Anchor, Moorside Legal court claim 2025

IhateFines

Family member has received a CCJ claim from Anchor Security Services for the amount of £1350 broken up into £1190 amount claimed, £80 court fee and £80 legal represented costs.  

Back story: 
Family member rents an apartment building, when they started renting there was no parking restrictions in place but a few months after the building management introduced a parking company to monitor the car park, and a £10 fee per vehicle was added that was required to have been paid by the residents and to register the vehicles they had to email the building management. 

Family member emailed building services on 20/06/2024 to register vehicle

4 PCN's issued between 27/06/2024 and 01/07/2024 

Building services reply on 09/07/2024 to confirm the vehicle has been registered on their system as of the 04/07/2024

Family member sends a further email on 09/07/2024 stating that the vehicle should be registered on their system from the date of the original email being the 20/06/2024. 

Building management email back on 09/07/2024 stating the following: "Further to your email we acknowledge your message dated 20-06-2024 and confirm that we will cancel the tickets from June 20th for vehicle number *** ***". 

Clearly, the PCN's should have been cancelled by building management based on the above email.

I have checked the rent agreement for the family member and there is no mention of parking charges, or any parking management company. There is no mention of parking whatsoever.

Fast forward to yesterday, the said family member has just come back from holiday and received the CCJ claim letter from Northampton Civil Business Centre with the issue date being 11th August 2025, and with my understanding today is the final date to acknowledge service to extend for another 14 days to file a defence?

The only problem is, the family member had made a MCOL account yesterday but can no longer log in to acknowledge service as when they try to reset the password, the MCOL page just redirects to another page. 

They have made another MCOL account but when they try enter the Claim number and Claim Password, it comes up as invalid. 

What options does my family member have now?

Obviously, they will not be paying this amount and if anything would look to perhaps counter sue for GDPR breach and a few other things?

 

Gr1pr

Definitely not a CCJ form,  it's an N1SDT claim form sent from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

The claim reference number and password are on the claim form,  they don't reset them, but they needed a government gateway account first, logging into the gateway account 

1) They can email the AOS to the AOS address listed in the first post in the defence template thread in announcements 

2) They could email their defence to claimresponses this weekend,  checking for the email auto response,  meaning that they sent it and it was received by the CNBC,  for logging next week,  it needs the current statement of truth and must be signed too

3) They could phone the CNBC early doors on Monday but I doubt that their online problems will be resolved 

Personally,  I would do 1 and 2 before 8am on Monday,  emailing both documents to the correct addresses and checking the inbox and spam folders for their auto response back for each document

Its the top 2 email addresses in the list, the header above the top address explains that it's an alternative to MCOL 

Is it dcb legal or some alternative lawyer   ?  We know that it's Anchor and the issue date is 11th August 

Edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

Anchor,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025 

Or similar,  but with correct names of course 

troublemaker22

Please change the heading to remove ‘CCJ’ as this will confuse people who are trying to help. There won’t be a CCJ unless the defendant manages to lose the case (highly unlikely if they follow the guidance here). 

If they can’t file the AOS via MCOL they can complete the paper AOS form that came with the claim form or download this PDF version https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645e1b9c2c06a3000cc05c3d/N210_1122_save.pdf and either way email the completed form to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk which is the same address to which they’ll send their defence.

Make sure they email the completed AOS this weekend 

IhateFines

Gr1pr said:

Definitely not a CCJ form,  it's an N1SDT claim form sent from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

The claim reference number and password are on the claim form,  they don't reset them, but they needed a government gateway account first, logging into the gateway account 

1) They can email the AOS to the AOS address listed in the first post in the defence template thread in announcements 

2) They could email their defence to claimresponses this weekend,  checking for the email auto response,  meaning that they sent it and it was received by the CNBC,  for logging next week,  it needs the current statement of truth and must be signed too

3) They could phone the CNBC early doors on Monday but I doubt that their online problems will be resolved 

Personally,  I would do 1 and 2 before 8am on Monday,  emailing both documents to the correct addresses and checking the inbox and spam folders for their auto response back for each document

Its the top 2 email addresses in the list, the header above the top address explains that it's an alternative to MCOL 

Is it dcb legal or some alternative lawyer   ?  We know that it's Anchor and the issue date is 11th August 

Edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

Anchor,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025 

Or similar,  but with correct names of course 

troublemaker22 said:

Please change the heading to remove ‘CCJ’ as this will confuse people who are trying to help. There won’t be a CCJ unless the defendant manages to lose the case (highly unlikely if they follow the guidance here). 

If they can’t file the AOS via MCOL they can complete the paper AOS form that came with the claim form or download this PDF version https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645e1b9c2c06a3000cc05c3d/N210_1122_save.pdf and either way email the completed form to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk which is the same address to which they’ll send their defence.

Make sure they email the completed AOS this weekend 

Apologises, the thread title has been changed now.

They filled in the above PDF for the AOS yesterday and sent it to the AOS / Claim Response just to be sure and have received the auto response email from both.

In the AOS they stated that the written evidence would be filed within 14 days, so that means that have until the 13th September 2025 to file there defence right?

If they are looking to countersue, would they go for the parking operator / Anchor or would they go for the building management along side the parking operator and Anchor

Gr1pr

Monday 15th September by 4pm  ( they don't work weekends   )

The defence will have to be signed and dated,  saved as a pdf and emailed to claimresponses at the CNBC , if the MCOL login doesn't work 

Coupon-mad

And please - first - do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY. Just 3 days to go.

IhateFines

Coupon-mad said:

And please - first - do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread. I have covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY. Just 3 days to go.

Apologises Coupon, seems like I missed the deadline for this, I'd have loved to give my honest thoughts about those scamming parking companies!

Currently in the process of writing the defence and wanted to check something which is whether its worth the family member countersuing for breach of GDPR / DPA and for breach of the right to quiet enjoyment (Saeed -v-Plustrade) and to what amount this would be as when the Building management company stated "Further to your email we acknowledge your message dated 20-06-2024 and confirm that we will cancel the tickets from June 20th for vehicle number *** ***", the parking company they employed should have ceased and cancelled the PCN's but this failed to happen and now with this court claim, it should have never have got here. 

Coupon-mad

No you clearly haven't missed the (now extended) deadline. Click on the link and you'd see all this in the thread heading!

PLEASE FIT IN THE HOURS TO DO IT!

Re a counterclaim, it must be properly pleaded to state a lawful and reasonable cause of action. Threads with counterclaims include:

@1xvp1

@Nosy (only read their counterclaim thread).

Also search CEL Clay Charlton to read about cases where claims v POCs worked (these weren't counterclaims - they were claims - but it's the properly pleaded wording you need to get your head around).

IhateFines

1.      DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that any sum is owed to the Claimant, whether as alleged or at all. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, lack specificity, and fail to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4, Practice Direction 16 paragraphs 3 and 7, as they do not ‘state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action.’ The particulars are entirely inadequate, lacking essential information such as the contractual basis of the claim, the alleged breach, the location terms, the date(s) of alleged contraventions, and any lawful basis upon which the Claimant asserts standing or authority to operate on the land in question. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence should the Claimant provide further detail.
   
   
2. The claim is further exaggerated by the inclusion of spurious costs and damages which do not reflect any genuine loss. The claim exceeds the cap of £100 per PCN as outlined in the Code of Practice, and any attempt to recover additional sums is an abuse of process and a clear example of double recovery. Such inflated claims for non-contractual sums are routinely disallowed by the courts and are a reason for the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c). The Defendant also relies on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), where the High Court ruled additional administrative costs were disproportionate and penal in nature.
   
   
3. The Defendant resides at the property to which the parking space in question is demised. The Defendant holds a valid lease agreement, which grants the Defendant an unfettered right to park in their allocated space without interference, restriction, or regulation by third parties. The lease contains no clause permitting the imposition of a permit system, charges, or any enforcement regime by private parking companies. The leasehold right to park is contractual, proprietary, and cannot be unilaterally fettered or overridden by the Claimant or any managing agent. As established in Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch), leaseholders are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their demised premises, including allocated parking spaces. Any purported terms imposed by the Claimant are void as they attempt to override pre-existing superior rights.
   

   Furthermore, the Defendant contacted the building management on 9 July 2024, who explicitly confirmed that the PCNs issued on 20 June 2024 for vehicle registration xxx would be cancelled. The Defendant relied on this assurance and reasonably believed the matter was resolved. Despite this, the Claimant has continued to issue further PCNs and has proceeded with this claim, which constitutes a breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, data processing must be necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller, unless overridden by the interests or rights of the data subject. Once building management had confirmed cancellation and withdrawal of consent or justification for further processing, any subsequent access, retention, or use of the Defendant’s personal data by the Claimant became unlawful.

   The continued processing of the Defendant's personal data, including obtaining DVLA data and pursuing litigation, constitutes unlawful processing without a lawful basis, in breach of the Claimant's obligations as a data controller under the UK GDPR. This is actionable and causes unwarranted distress. The Defendant reserves the right to lodge a counterclaim for damages under Article 82 UK GDPR and s.168 DPA 2018 for misuse of personal data.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract existed between the parties, but to form a contract there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration. None are evident in this case. Any alleged contract is void for lack of capacity and for attempting to override pre-existing legal rights. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any contractual terms purportedly breached.
   
   
5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had a valid and subsisting contract with the landowner at the material time, giving it authority to issue PCNs, pursue litigation, and override the Defendant's leasehold rights. Any contract with the managing agent is insufficient, as only the freeholder can authorise derogation from the Defendant's proprietary rights. The Claimant must disclose the full landowner agreement, site maps, and relevant annexes to establish its standing.
   
   
6. The signage at the location is sparse, confusing, and fails the test of adequate notice as required by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. This includes the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.62(4) which mandates transparency and good faith in all consumer notices. The burden lies on the Claimant to prove that such notices were sufficiently prominent and that the Defendant consented to any contractual terms.
   
   
7. The claim is further undermined by the fact that the alleged breach occurred in a space over which the Defendant holds leasehold rights, including rights of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use. The imposition of charges without legal basis is tantamount to trespass and interference with those rights.
   
   
8. The Defendant asserts that the continued pursuit of this claim is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Defendant has incurred time and costs in responding to this matter, which should have been resolved without litigation. The court is invited to consider a costs order in the Defendant’s favour.
   
   
9. The Claimant’s attempt to recover ‘debt recovery’ fees via an agent (e.g. DCB Legal or another DRA) is abusive and contrary to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch. 4 para 4(5), which states that no additional sums beyond the parking charge may be claimed from the keeper. These fees are unlawful, invented costs that are not recoverable under any parking code of practice, or in contract law.
   
   
10. This claim is a misuse of court resources and one of many examples of mass litigation of questionable merit. The court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim or, in the alternative, dismiss it in full and award the Defendant costs due to the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant.

Could someone please check the above and give any guidance 

as we cannot log into MCOL

The defence will be sent through email

Coupon-mad

Counterclaim or not?

IhateFines

Coupon-mad said:

Counterclaim or not?

they decided on not doing it