UKCPS / Moorside Legal Court Claim - Non PoFA - Need Help With Paragraph 3 of Defence

jorgefernandez77

Hi all, I've read the Newbies thread and Template Defence. I have a live court claim, have acknowledged service on MCOL (intend to defend all), and am working on my defence due at the end of the month.

The basics:

• UKCPS Ltd (IPC member), autumn 2025, Leeds City Station LS1 4DY
• Reason: No Stopping. Original charge £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)
• The original Notice was explicitly headed "Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)"
• I was the registered keeper, have never admitted who was driving, and the car has since been sold

The claim:

• Solicitors: Moorside Legal Services. Amount claimed: £258
• Claim issued CNBC early April 2026, acknowledged on MCOL

Key issue: Despite the original NTK being explicitly Non PoFA, their POC references PoFA Schedule 4 to establish keeper liability — directly contradicting their own notice.

Where I am: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4-10 are clear. For paragraph 2 I'll state I'm the registered keeper and that the Non PoFA notice means no keeper liability can be established. The breach IS specified in the POC so I understand this isn't a Chan/Akande situation. I just need help with paragraph 3 - the case specific facts. Is there anything particular to a "No Stopping" charge at a railway station I should also be raising?

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

I'd adapt the Smart Parking Claim Defence Group thread version which was edited in a new post yesterday.

jorgefernandez77

Thanks - I've have drafted my defence below, adapting the template accordingly. My situation is slightly different in that my original NTK was explicitly headed "Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)" on the face of the document itself, so I've used that as the specific wording in paragraph 3 rather than the "research has proved" line. I've also removed the interest references from paragraph 4 as my claim form shows no pre-loaded interest.

Could you or anyone else cast an eye over this before I file? Thank you for all you do on here!

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. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on this date and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. The original Notice to Keeper was explicitly headed 'Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)', meaning the Claimant deliberately opted out of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant therefore knows, or should know, that they cannot hold the registered keeper liable. Furthermore, the Claimant's own Particulars of Claim contradicts their own original notice by purporting to rely on PoFA Schedule 4, thereby misleading the court.
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'. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.

4.1. The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise this pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usual course of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

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. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

I've also removed the interest references from paragraph 4 as my claim form shows no pre-loaded interest. 

It does, because the amount claimed is £258.

A parking claim with no interest added would be for £185.

jorgefernandez77

Understood, thank you for the correction. I'll reinstate paragraph 4 in full with the interest wording, substituting Moorside Legal for DCB Legal:

"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 or Moorside Legal 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."

Is the rest of the draft OK to file?

Coupon-mad

Yep. All good.