Help with Court Claim

BMW_Mad17

Hey there! I’m in a bit of a sticky situation and could really use your expertise. I’ve got a court claim for a few parking tickets I got at the same spot on three different days.

Here’s the scoop: we usually head to the quayside, park up, and take a stroll at night. I hadn’t been there in ages, and honestly, I’d never gotten any parking tickets before from that said location. 

So, about a week later, I start getting these parking ticket letters with my registration plate pictures. I was totally shocked because I’d never seen this before, especially at that spot. I parked there three times, and I got three letters!

The letters said it was St Ann’s Sandgate MSCP, but I didn’t park in the multi-story building, I parked outside on the road. After I got the letters, I went there on foot and saw signs saying no parking at all.

Since it was a private parking company, I just ignored the letters.

Then, after a while, they got passed on to Trace Debt Recovery, and then to Moorside Legal.

About a month later, I got a letter with a county court claim form. Date received was 23/09/2025.

I read the newbie forum post and, after a few days, submitted an AOS on MCOL. As far as I know, now I’ve got to start getting ready for my defence. I then submitted the AOS on 26/09/2025

That’s where I need your expert help to guide me. If you have any questions, please ask, and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. 

Thanks

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 19/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/10/25

doubledotcom

Has the claim form changed? Where is the SoT with Sarah Ensall's name and position?

Send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Claim [court reference] – Authority to conduct litigation

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the Claim Form (N1SDT) filed/served in this matter. The document is signed on behalf of the Claimant by Sarah Ensall, whose position is given as Head of Legal.

Please confirm by return:

1. WhetherMs Ensall is an authorised person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or CILEX number and practising status); or, if not,

2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits her to conduct litigation and sign this document in these proceedings (provide the sealed court order or statutory provision if applicable).

For the avoidance of doubt, preparing, signing, filing or serving this document is an act of conducting litigation. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, unqualified employees may provide support but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.

If the document has been signed by a person who is not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served, I will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I, as a litigant in person, will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct (and, if appropriate, consider wasted costs against representatives).

Absent confirmation, I reserve the right to raise this matter with the Court and the SRA.

Yours faithfully,
[full name]
[address]
[email]

Gr1pr

Its Moorside Legal,  not DCB LEGAL,  but the SoT will be on the back and signed by one of theirs

The alleged breach is not pleaded , nor is the number of pcns either, but probably 3 pcns

Coupon-mad

Easy to defend. Even para 3 is already written for these cases (see Template Defence thread) but the OP should add a line stating that the Defendant denies that the vehicle was ever parked in the multi-storey car park known as St Ann’s Sandgate MSCP.

doubledotcom

Gr1pr said:

Its Moorside Legal,  not DCB LEGAL,  but the SoT will be on the back and signed by one of theirs

The alleged breach is not pleaded , nor is the number of pcns either, but probably 3 pcns

In which case we need to see the name of the person who has signed it and in what capacity and on behalf of whom. I note that many Moorside Legal claims are signed by Ibrar Ahmad. However, he is not listed as an SRA regulated solicitor with Moorside but with Osbourne Pinner Ltd.

This poses further questions that need clarification. Does he have actual retainer/authority from Moorside to act?

These shifty bulk litigators, especially one as incompetent as Moorside Legal, need to be brought to account.

BMW_Mad17

doubledotcom said:

Gr1pr said:

Its Moorside Legal,  not DCB LEGAL,  but the SoT will be on the back and signed by one of theirs

The alleged breach is not pleaded , nor is the number of pcns either, but probably 3 pcns

In which case we need to see the name of the person who has signed it and in what capacity and on behalf of whom. I note that many Moorside Legal claims are signed by Ibrar Ahmad. However, he is not listed as an SRA regulated solicitor with Moorside but with Osbourne Pinner Ltd.

This poses further questions that need clarification. Does he have actual retainer/authority from Moorside to act?

These shifty bulk litigators, especially one as incompetent as Moorside Legal, need to be brought to account.

Here’s the SoT:

Thanks for the advice given, I’m going to look at the defence template, edit it and post it on here to get your thoughts if I need to change anything. 

jd576

BMW_Mad17 said:

Here’s the SoT:

Thanks for the advice given, I’m going to look at the defence template, edit it and post it on here to get your thoughts if I need to change anything. 

Thomas Clough is an authorised person, so the Mazur judgement won't hold any sway here I believe.

Gr1pr said:

The alleged breach is not pleaded , nor is the number of pcns either, but probably 3 pcns

Particulars of claim must state the exact term of the contract that you breached, otherwise it is in violation of Practice Direction 16.7.5 and and you can ask to have their claim struck out: “Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done”. 

Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44 and of Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30 are appeal judgements that, while not binding, certainly in my case were persuasive enough to get a claim struck out. 

In your original post, you've failed to redact your name from the letter just above the Letter before Claim. Ditto for the 3 above that one.

Coupon-mad

All the wording to defend a Moorside case is already in the Template Defence thread.

BMW_Mad17

@Coupon-mad

Here is my attempt at the defence. Please let me know if I need to change anything. Thanks. 

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 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. 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 is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and 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. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. 

The Defendant denies that the vehicle was never parked in the multi-storey car park known as St Ann’s Sandgate MSCP. 

Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. 

The quantum is hugely exaggerated (3 PCN’s can’t be £510 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1. 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'."

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. 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. 

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'. public consultation = (Link) - can’t post on here yet.

f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

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)).’ Schedule4 = (Link) - can’t post on here yet.

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. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

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))'.

Le_Kirk

Every paragraph requires a number; what you have written seems to differ from the standard template defence;  you seem to have a random set of words here: -

. public consultation = (Link) - can’t post on here yet.
f-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice