Moorside Legal Claim - Feb 2026 [Claim Dismissed]

dabachi_scents23

Would the following suffice? (Courtesy of AI. Also yet to add paragraphs for Chan & Akande but searching the forum now and will add once found)

IN THE [COURT NAME]

Claim No: [XXXXX]
Between:

[Claimant name]
and
[Your name] (Defendant)

DEFENDANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT

(For application for dismissal and indemnity costs)

1. Introduction

1. This is the Defendant’s skeleton argument addressing:
   • The Claimant’s course of conduct in this litigation;
   • The abusive addition of a false “fee” to the PCN;
   • The Claimant’s failure to properly plead the claim;
   • The failure to pay the hearing fee;
   • The improper reversal of the strike-out;
   • The Claimant’s failure to seek relief from sanctions;
   • The Claimant’s non-attendance at the hearing;
   • The Defendant’s application for indemnity costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).
2. The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable, oppressive and wholly improper throughout.

2. Course of Conduct – Overview

1. The Claimant’s conduct demonstrates a pattern of procedural abuse and disregard for the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The Defendant relies upon:
   • The Witness Statement and exhibits including Chan and Akande (see below).
   • The Court’s own orders and case history.

3. The False Additional “Fee” – Double Recovery

1. The Claimant added an additional “debt recovery” or “damages” sum to the original PCN.
2. This constitutes:
   • Double recovery;
   • An abuse of process;
   • An attempt to circumvent the small claims costs regime.
3. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis made clear that the parking charge itself already includes the operator’s costs of operation.
4. Subsequent circuit and County Court authorities have repeatedly held that such add-ons are unrecoverable and improper.
5. The Claimant has knowingly advanced an inflated and legally unsustainable claim.

4. Failure to Properly Plead the Claim

1. The Particulars of Claim were deficient and failed to comply with CPR 16 and PD16.
2. The pleading did not:

• Properly set out the contractual basis of the claim;
• Identify the alleged breach with clarity;
• Provide sufficient particulars to allow the Defendant to understand the case.

1. The Defendant relies upon Chan and Akande (exhibited in the WS) where similar deficient pleadings were criticised and/or struck out.
2. The Claimant’s template pleadings are knowingly defective and place an unfair burden on Defendants.

5. Failure to Pay the Hearing Fee

1. The Claimant failed to pay the hearing fee by the court-ordered deadline.
2. As a result, the claim was properly struck out.
3. This was a direct consequence of the Claimant’s own inaction.

6. Improper Reversal of Strike-Out

1. The Defendant understands that the strike-out was subsequently reversed.
2. The Defendant has reason to believe that this followed representations to court staff regarding the deadline for payment.
3. The Claimant:

• Did not make a formal application for relief from sanctions;
• Did not serve evidence in support of any such application;
• Did not comply with the requirements in Denton v TH White Ltd.

1. The proper procedure would have required:

• A formal application;
• An explanation for the default;
• Consideration of the Denton principles.

1. None of this occurred.

7. Failure to Seek Extension of Time

1. The Claimant did not:

• Apply for an extension of time before the deadline;
• Apply promptly for relief from sanctions.

1. This demonstrates disregard for procedural rules.

8. Non-Attendance at Hearing

1. The Defendant reasonably anticipates that the Claimant will not attend.
2. The Claimant routinely issues claims in bulk but fails to properly pursue them.
3. This wastes court time and causes unnecessary stress and expense to Defendants.

9. Unreasonable Conduct – CPR 27.14(2)(g)

1. The Claimant’s conduct satisfies the threshold of unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g), including:

a. Advancing a knowingly inflated claim;
b. Failing to properly plead;
c. Failing to pay the hearing fee;
d. Failing to properly apply for relief from sanctions;
e. Causing a wrongful reinstatement;
f. Failing to attend the hearing.

1. The cumulative conduct is oppressive and abusive.

10. Costs Schedule (Indemnity Basis)

The Defendant seeks costs on the indemnity basis:

Item	Calculation	Total
Litigant in Person time	£19/hour x 5 hours	£[ ]
Mileage	6 miles @ £0.45	£2.70
Postage	6 x 1st class small letters	£[ ]
Printing	20 sheets @ £0.42	£8.40
Loss of earnings (1 day)	£95 (capped at £95 if applicable)	£[ ]

Total: £[ ]

1. The hourly rate of £19 is pursuant to CPR 46.5.
2. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to:

• Dismiss the claim;
• Refuse any further indulgence;
• Award the Defendant indemnity costs.

11. Conclusion

1. This claim should never have been pursued in its present form.
2. The Claimant’s conduct represents a sustained pattern of procedural abuse and unreasonable behaviour.
3. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the claim and award costs accordingly.

dabachi_scents23

Plan to add the following 2 paragraphs & edit the reference to "included in WS" above, as well as complete the costing:

In Chan v London Borough of Camden (PATAS case reference 2070409427), the adjudicator confirmed that a Penalty Charge Notice must clearly and accurately convey the motorist’s legal rights and obligations. Where a notice misstates the statutory time limits or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations, this amounts to a procedural impropriety. The decision emphasises that compliance is not a matter of substantial compliance alone; the information provided must not mislead or confuse the recipient about their position. Accordingly, any defect in wording that affects the understanding of payment periods or representations is capable of invalidating enforcement.

Similarly, in R (on the application of Akande) v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWHC 2210 (Admin), the High Court reaffirmed the importance of strict adherence to the statutory scheme governing civil parking enforcement. The Court held that where an enforcement authority departs from the prescribed legal requirements, the resulting notice or enforcement step may be rendered unlawful. The judgment underlines that procedural safeguards are integral to the fairness of the regime and are not mere technicalities. In the present case, the authority’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements amounts to a procedural impropriety, and the penalty charge must therefore be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81880723#Comment_81880723

No, bin it.

AI is hopeless on stuff like this. Bin it immediately. This is out of date:

"The hourly rate of £19 is pursuant to CPR 46.5."

Err, no, it isn't. It's £24 per hour.

And what is this?!

"Plan to add the following 2 paragraphs & edit the reference to "included in WS" above, as well as complete the costing:

In Chan v London Borough of Camden(PATAS case reference 2070409427), the adjudicator confirmed that a Penalty Charge Notice must clearly and accurately convey the motorist’s legal rights and obligations. Where a notice misstates the statutory time limits or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated regulations, this amounts to a procedural impropriety. The decision emphasises that compliance is not a matter of substantial compliance alone; the information provided must not mislead or confuse the recipient about their position. Accordingly, any defect in wording that affects the understanding of payment periods or representations is capable of invalidating enforcement.

Similarly, in R (on the application of Akande) v London Borough of Haringey [2013] EWHC 2210 (Admin), the High Court reaffirmed the importance of strict adherence to the statutory scheme governing civil parking enforcement. The Court held that where an enforcement authority departs from the prescribed legal requirements, the resulting notice or enforcement step may be rendered unlawful. The judgment underlines that procedural safeguards are integral to the fairness of the regime and are not mere technicalities. In the present case, the authority’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements amounts to a procedural impropriety, and the penalty charge must therefore be cancelled.

🤨

Wrong cases.

Those are ghost cases (made up by AI).

Bin it ALL and stop relying on AI.

Look, you are on a forum with hundreds of skellies you could search for & read plus thousands more threads in the past 3 years, citing Chan & Akande properly, with the correct 2 transcripts linked all over the forum.

Just do a skeleton copied from a thread here and ONLY about Chan and Akande.

The correct cases.

Correct transcripts attached as PDFs.

Maybe just keep this bit as well, which I think is true?

5. Failure to Pay the Hearing Fee

1. The Claimant failed to pay the hearing fee by the court-ordered deadline.
2. As a result, the claim was properly struck out.
3. This was a direct consequence of the Claimant’s own inaction.

6. Improper Reversal of Strike-Out

1. The Defendant understands that the strike-out was subsequently reversed.
2. The Defendant has reason to believe that this followed representations to court staff regarding the deadline for payment.
3. The Claimant:

• Did not make a formal application for relief from sanctions;
• Did not serve evidence in support of any such application;
• Did not comply with the requirements in Denton v TH White Ltd.

1. The proper procedure would have required:

• A formal application;
• An explanation for the default;
• Consideration of the Denton principles.

None of this occurred.

7. Failure to Seek Extension of Time

1. The Claimant did not:

• Apply for an extension of time before the deadline;
• Apply promptly for relief from sanctions.

This demonstrates disregard for procedural rules.

dabachi_scents23

Apologies, I am trying to do all of this with a new baby, very little time between being notified of the hearing being reinstated, and trying to get this to Court before the hearing next week. I am feeling very defeated by it all before I even attend, and tempted to knock the whole recovery of costs on the head. I am searching the forum using the search term "Chan Akande Skeleton" and finding multiple threads referencing Chan & Akande, but no actual information I can read, digest and adapt. I appreciate it will be on here somewhere, but I am then back to the point about a newborn, postpartum stress and very limited time

Coupon-mad

I get it, I'm a Mum of 4 kids (now adults), three by Caesarean. Life is hard at this point in your life … however: MANY CONGRATS on the baby!!

But - stop using AI.

Why do people think it's good? It's rubbish!

When you do a search here, of course there will be lots of results, as I said, there are hundreds of skeleton arguments and THOUSANDS of threads citing Chan and Akande.

You have to change the filter to NEWEST when searching the forum, of course. You don't want to read old stuff.

dabachi_scents23

Thank you. EMCS, and mum of 3, so feeling all of the stress right now.

Regarding your earlier comment on this thread, can I use these points:

a) adding a double recovery (fake) 'fee' to the PCN

b) failing to properly plead the claim (Chan and Akande were hopefully exhibited in your WS?)

c) failing to pay the hearing fee and then

d) getting the strike-out Order wrongfully reversed by (seemingly) misleading court staff about the deadline when paying late,

e) not asking for an extension to pay the fee late, then

f) not bothering to turn up to the hearing (they won't)

Tidying them up to be Court appropriate, but in essence, can I use brief sentences or do I need to extend and explain each point.

Regarding Chan & Akande, do I submit PDFs as attachments, or just summarise the findings in the PDF?

Finally, can all of this go into the body of the email or should it be an attachment?

Coupon-mad

Yes do a short paragraph or a few lines about each of those but not written by AI, except the 5, 6 and 7 that I quoted were OK.

Claim at £24 per hour LiP rate.

Chan & Akande must be the two PDFs which are in a link often posted by @Le_Kirk

NOTHING by way of formal submissions for court ever goes into the body of an email.

Good questions though. You are on it more than you think!

dabachi_scents23

I have found the attachments and downloaded them, and redrafted my skelly. Please could I have some feedback?

1. Introduction – Legal Basis for Skeleton Argument

The Defendant submits this Skeleton Argument in advance of the hearing to assist the Court in understanding the key issues in dispute and the legal and factual basis of the Defendant’s position. The purpose of this Skeleton Argument is to:

• Identify the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct;
• Highlight deficiencies in the Particulars of Claim, including failure to plead the case properly;
• Explain the procedural irregularities and failures by the Claimant;
• Set out the relief sought, including costs on an indemnity basis under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

2. Double Recovery / Unlawful Fee

The Claimant added a £[70] “debt recovery” fee to the original Parking Charge Notice. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

3. Failure to Properly Plead the Claim

The Claimant relied on vague Particulars of Claim, failing to explain how any contract arose or which terms were allegedly breached. No evidence was submitted showing the vehicle had contravened the restrictions, no observation or grace period was allowed, and the driver was not identified. The claim was therefore wholly unparticularised and unsupported.

• In CEL v Chan (2023), the High Court confirmed that generic, template Particulars are insufficient where they fail to plead the contractual basis, breach, and basis of liability. UKPS Ltd’s Particulars are similarly sparse and fail to properly particularise any cause of action, constituting unreasonable conduct.
• In CPMS v Akande, the claim was struck out and CPMS ordered to pay £8,668 in costs because the Particulars failed to establish a contract, show a breach, or identify the driver. UKPS Ltd’s Particulars suffer the same defects, making the claim wholly unparticularised and unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

4. Failure to Pay the Hearing Fee

1. The Claimant failed to pay the hearing fee by the court-ordered deadline.
2. As a result, the claim was properly struck out.
3. This was a direct consequence of the Claimant’s own inaction.

5. Improper Reversal of Strike-Out

1. The Defendant understands that the strike-out was subsequently reversed.
2. This appears to have followed representations to court staff regarding the payment deadline.
3. The Claimant:
   • Did not make a formal application for relief from sanctions;
   • Did not serve evidence in support of any such application;
   • Did not comply with the requirements in Denton v TH White Ltd.
4. Proper procedure would have required:
   • A formal application;
   • An explanation for the default;
   • Consideration of the Denton principles.

None of this occurred.

6. Failure to Seek Extension of Time

The Claimant did not:

• Apply for an extension of time before the deadline;
• Apply promptly for relief from sanctions.

This demonstrates disregard for procedural rules.

7. Costs Schedule – Indemnity Basis

The Defendant seeks costs on an indemnity basis under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct. The schedule of costs include:

Item	Calculation	Total
Litigant in Person time	£24/hour × 5 hours	£120.00
Mileage	8 miles @ £0.45	£3.60
Parking at court	4 hours @ £1.20	£4.80
Postage	4 letters × £1.70	£6.80
Envelopes	4 × £0.60	£2.40
Printing	20 sheets @ £0.42	£8.40
Loss of earnings	Capped	£95.00

Total: £216.00

8. Conclusion

This claim should never have been pursued in its present form. The Claimant’s conduct demonstrates a sustained pattern of procedural abuse and unreasonable behaviour. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to:

• Dismiss the claim;
• Refuse any further indulgence;
• Award the Defendant costs on an indemnity basis under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Le_Kirk

Here is the dropbox link to Chan & Akande (the proper ones!)

 Chan_Akande

Coupon-mad

Ooh nearly done. Just a tweak:

The costs statement needs to be on a separate signed & dated page. It isn't part of the skelly, which also needs your name and date at the bottom and the Claim no. & time/date of hearing at the top.

Add to this as shown:

2. Double Recovery / Unlawful Fee

The Claimant added a £[70] “debt recovery” fee to the original Parking Charge Notice. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a simple automated letter chain. The same heads of cost cannot be counted twice.