NCP via Moorside Legal court claim

PCNDummy

Thank you , found it and reading. Never dealt with any of this and I find it hard to understand.

Do I need to review all the details in all the paragraphs? I have started learning what each CPR parts mean but I am not sure if my case fits this or how.

Can you help understand or is there anyone who can help even if it means paying for their service.

Coupon-mad

No you don't need to pay anyone.

Gr1pr

You are only adding a short ending to paragraph 2 and you own paragraph 3 that refutes the POC

Leave the rest alone but use all 10 paragraphs as your defence on MCOL

PCNDummy

Ok Thank you. Doesn’t mean I understand what they mean…

In para3 it mentions Paragraphs 1-4 I assume of the claim , I don’t see these paragraphs in the claim letter how do I know what is it referred to and if I can use it in my case ?

Sorry , I probably sound needy but really I don’t understand the language or the terminology.

Gr1pr

They aren't numbered paragraphs in the POC on the bottom left of your claim form that you showed us back on page 1

But

Your paragraph 3 should refute the allegations in the POC, The lack of numbering doesn't change anything , you are taking each point or sentence and refuting it

I never said that I know what they all mean, but that doesn't change the advice to use them all, because the judge would understand, if it gets that far

I strongly suggest that you study paragraph 3 in recent defences over the last 6 months and adapt one that is a similar POC, because that is what I would do

The main allegation is, Parked without payment

Was he driving ? Yes or No. ?

Gr1pr

Adapt the following to suit the defendants case

3.      The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Claimant alleges liability for a parking charge on the basis that no valid ticket or permit was purchased. This is denied and no breach occurred. Accordingly, no debt arises and the Claimant has no cause of action.

Or this one

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on dd/mm/yyyy, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever as a genuine customer.

Or a mix, but it must be the truth, written as if its his truth, his facts , not yours, because its HIS defence

Was he the driver. ? YES or NO

PCNDummy

thank you again

I will do as you suggest. Not used to feel out of my dept.

What if he wasn’t the driver ? should i ad something about that? Do I add that the claimant is in administration? Also , I tried to appeal but had no response buy email and website option was blocked. The claim arrived swiftly after all together 3-4 after the incident.

Should I be mentioning this?

Gr1pr

If he was not the driver, not driving, add that ending to paragraph 2, as explained in the defence template thread

So its keeper but definitely not the driver

I would suggest that the rest can wait for his Witness Statement in several months time, what YOU tried isnt relevant

I would suggest that he did nothing about it, so nothing to add

Then adapt paragraph 3 based on the examples i copied and pasted earlier

Please Edit your thread title to something more suitable like

NCP via Moorside Legal court claim

Car1980

If he was not the driver did he ever email them to tell them who was?

PCNDummy

How is this for the DEFENCE letter please?

I added "registered keeper NOT driver" in 2 and para 3. Not touch anything else.

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). 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 all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and NOT the driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on XX/XX, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. 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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.