NCP via Moorside Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81932380#Comment_81932380

AI says this:

Key aspects of litigation involving a company in administration include:

• Administrator Control: The administrator acts as the agent of the company and manages any litigation, rather than the directors or members.
• Existing Litigation: Any legal proceedings already in place against the company are typically "stayed" (paused). The administrator may take over these proceedings to defend or pursue them.
• Starting New Litigation: An administrator can start new legal proceedings to recover company property, challenge past transactions, or secure funds for creditors.

National Car Parks (NCP) fell into administration on Monday, 16 March 2026.

The defence should include words about the Administration and litigation restrictions.

Not Chan & Akande because the breach is pleaded:

1505grandad

A heads-up - as stated in an earlier post the breach is pleaded - parked without payment - therefore the Chan and Akande cases are not relevant.

PCNDummy

Thank you Coupon Mad.

Is there a wording for the administration ? If not could you help me what paragraph it should be in or any other guidelines please ?

Coupon-mad

I googled it and copied wording about it in my earlier post. You can do the same.

PCNDummy

I see thank you.

One of the other comments was to leave the administration issue for statement stage, anyhow I have changed paragraph 3 and added the administration issue. Pls see now :

The length is concerning me now , it is 6362 characters. Will that be accepted?

DEFENCE

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

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 05/06/2024, 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.

3.1 The Defendant notes that the Claimant, NCP, entered administration on 16/03/2026 Ref: company number 00253240. By virtue of the Insolvency Act 1986, the management of the company's affairs is under the control of the Administrator. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the administrators have authorised the continuation of this specific claim. 

It is denied that the Claimant has the standing to continue this litigation. Pursuant to paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, no legal proceedings may be instituted or continued against the company or its property, except with the consent of the administrator or the permission of the court.

As a result, the claim is fatally flawed and is an abuse of process. The Defendant requests that this claim be stayed or struck out.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs 'further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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'. public consultation =https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’ Schedule4 = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1):'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

The MCOL limit is 122 lines

You can easily check if it fits into the defence box using copy and paste

Every paragraph needs a number

PCNDummy

thank you Gr1pr

Any thoughts about para 3?

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 seems fairly standard fodder for any case here

As for the 3 sections in 3.1 ? Whoosh, above my head, knowledge or experience

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me. 🙂

PCNDummy

Coupon Mad thank you very much

I didn’t find a way to be authorised to represent my husband.

So do we submit under his account/name and then work things together at the next stages? From what I read only a legal person can have a power of attorney, I am not a solicitor obviously…