UKCPS - Moorside Legal Parking Claim March 2026

Xboxman02

Hi all,

I have been issued a PCN by UKCPS for "unpaid parking charge" for stopping for 10 seconds at Leeds train station to drop someone off while in heavy rain.

I saw no signage & certainly did not willingly enter into any form of contract with the landowner.

I have followed the steps in the Newbies thread to AOS on MCOL & am just about to submit my defence. (the issue date was 18/3/2026 & I acknowledged on 23/3/2026)

Using the template & some small amends to section 3.1 with the particulars of my case I have prepared the following defence & wondered if someone would be so kind as just to give it a once over & advise if I need to make any amends ahead of submission.

I have checked the length & row count on MCOL & it fits as is.

This is what is listed in the POC

The Claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge issued for a breach of contractual terms on 28/08/2025 at Leeds City Station Leeds LS1 4DY to vehicle XXXXXXX. The signage displayed at the site set out contractual terms and offered a contractual licence, which the Defendant accepted by parking. The Claimant has authority to operate the site and issue charges. The breach was: No Stopping. The Defendant is liable as the driver and/or keeper, in contract and/or pursuant to POFA Sch 4, and the charge remains unpaid despite demand. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170.00 being the total of the PCN. 2. Costs and Court fees.

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 24/09/2025 to 17/03/2026 on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.02.

Really appreciate the contribution of all in the group to fight back against this disgusting attempt to unfairly scam honest members of the public.

Thanks in advance

Proposed Ddefence

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 28/08/2025, as

alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and

driver, 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 was unaware of parking restrictions in place. 

The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to 

where the vehicle stopped showing the terms and conditions for 

use, nor been provided any evidence of signage in place outlining 

full terms & conditions of any proposed contract. It was raining 

heavily and dim lighting, the driver of the vehicle did not exit 

the vehicle at any time, if small signage was in place this was 

not in the eyeline of the driver seated in the vehicle and not 

suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any 

parking restrictions. The defendant did not park the vehicle and 

only momentarily paused driving along its route, no time was 

afforded to determine a contractual offer, consideration or 

acceptance.

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-o

f-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))'.

Coupon-mad

That's not the Template Defence.

This bit needs removing as this tells them who was driving:

"The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle stopped showing the terms and conditions for use, nor been provided any evidence of signage in place outlining full terms & conditions of any proposed contract. It was raining …"

Xboxman02

Thanks @Coupon-mad

Appreciate the incredible contribution you make on this subject..

I deviated away from the template slightly based on comments made in the thread below as they seemed more current using references from 2025 in section 6 etc.

I haven't yet submitted it, would you suggest that I revert back to strictly the template?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6618060/parking-group-limited-dcb-legal-ltd-claim-2025

With regards to removing the content in section 3.1 are you suggesting to remove it in its entirety? that is my defence specifically related to the claim that they make saying I stopped in breach of contract but I didnt even know there was a contract etc.. is not that relevant to the claim?

Much appreciated..

Coupon-mad

would you suggest that I revert back to strictly the template?

Yes. It is constantly updated and current. You seem to be unaware that I specially edited it a few weeks ago, so you are missing the new wording about HHJ Moloney in Beavis.

And re the bit I said to remove, you've missed the REASON I said to remove it!

🙂

Xboxman02

Thanks again, amended section 3 & reverted back to the template 😀

Does it provide sufficient defence without any admission?

3. No prominent signage was observed in the vicinity of where the 

vehicle came to a stop that clearly set out the terms and 

conditions of use, nor has any evidence been provided 

demonstrating that adequate signage was in place outlining the 

full terms and conditions of any purported contract.

At the time, conditions were poor, with heavy rain and low light. 

Any signage that may have been present was not sufficiently 

visible or positioned in a manner capable of alerting a motorist. 

In particular, no signage was within a clear line of sight from a 

seated position within the vehicle.

The vehicle did not park but only paused briefly while in transit, 

and no reasonable opportunity was available to review, understand, 

or accept any contractual terms. Accordingly, no contract could 

have been formed through offer, consideration, and acceptance.

Defence in full

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.

3. No prominent signage was observed in the vicinity of where the 

vehicle came to a stop that clearly set out the terms and 

conditions of use, nor has any evidence been provided 

demonstrating that adequate signage was in place outlining the 

full terms and conditions of any purported contract.

At the time, conditions were poor, with heavy rain and low light. 

Any signage that may have been present was not sufficiently 

visible or positioned in a manner capable of alerting a motorist. 

In particular, no signage was within a clear line of sight from a 

seated position within the vehicle.

The vehicle did not park but only paused briefly while in transit, 

and no reasonable opportunity was available to review, understand, 

or accept any contractual terms. Accordingly, no contract could 

have been formed through offer, consideration, and acceptance.

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))'.

Le_Kirk

I have followed the steps in the Newbies thread to AOS on MCOL & am just about to submit my defence. (the issue date was 18/3/2026 & I acknowledged on 23/3/2026)

With an issue date of 18/03/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 20/04/26

Le_Kirk

3. Upon discussing the situation with the driver, the defendant was told: -

No prominent signage was observed in the vicinity of where the vehicle came to a stop that clearly set out the terms and conditions of use, nor has any evidence been provided demonstrating that adequate signage was in place outlining the full terms and conditions of any purported contract.

At the time, conditions were poor, with heavy rain and low light. 

Any signage that may have been present was not sufficiently visible or positioned in a manner capable of alerting a motorist. 

In particular, no signage was within a clear line of sight from a seated position within the vehicle.

The vehicle did not park but only paused briefly while in transit, and no reasonable opportunity was available to review, understand, or accept any contractual terms. Accordingly, no contract could have been formed through offer, consideration, and acceptance.

That still tells me who was driving! Suggestions above

Xboxman02

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81948935#Comment_81948935

Thank you @Le_Kirk

Any pros or cons to submitting the defence now Vs later in the month?

Coupon-mad

I'd submit it now so it is done. It's a huge panic if defendants leave it late then find MCOL is down!