Moorside Legal (UKCPS) N1SDT Claim form - Please help :)

JEnnie2017

Hi all,

I’m really hoping someone can help because I’m getting quite worried about a court claim I’ve received from Moorside Legal.

I was the registered keeper of the vehicle back in 2022, but I was not the driver. The car only stopped briefly the driver didn’t get out and it was a weekend when all the surrounding businesses were closed, so no obstruction was caused. The signage wasn’t noticed at the time; the first we knew about it was when the notice arrived. I’ve since searched online and it seems a lot of people get caught out at this exact location, which I believe is signed as “No Stopping”.

I’m frustrated because the car wasn’t parked — it literally stopped briefly — and yet they want £170.

Links to my forms

Original PCN

Direct link: https://ibb.co/Ld2Qr9HD

N1SDT Claim Form: https://ibb.co/d0ntkTkG

I don’t live near the location, so I checked it on Google Street View. I’ve attached an image showing the area, and a zoomed‑in view of the sign. Please note this happened on a Saturday, and the large gates shown were closed at the time.

Direct link location image: - Car parked red square. https://ibb.co/n8j2wK2x

Link to street view of location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4YqJb13F84D8X6dm6?g_st=ac

I am generally really nervous about all of this and if I am honest considering trying to pay it to make it go away.

Any guidance or reassurance would be massively appreciated. I’m just very worried about this.

I have also been searching and reading about this and found a post about a Moorside for a similar case. The following defence was used. Do people think this is suitable in my case:? I do not want to try and take credit for this defence. It was originally posted by user B789

I have gone through the case law etc and as far as I can see this defence matches everything in my case.

Defence posted by B789

 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:


(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

5. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:


(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).


Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Thank you 😊

Jennie

Coupon-mad

That's too old. Easy to defend though!

Read the other UKCPS Moorside claim thread that we have posted on tonight.

JEnnie2017

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81869178#Comment_81869178

Thanks, I have found the thread that pointed me to the sticky posts at the top, and after reading those (plus a bit of Googling), this is my proposed defence. If anyone gets a moment, I’d really appreciate a quick look to check there are no glaring errors. It’s basically the standard template with only minor changes to pragraph3.
One thing I’m unsure about: after reading the NEWBIES guide, I realised I didn’t submit an Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) but still within time. Should I still do that now, or should I go straight ahead and submit the defence?
Also, do I need to send the defence and transcripts to the following email address?

claimresponses.cnbc@JUSTICE .gov.uk

"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.

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.

3. The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than 3 years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

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. 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.

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).

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.

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'.

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'.

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.

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))'."

Gr1pr

Just complete the AOS so its done and out of the way, 5 minute job

As explained in the defence template thread in announcements, you copy and paste the new. 10 paragraph defence template, once adapted, into the MCOL defence box ( not email, not post either, MCOL only. )

Every paragraph needs a number

You could merge your 3 into 2, because its partly duplicated

1505grandad

With regard to the Chan and Akande cases I am not sure they are relevant as the breach "no stopping" is pleaded in the PoC.

Gr1pr

Study the following thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6652957/no-stopping-gateway-house-manchester-2022-moorside-legal-money-claim

JEnnie2017

Thank you. I left it a few days while waiting for and reading through, the replies on the linked thread. The claim is almost identical to mine, just at a different location. I’ve put together the draft below, which follows the structure of that thread. The only part I’m unsure about is paragraph 2, as there didn’t seem to be complete agreement about including it.

I appreciate it if anyone can take a look and offer any opinions. I am very new to this and quite nervous with doing it.

Thanks

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.
   
2. The Claimant's Particulars state: The signage displayed at the site set out the contractual terms and offered a contractual licence, which the Defendant accepted by parking. The Claimant claims quite clearly that the breach they are claiming under is "no stopping" yet state their contract could only be accepted by virtue of the driver "parking". Parking and stopping are quite different things, as confirmed in Homeguard v Jopson 2015. The onus is on the Claimant to make their claim and they unequivocally state their Parking Charge Notice amounts to a payment for parking, and that a contract was formed by the physical act of parking. Yet no parking took place, therefore no consideration was exchanged and no contract was formed; all of which is admitted by the Claimant themselves.
   
3. 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).
   
4. The Defendant has little recollection of events given that this was more than three years ago but can confirm that they were the registered keeper and not the driver. The Claimant has provided no evidence of the driver’s identity. Accordingly, liability can only arise (if at all) under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This Claimant rarely relies upon POFA and, without full statutory compliance, there can be no keeper liability in this case.
   
5. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law. Further, this claim includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them in bulk, on every undefended claim. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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).
   
8. 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.
   
9. 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'.
   
10. 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'.
    
11. 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.
    
12. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Remove point 2. Makes little sense.

In that linked thread (or on yours, not sure which) didn't I suggest some words should be added to point out that a station is not relevant land anyway?

JEnnie2017

Thank you. Mine isn’t a station — so i have not included the wording about the station.
My “no stopping” location is here: Link to location

Do you think my case is still defendable even though it isn’t a station?

If I thought I was in the wrong, I’d just pay it. But this one feels completely unfair, which is why I’m trying my best to challenge it. I also genuinely can’t afford the full amount they’re demanding now.

Paragraph 2 is the one I’m unsure about — some people on the other thread liked it, others didn’t.

Thank you :)

Coupon-mad

They can't have a no stopping sign next to double yellows!

JEnnie2017

This is exactly where the car was picked up stopped: https://ibb.co/n8j2wK2x the red square. Keep mind it was a weekend so the gates/businesses were closed.

Thanks