Leeds Station - No stopping (UKCPS/Moorside) - discontinued!!

tbu271

Here's another one from the recent no stopping changes at Leeds Station. 

I won't go into the details as there's quite a few of these on the forum already.

However, I have noticed that the letter was headed with 'non-PoFA'. To use their own words against them, surely this simply means they have given up on the one legal tool that they can use to force the keeper to provide the driver's details? And if the keeper chooses to simply not do this, then there is diddly squat they can do to 'enforce' the charge? Is it really that simple??

And a follow-up question - how can I check what land is actually subject to railway byelaws? The nearest I've found is here - map dot whoownsengland dot org (newbie, can't post links yet...) - the land is owned by Network Rail. If Network Rail owns the land, does that therefore guarantee the land is subject to railway byelaws?

ChirpyChicken

They can not force driver details to be revealed via that legislation 
Come back if you get a court claim via moorside legal 

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

They can not force driver details to be revealed via that legislation 
Come back if you get a court claim via moorside legal 

Agreed. Ignore but tell them if you move house because there are 6 years to litigate.

tbu271

How exciting - it's claim form day!

This came through the door this morning:

AOS already done.

Working on my defence, this is my paragraph 3:

The Claimant has failed to satisfy the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. The Claimant's own Notice to Keeper dated 6 October 2025 was explicitly headed 'Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)'. The Claimant's legal representative further confirmed this via email to the Defendant on 25 February 2026, explicitly stating: 'this Parking Charge Notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore does not allow us to pursue the registered keeper for payment.' As the Claimant has formally admitted it cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability, and since the identity of the driver has not been disclosed, there is no lawful basis for Keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of the driver at the material time, without which the claim against the Keeper must fail. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (POC), which imply or attempt to rely on Keeper liability, directly contradict their own evidence and formal admissions, thereby misleading the Court.

I also wanted to get something in about no stopping contracts being prohibitive. I couldn't let the ridiculousness go of a 'contract' that is both accepted and breached by exactly the same action.

After a couple of drafts, it seemed like it would actually fit in better by working it into paragraph 4, rather than paragraph 3. (Yeah I know you say not to touch this…) So this is what I have. Would be great to get your thoughts. (Including "put it back to how it was you fool")

It is neither admitted nor denied that a contractual term was breached, but to form a contract there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration, all of which are absent in this case. The POC state that the Defendant accepted a contractual licence 'by parking' yet asserts the alleged breach was 'No stopping'. A sign that states 'No Stopping' offers nothing but an absolute prohibition; it does not invite or offer a contractual licence to stop or park. Under contract law, a prohibitive notice cannot create a contractual offer. Accordingly, no contract could be formed between the driver and the Claimant. 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 Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), as well as Section 62 and the duties of fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear, unfair, and hidden terms and notices. On the limited information provided in the POC, this case appears no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's great. You may have to remove the final para of the Template Defence (about costs) to make all this fit into MCOL. That's fine to do because you can add that costs para at WS stage, later on.

ChirpyChicken

Personally with this one i wouldnt use the rest of the template and just centre your defence on no keeper liability

Car1980

You can always add this at the end:

It submitted that the claim should be struck out under 3.4(2)(a) where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 02/06/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 06/07/26

tbu271

Today I received the Notice of Discontinuance!!

Happened earlier than expected. The last thing I did was file my defence ~3 weeks ago. No DQ, mediation, witness statements or the like have happened since.

I'd like to express huge appreciation for the regulars on this forum, who have collectively built up a massive repository of knowledge over the years. If I hadn't stumbled across this back in October, I probably would have begrudgingly paid the NTK, even though my sense of decency knew it wasn't right.

This turned into something of a personal crusade once I'd learnt just how brazen the parking companies were being. After countless hours spent on the forum reading of others' experiences, court transcripts, and legislation documents, I now know more about contract law, PoFA, the small claims process and the definition of 'parking' than any non-legal professional should have any right to know. At least I'm now feeling a lot more prepared should all this happen again.

Below is the defence that apparently spooked them so much. Pasting here in case it is useful to anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation. I ended up mostly deviating from the template defence so I could focus on several particular legal points. Paragraph 5 is likely not useful now that stations are relevant land, but I still believe that a well-argued defence can still demonstrate that PoFA can never apply in a no-stopping claim (e.g. no period of parking is possible without first having parked…).

1. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. Except where explicitly admitted, the Particulars of
   Claim (POC) are denied in their entirety.
2. The Claimant’s POC state that '...the Defendant accepted [the contract] by parking'. This is specifically
   denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the
   material time, without which the claim against the Keeper must fail.
3. The Claimant has formally admitted that it cannot transfer liability to the Registered Keeper under
   Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Claimant's Notice to Keeper dated 6
   October 2025 was explicitly headed 'Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)'. Furthermore, the Claimant's
   legal representative confirmed this via email to the Defendant on 25 February 2026, explicitly stating:
   'this Parking Charge Notice was not issued under POFA 2012 and therefore does not allow us to pursue
   the registered keeper for payment.' The Defendant will rely on this admission at trial.
4. Consequently, the Claimant’s POC, which attempt to rely on Keeper liability 'and/or pursuant to POFA
   Sch 4', directly contradict their own prior admissions, documentary evidence, and statutory law. The
   pleading is defective and misleads the Court.
5. Furthermore, the land in question (Leeds City Station) is railway land subject to statutory control
   under the Railway Byelaws 2000 (Byelaw 14). At the material time of the alleged breach (25 September
   2025), it was not 'relevant land' under PoFA. The POFA Amendment Order which brought railway land
   into the scope of 'relevant land' did not come into force until 26 December 2025, and cannot be applied
   retrospectively. Consequently, at the time of the event, the Claimant had no statutory mechanism to
   transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.
6. Furthermore, there is no presumption in law that the Registered Keeper was the driver (Excel Parking
   Services Ltd v Smith [2017] and Vehicle Control Services v Edwards [2023]).
7. It is denied that any contract was formed between the Claimant and the driver. To form a contract
   there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration, all of which are entirely absent in this
   case.
8. The Claimant’s signage fails to satisfy the legal requirements of prominence and clarity. The signage
   fails to clearly demarcate the boundary of any restricted zone. The POC imply that the contract must be
   read and accepted whilst in control of a moving vehicle, yet material terms (including the £70 fee) are
   displayed in minuscule font or obscured via online hyperlinks, which no driver could comprehend whilst
   driving. The site entirely lacks clear boundary road markings, such as red lines or hatchings; only faded
   double yellow lines are present.
9. The POC state that a contractual licence was accepted 'by parking'. Stopping is not parking
   (Homeguard: Homeguard Services Ltd v Jopson [2016]). The vehicle was stationary for a mere 28
   seconds. If the driver did not park, then by the Claimant's own pleaded wording, no contract was
   accepted.
10. In the alternative, if the Claimant asserts that stopping constitutes parking, the terms are void for
    impossibility. The POC state the contract is accepted 'by parking' yet assert the breach was 'No stopping'.
    A vehicle cannot park without first stopping. The Claimant argues that the very act required to accept
    the contract is simultaneously an immediate breach of it. A contract that requires a party to perform an
    impossible or immediately breaching act is void ab initio.
11. A sign prominently stating 'No Stopping' is an absolute prohibition. It does not offer a contractual
    service or licence; it forbids an action. A forbidden act cannot form the basis of an offer, and no
    consideration or benefit is offered to the motorist in return.
12. The vehicle was observed stationary for 28 seconds at 12:20am, a time when traffic is minimal. The
    Claimant has no 'legitimate interest' (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]) in forbidding or penalising such an
    inconsequential event, as it serves no genuine traffic management or commercial purpose.
13. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts. Per Schedule 2
    (paras 6 and 10), the terms create a significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment. Demanding
    £170 for a 28-second pause is a disproportionate penalty. Furthermore, the terms fail the transparency
    test under Section 68, as they are unreadable from a moving vehicle, depriving the consumer of a fair
    opportunity to read and reject them, representing a total lack of good faith.
14. 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).
15. The Claimant has added an impermissible £70 'fee' to the £100 parking charge, totalling £170. This
    artificial inflation is an unlawful attempt at double recovery. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], the Supreme
    Court held that a parking charge already covers all business operational and pre-action collection costs.
    Artificially inflating this claim to extract extra money constitutes an abuse of process. The Court is
    invited to strike out the entire claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b).
16. In the alternative, if POFA Schedule 4 did apply (which is denied), Paragraph 4(5) strictly caps
    registered keeper liability at the original parking charge amount (£100). Additional fees are statutorily
    barred under POFA.
17. Section 69 interest under the County Courts Act 1984 is a discretionary remedy. Given that the
    underlying claim entirely lacks merit, directly contradicts the Claimant's own written admissions, and
    constitutes an abuse of process via double recovery, the Court is urged to exercise its discretion to deny
    all interest.

Coupon-mad

That is a really good bespoke defence for UKCPS Leeds Station 'no stopping' claims. Who wrote that for you, a poster here? Impressed…

And congrats on the very early NoD!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

😀

tbu271

I'm flattered 😁

Other than this same thread, and a couple of bits from the template defence, this is all my own doing. Like I say, a lot of hours of research and learning went into this! I kept a onenote as I read through the forum, saving any useful cases, facts and snippets from other threads and sources that I could later incorporate here. AI helped with language and proofreading, but the content is otherwise mine.

And for anyone passing through here, I quite firmly believe that any private no stopping case can still be defended, even with the Boxing Day changes for railway stations, because:

• In 99% of cases, no contract can ever have been formed. If the case assumes the driver read the 'offer' from a moving vehicle, this is almost certainly impossible and should be defended.
• POFA only applies if the driver had a period of parking. The NTK usually won't state a period of parking, or even allege that the driver parked at all. No stopping cases are generally non-PoFA by nature. Don't state who the driver was!
• The POC are often lifted from the claimant's parking contravention POC template, and will be full of logical holes when blindly used for a no stopping claim. Look closely and pull it apart!

-