach mentioned in the POC 

Use the template defence and add Chan and Akande too, same as all the other recent cases with no explanation of any breach 

Thank you  @Gr1pr

Liolion1987

Hi all
Can you check my defence if anything is missing or needs to be taken out?  Thanks

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 considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do.

Liolion1987

Hey just received an email from Moorside legal

Gr1pr

And............ Ignore  it

Its in the 8 steps, please read them