Court Report - Reading - Countrywide Parking hit for £3,500 costs

bargepole

Case No. M2MP3418 - Countrywide Parking v Mr M - Before Deputy District Judge Nihal-MacDonald in Chambers 5

Claimant represented by Ms Kanda (Solicitor's Agent, instructed by Moorside Legal)

Defendant represented by David Carrod (Solicitor's Agent, instructed by D's solicitor)

This case was passed to me by Mr M's solicitor, who had prepared all the docs, but was unable to attend today. Mr M had 6x PCNs at his residence in 2023, and then moved in June 2024. Countrywide, via their solicitors Moorside, issued the claim to his old address in Jan 2025, and then got a default Judgment, for around £1,300. 

The particulars of claim, which Mr M got from the CNBC, were as follows:

Particulars of claim: THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR OUTSTANDING PARKING FINES FOR A               CONTRAVENTIOON WHICH OCCURRED ON THE                           AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. 1020.00.  2. STATUTORY INTEREST PURSUANT TO SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT (1984) AT A RATE OF 8.000% PER ANNUM FROM 11/01/24 TO 08/01/25 79.13, AND THEREAFTER AT A DAILY RATE OF 0.22 TO DATE OF JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. CPM377010 INVOICE DATES 31/10/23 - 15/11/2331/10/23 REF. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM 11/01/2024 TO 08/01/2025 ON £1,020.00 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER PAYMENT AT A 11 12 DAILY RATE OF £0.22.

This was the hearing of the D's application to set aside Judgment, and to strike out or dismiss the claim.

The Judge started by noting that the D had moved address in June 2024, and had properly notified the DVLA. Therefore, the claim which had been served at his previous address had not been received by him, and he knew nothing about it until he discovered the Judgment in Default. Ms Kanda tried to argue that, as he had received the PCNs in 2023, he should have known that proceedings would follow. I referred the Judge to clause 10.1 of the IPC Code of Practice, which says that operators must carry out a soft trace where there has been no reply to the Letter Before Claim, and in this case, had they done so, they would have found Mr M's current address.

The Judge agreed that the claim had not been validly served pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), and therefore a mandatory set aside per CPR 13.2 was applicable.

We then moved to the question of whether the deficient particulars were fatal to the C's position. The Judge said that the particulars were completely deficient, and were just a blamk template which the solicitors had failed to fill in. Ms Kanda tried to argue that the C should be permitted to file further and better particulars. I referred the Judge to para. 40 of the C's WS, in which they were attempting to give excuses. I submitted that this was sloppy and unprofessional, and akin to the excuse "Please Sir, the dog ate my homework".

The Judge agreed that the particulars on the claim form were not even close to being compliant with CPR 16.4, and after reviewing some other Judgments from various other cases, said that he agreed that allowing the C another bite of the cherry would be disproportionate, so the claim would be dismissed entirely.

On the question of costs, I reminded the Judge that the case had not yet been allocated to track, and that we sought to recover the D's full costs on the indemnity basis. The Judge reviewed the N260 Costs Schedule, and observed that the hourly rates, and hours spent on the case, all seemed reasonable. Therefore he awarded the D costs in the sum of £3,531.80, to be paid by the C within 28 days.

Gr1pr

Wow, well done Mr C , a good lesson for those seeking default judgments at old addresses, it can bite you on the bum.  It just goes to show how sloppy and lazy these companies are , they clearly dont follow codes of practice or CPRs etc  ( more like winging it  )

ChirpyChicken

Nice costs there Mr C!!!
Moorside really are a shoddy outfit

And the claimant will have to pick up the bill for the costs despite it being Moorside at fault 

patient_dream

Well done Sir,

Having been to Reading Court helping others 3 times with all cases dismissed, it is very clear that Reading, like Southampton has no time for money scammers.

As far as Moorside, I have thought for some time if they are really suitable to copycat the rubbish legals who try to extort money

MOORSIDE FAILED BIG TIME

kryten3000

Moorside are the Temu DCB Legal.

ChirpyChicken

kryten3000 said:

Moorside are the Temu DCB Legal.

They certainly are and I find them really quite aggressive 

Coupon-mad

bargepole said:

Case No. M2MP3418 - Countrywide Parking v Mr M - Before Deputy District Judge Nihal-MacDonald in Chambers 5

Claimant represented by Ms Kanda (Solicitor's Agent, instructed by Moorside Legal)

Defendant represented by David Carrod (Solicitor's Agent, instructed by D's solicitor)

This case was passed to me by Mr M's solicitor, who had prepared all the docs, but was unable to attend today. Mr M had 6x PCNs at his residence in 2023, and then moved in June 2024. Countrywide, via their solicitors Moorside, issued the claim to his old address in Jan 2025, and then got a default Judgment, for around £1,300. 

The particulars of claim, which Mr M got from the CNBC, were as follows:

Particulars of claim: THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR OUTSTANDING PARKING FINES FOR A               CONTRAVENTIOON WHICH OCCURRED ON THE                           AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. 1020.00.  2. STATUTORY INTEREST PURSUANT TO SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT (1984) AT A RATE OF 8.000% PER ANNUM FROM 11/01/24 TO 08/01/25 79.13, AND THEREAFTER AT A DAILY RATE OF 0.22 TO DATE OF JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. CPM377010 INVOICE DATES 31/10/23 - 15/11/2331/10/23 REF. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM 11/01/2024 TO 08/01/2025 ON £1,020.00 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER PAYMENT AT A 11 12 DAILY RATE OF £0.22.

This was the hearing of the D's application to set aside Judgment, and to strike out or dismiss the claim.

The Judge started by noting that the D had moved address in June 2024, and had properly notified the DVLA. Therefore, the claim which had been served at his previous address had not been received by him, and he knew nothing about it until he discovered the Judgment in Default. Ms Kanda tried to argue that, as he had received the PCNs in 2023, he should have known that proceedings would follow. I referred the Judge to clause 10.1 of the IPC Code of Practice, which says that operators must carry out a soft trace where there has been no reply to the Letter Before Claim, and in this case, had they done so, they would have found Mr M's current address.

The Judge agreed that the claim had not been validly served pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), and therefore a mandatory set aside per CPR 13.2 was applicable.

We then moved to the question of whether the deficient particulars were fatal to the C's position. The Judge said that the particulars were completely deficient, and were just a blamk template which the solicitors had failed to fill in. Ms Kanda tried to argue that the C should be permitted to file further and better particulars. I referred the Judge to para. 40 of the C's WS, in which they were attempting to give excuses. I submitted that this was sloppy and unprofessional, and akin to the excuse "Please Sir, the dog ate my homework".

The Judge agreed that the particulars on the claim form were not even close to being compliant with CPR 16.4, and after reviewing some other Judgments from various other cases, said that he agreed that allowing the C another bite of the cherry would be disproportionate, so the claim would be dismissed entirely.

On the question of costs, I reminded the Judge that the case had not yet been allocated to track, and that we sought to recover the D's full costs on the indemnity basis. The Judge reviewed the N260 Costs Schedule, and observed that the hourly rates, and hours spent on the case, all seemed reasonable. Therefore he awarded the D costs in the sum of £3,531.80, to be paid by the C within 28 days.

kryten3000 said:

Moorside are the Temu DCB Legal.

I agree.

The Pound Shop on the PPC World high street. And there is also the conflict of interests with Mike Marrs, president of the BPA who is the CEO of APN Group:

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/mike-marrs-irrv-3986383b

CEO APN Group

President, British Parking Association

Well done Mr C and that solicitor.

Just LOOK at the even worse than usual woeful Particulars of Claim in this case that were waved through by the MCOL automated CCJ-enabling system that no human even looks at.

This one calls them 'fines' and doesn't list ANY details or dates, let along a VRM or why they were pursuing the Defendant. He got a CCJ due to an old address and could easily have had HCEOs turn up.

The MoJ should be ashamed and these champertous claims and the solicitor-profits led model (where they front the claim filing costs) should be stopped immediately.