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

Coupon-mad

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

Like I said:

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

Read up on it.

That is NOT a properly lined/signed 'no stopping' zone.

That requires double RED lines and repeater signs facing traffic AND these zones are only allowed where there are valid safety or sensitive reasons that normal parking management contractual signs would not address, e.g. they can be used at Airports. Not in business parks.

James_Poisson

As C-M has stated the landowner has laid down DYL on this road and to all intents and purposes it looks and has been lined up to replicate a normal highway DYL's allow dropping off, loading and stopping.

If they want to make this a no stopping area double red lines should be used but along comes a dodgy parking company making up its own rules to trap people.

That sign which is difficult to read from a vehicle isn't even in the area you stopped, moreover if you look at the turning into that private road who would know, there is no obvious signage only a small wordy sign with tiny Font.

Yet again a PPC that is flouting its own ATA's COP for profit, also where are the prominent signs warning of ANPR or CCTV, if you look there are dozens of cameras everywhere, you were caught by a camera in the car park on the other side of the road, looks like covert surveillance to me.

JEnnie2017

Thanks again I really would be stuck without the forums :). I have removed paragraph 2 and inserted the following to account for the double yellow lines etc. Does it look ok? I was thinking of inserting it as paragraph 6 & 7. I will probably have to remove paragraph 13 due to character limits

1. The private parking sector single Code of Practice states that no stopping zones are private roads clearly marked with clear lines, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass. There is an annual report from POPLA, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs. 
2. The defendant argues that this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone. The access road is laid out to appear like a public road and include double yellow lines next to kerbs. There is no barrier at this site to deter trespassing as outlined in the Code of Practice and means it falls in the definition of a “road” as per Section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable only by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004. 

thank you :)

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do within the Template Defence. However do use the Chan & Akande paragraphs first. You seem to have dropped them in your second draft, is that because the POC does state 'no stopping'?

JEnnie2017

Thank you, yes I looked on the other thread for the UKCPS and took note form your post which says this.

"So use the ordinary Template Defence on the thread of that name, not the special linked para 3 about Chan & Akande that you will see there (that's only for cases where no breach is pleaded)"

My full defence is:

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).

3.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.

4.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.

5.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.

6.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).

7.The private parking sector single Code of Practice states that no stopping zones are private roads clearly marked with clear lines, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass. There is an annual re-port from POPLA, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs.

8.The defendant argues that this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone. The access road is laid out to appear like a public road and include double yellow lines next to kerbs. There is no barrier at this site to deter trespassing as outlined in the Code of Practice and means it falls in the definition of a “road” as per Section 142 in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable only by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004.

9.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.

10.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'.

11.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'.

12.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.

13.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

That's good.

You can safely remove either 11 or 13 or both, if it doesn't fit in the MCOL defence box.

Le_Kirk

7.The private parking sector single Code of Practice states that no stopping zones are private roads clearly marked with clear lines, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass.

It doesn't actually state that, you might want to look again and find the exact quote.

JEnnie2017

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81882662#Comment_81882662

Thanks, I am very new to this but weirdly finding myself getting a bit into it!! :)

I will be honest I found the wording on another thread. I did have a look at Annex F of the Single Code of Practice (Feb 2025). My understanding is that this Code only applies to private land, not public highways. So, the definition of a ‘no‑stopping zone’ in Annex F applies only to private roads. Airport no‑stopping zones etc do not come under the code so i thought it was ok…

I have put direct quote below from the code of practice.

"F.2.1 Appeals where the charge should be cancelled in “No-stopping” zones
The exemptions listed in F.1 a) b) c) and d) also apply within “no stopping zones’”. All other
exemptions are not applicable in no stopping zones (i.e. private roads clearly marked with lines
and clear, obvious, and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter
trespass)."

but looking again I could just change it to: " No stopping zones should be clearly marked" and miss out the private roads.

It is part of paragraph 8 I am thinking could perhaps need a bit of work and I was going to research it more… but i am very inexperienced so I am worried i could mess things up..

"Therefore, the claimed “parking charge” did not occur in a private car park, where the Claimant may have permission to form its own contracts. Instead it was on a public road meaning any penalty falls within statutory regime, enforceable only by Traffic Officers as defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004."

As it is not a public road… could they just state it is not a public road it is private? As I have clearly put it is on a public road.

Would the below be safer?

"Therefore, the claimed ‘parking charge’ did not occur in a private car park where the Claimant may have permission to form own contracts. Instead, the road was laid out in a manner consistent with a public road, meaning any enforcement would fall under the statutory regime of the Traffic Management Act 2004, enforceable only by the relevant authority’s Traffic Officers, not by a private parking company.”

Thank you :)

Coupon-mad

Yes that is far better and I can tell you are really getting it. Complete scam, innit?!

JEnnie2017

Hi all,

I’ve just received the letter below.. and wanted to check I’m understanding it correctly. From what I’ve read, it looks like I need to agree to the mediation call, but I should negotiate firmly and not offer anything.

Am I right in thinking the mediation call won’t involve any questions about the details of the case, and is only about trying to reach a settlement? I was not the driver, and I can say that with 100% certainty. If the claimant has CCTV, it will clearly show I wasn’t driving but I don't think this will be questioned at this stage.

Letter received

This is now a defended claim.The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed.

1. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.
2. You must by 30 March 2026 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office:

Any advice much appreciated :)