Mooreside legal court papers

Harleychi

so I received this court papers and followed the guide on here to then be able to put in my defence. I’m struggling a little as I have ADHD and I keep loosing the part I was reading. The date given I exchanged and moved into a new house exactly 2 weeks later and never received anything apart from this I believe? Also Friday 30th I would’ve been at work unless it was in the evening? It doesn’t give a time. So my question is with the defence they have out there generic number in what I have breached but that means nothing to me and assume I was driving? A little help would be greatly appreciated as I keep clicking a link that just takes me to the top and if I come back to it another day takes me ages to find which is why I have made a post.

Gr1pr

You were correct in posting a new thread, but you didnt redact the password !

The claimant is NCP via Moorside Legal, issue date was 27th January, so your AOS needs doing ASAP if not done already, so do it online, on MCOL, straightaway !

The alleged breach is NO PAYMENT ! ( at Audley Station, so a railway station. )

Its nothing to do with residential or moving in

Coupon-mad

Moorside have started adding the breach.

So use the template defence.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 27/01/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 01/02/26 and before or on 15/02/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 02/03/26

patient_dream

Another dodgy claim from Moorside

The parking ticket was £100 not £170

They offer no explanation for the extra £70

They are giving the impression that it covers court fees and costs ??

Very misleading as they have aleady listed court fees and costs on top of the FAKE £70. Moorside will need to explain the fake amount and also explain why they go against the Supreme Court ruling which said the parking charge was set to cover the operation of the scheme .. IE NO ADDED SCAM MONEY

Of course Moorside may claim they are allowed to add debt collection charges as per the CoP, forgetting of course that the CoP IS un regulated and NOT A LAW

It's called the OSNER scam who owns ZZPS …….. HIGHLY MISLEADING YOU AND A JUDGE.The courts know all about the FAKE £70 ADD-ON

Harleychi

thank you for the above. So I drafted this for paragraph 3.

The Defendant does not admit to being the driver on the material date and is unable to recall who was driving nearly 18 months ago. The Particulars of Claim fail to state a time of the alleged breach, preventing proper investigation. The Defendant moved address shortly after the material date and did not receive any prior correspondence, therefore had no opportunity to appeal or engage pre-action. The Defendant has little knowledge of the alleged event and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the identity of the driver, the alleged period of parking, evidence of non-payment, and full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

so I add this along side the rest of the defence and submit that? Sorry if I am being a bit thick, but I’ve never done things like this before

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81888163#Comment_81888163

Gr1pr

I have never done it either, but

Please confirm that you have completed the AOS stage online on MCOL

The alleged breach was pleaded, Non payment ( at the station )

Harleychi

yeah I did that last week and denied all. Followed the thing on here

Coupon-mad

I'd change para 3 to this:

3. The Defendant was the registered keeper but liability is denied. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver and is unable to recall who was driving on an unremarkable day in 2024. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') fail to state a time of the alleged breach or whether the vehicle was in the car park, drop off area or roadway, preventing proper investigation. The Defendant moved address shortly after the material date and did not receive any prior correspondence, therefore had no opportunity to see photo evidence, nominate the driver or to engage and dispute the charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver, because there can be no 'keeper liability'. Being legally represented, the Claimant and their bulk litigation monster (Moorside Legal) both know full well that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) did not legally apply at railway station sites in 2024. The Claimant will also not have tried to allege keeper liability in the postal notice. However, the boilerplate POC misleads the court and Defendant with the untruth that they can pursue the keeper "pursuant to POFA 2012, Sch4". The signatory, under a statement of truth, has deliberately or negligently misled the court in the POC because this law only applies to 'relevant land' which a railway car park or road was not.

1505grandad

"Being legally represented, the Claimant and their 'super-user' bulk litigation monster (DCB Legal) …."

Should that be Moorside?

Harleychi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81889351#Comment_81889351

shall I change dcb to Moorside? Also I have read a statement of truth has to be put on or is this on the defence for as you go through?