Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal CCJ-1

Fines_suck · 16 December 2025 at 8:08PM

date on the top of the form 26 Nov & AOS submitted 05 Dec

Gr1pr · 16 December 2025 at 8:54PM

Your deadline date is 4pm on 29th December

Fines_suck · 16 December 2025 at 8:58PM

Thank you for confirming

Fines_suck · 16 December 2025 at 11:01PM

Please excuse the long winded post, can you advise if I am better of using the plain text or the italic underlined text, below, for my defence, I cant find a great deal to add into section 3 for "not paying" - I use "the carpark" to get to / from work and due to my mind being on work (sending emails etc) I had not noticed that I had not paid for the parking until too late (this has been done on numerous occasions and I fully expect several court claims)

- Thanks in advance

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.

OR

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

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.

OR

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

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'."

OR add the below to start para 3

3. Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper

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.

OR

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

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).

OR

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

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.

OR

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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. 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'.

OR

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’’

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'.

OR

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

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.

OR

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents / evidence impossible for the defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the claimant opening uo further costs (CPR 46.5)

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))'.

OR

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))." It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Fines_suck · 10 January at 7:16AM

Hi MSE,

Received this response from Moorside litigation team via email, assume I am to ignore and await for the DQ to be issued? See below:

Your Defence

We have reviewed your Defence and make the following comments:

The Particulars of Claim are compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) Part 16 as they set out a clear statement of fact. Based on your Defence, you were able to understand what the Claim relates to and file a detailed Defence.

Our Client is not required to prove any financial loss and has a legitimate interest to issue the PCN and seek repayment of the debt to ensure efficient and safe management and enforcement of parking in line with the landowner’s instructions.

The sums claimed are not excessive and are broken down as follows:

PCN: £100.00 x 2

Recovery Fee £70 x 2

Interest: £7.48

Court Fees: £50.00

Costs: £50.00

Total: £447.48

The offer made was permission to park in exchange for payment. You have breached the terms and condition by making insufficient payment or no payment at all and therefore incurred the PCN.

Our Client manages parking on the Land by displaying prominent signs that set out the rules of parking. The signs are large, written in plain English and highly visible to anyone entering the Land. Any motorist entering the Land would be able to see and easily understand the signs. The terms and conditions displayed on the signs are fair and clear.

Regarding your comments on Notice of Discontinuance; this is irrelevant as the Claim remains active and has not been discontinued. Our Client is entitled to discontinue the Claim if it sees fit.

Despite the Notice to Keeper and reminders in relation to each PCN being sent to your current address, you failed to make any appeal or respond, copies attached.

In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible.

Settlement Proposal

Our Client remains open to settling the matter without the need for the Claim to progress further, and as such proposes the following settlement options:

£300.00 via one lump sum payment payable within the next 14 days; or

£360.00 via 4 x £90.00 monthly payments with the first payment due within the next 14 days.

How to pay

There is still time to make payment to avoid the need for a Court hearing. You can do so in any of the following ways: -

You can call us on 0330 822 9950 to make the relevant payment arrangements. You will need you customer reference number - (Removed by Forum Team); or

You can make payment via bank transfer to the following account -

Account holder name: Moorside Legal Services Limited
Bank name: Lloyds bank
Sort code: (Removed by Forum Team)
Account number: (Removed by Forum Team)

If you choose to make payment, via bank transfer you must use the following reference as your payment reference (Removed by Forum Team) to ensure we can quickly allocate the payment to your matter. If you do not, we may not be able to allocate the payment to your matter

If you choose to make regular card payments to us these will be made under a Continuous Payment Authority ('CPA'). This authorises us to take the agreed amount on a regular basis. CPAs can be set up weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. If we are unable to take your payment, we will attempt to take the payment later that day. If that fails, we will reattempt the next working day.

If you wish to provide an alternative payment proposal, please contact us within 7 days of receipt of this email.

If the Claim is not settled

We hope this matter can be settled without further Court action, however if we are not able to reach a settlement, please be aware that our Client intends to proceed with the Claim.

If the Claim proceeds, the Court will ask both Parties to file and serve a Directions Questionnaire, therefore we attach a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire and confirm the same has been filed with the Court.

Email Service

As you provided this email address when you defended the Claim, we intend to use it to serve documents on you throughout these proceedings and will do so in PDF format. We will assume you agree to this course of action unless you tell us otherwise within 7 days. In accordance with Practice Direction 6A, if there are any limitations to your agreement to accept service by such means, please let us know within 7 days.

Subject to your agreement, we will also agree to accept email service to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Yours sincerely

Gr1pr · 10 January at 11:42AM

Fines_suck said:

Hi MSE,

Received this response from Moorside litigation team via email, assume I am to ignore and await for the DQ to be issued?

You are correct , just keep following the 8 steps

Fines_suck · 11 February at 10:38AM

Hi MSE,

I have received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track'. The letter states to download the questionnaire and file it with the court office - do I email / deliver in person the DQ? Do you have an email address you can share?