NCP / Moorside Legal — N1SDT court claim — defence help needed

Archibaldseyes

Hi all,

I've read the NEWBIES thread and post #2 on court claims. I've just filed my Acknowledgment of Service via MCOL and would be very grateful for help drafting my defence.

Key facts:

• Claimant: National Car Parks Limited (NCP)
• Solicitor: Moorside Legal Services Ltd
• Court: CNBC Northampton (N1SDT claim form)
• Issue date: 10 April 2026
• Deemed date of service: 15 April 2026
• AoS filed via MCOL: 14 April 2026
• Defence filing deadline: 13 May 2026, 4pm

Background:

• Date of alleged contravention: October 2024
• Car park: An NCP car park
• Alleged contravention: parked outside the bay lines (per the original PCN)
• I am the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified at any stage and I will not be naming the driver.
• Original PCN was ignored on advice. No appeal was made to NCP, POPLA or otherwise.
• I received various chaser/debt collector letters which were also not responded to.
• Letter of Claim from Moorside was received at some point before the claim form
• I did not respond to the Letter of Claim.

Particulars of Claim (typed verbatim from the claim form, redacted):

The Claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge issued for a breach of contractual terms on [Date] at [location] to vehicle [REG]. 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: Parked outside bay markings. 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 01/11/2024 to 08/04/2026 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.

CLAIM TOTALS:
Amount Claimed: £180.46

Court Fee: £35.00

Legal representative's costs: £50.00

Amount claimed in total: £265.46

-Original PCN was approximately £100

I haven't sent a CPR 31.14 request yet — happy to do this next if advised, and would appreciate guidance on the wording given it's Moorside.

Thanks in advance for any help, I know you see a lot of these.

Archibaldseyes

Quick update: CPR 31.14 request sent to Moorside today (14 April), requesting signage as at October 2024, the original PCN and NTK with proof of posting, landowner authority, and a breakdown of the sum claimed (challenging the £100 cap and the £50 legal costs). Will start working on the defence using the template, will post first 6 paragraphs here for checking once drafted.

Car1980

CPR 31.14 doesn't apply to the small claims track. It's not actually on a track at the moment, so they wouldn't be obliged yet anyway.

In your Witness Statement you can say you requested the documents on 14th April but no response was received or it was refused in order to make them sound unreasonable though.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 10/04/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 13/05/26

Just use the standard defence template and refute the POC, you were parked within the confines of a bay, you weren't but the lines had faded to near invisibility, somebody next to you had parked badly and you were forced to park the way you did. If NCP were a parking management company as opposed to an issuer of PCNs and collector of money, they would have made sure that all other spaces were clear for other motorists.

NCP are in a bit of bother, they are in receivership.

Archibaldseyes

Thanks, Car1980 and Le_Kirk.

Understood regarding the CPR 31.14 request.

I have the deadline of 13/05/26 at 4:00pm firmly in my diary. I’m going to spend the next week or so researching the latest NCP/Moorside threads and the template defence as suggested.

Much appreciated!

Archibaldseyes

Thanks for the extra info, good to know about NCP being in administration, I'll keep defending regardless but useful context.

On the specifics, I don't want to make factual claims I can't evidence. I'll stick to the template defence and refute the POC on the standard grounds (inadequate POC, POFA compliance, £100 cap exceeded, no driver identified). Will draft my first 6 paragraphs and post them here for checking once I've worked through the template properly.

Is there a specific version of the template that works best for Moorside / NCP cases where the POC does actually name the breach ("parked outside bay markings"), or should I use the standard version?

Gr1pr

Either

Search For similar cases ( not templates. ) if you want to and have the time to look for them

Or

Use the generic catch all paragraph 3, the one you mentioned above

Archibaldseyes

Thanks Gr1pr. I'll go with the generic catch-all paragraph 3, given the POC do specify "parked outside bay markings" but otherwise lack particulars (no time, no bay, no reference to signage compliance, sum exceeds the £100 cap), the catch-all should cover it.

I'll draft my first 6 paragraphs over the next few days using the template + the catch-all and post them here for checking before I finalise. Defence deadline is 13 May so plenty of time.

Coupon-mad

I'd adapt the defence posted this week, at the end of the Smart Parking Claim Group thread.

Archibaldseyes

Thanks Coupon-mad. I've found the defence and have adapted it for my case.

As this is a Moorside Legal claim, I've used the Chan and Akande wording for paragraph 3. Here are my draft paragraphs 2 and 3 for checking before I finalise:

1. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events considering this was over 18 months ago, and admits only that they were the registered keeper and not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity.
2. With regards to the Particulars of Claim, 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 that 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 fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.

Can anyone confirm these work for a Moorside/NCP case where the alleged breach is specified in the POC as "parked outside bay markings"? Happy to adjust if needed. Defence deadline is 13 May.

Gr1pr

Nope, you cannot use Chan and Akande defence template when the alleged breach is pleaded

Use the 11 paragraph defence as seen in the Smart Parking group thread, posted by member meltof on 12th April, as recommended earlier by coupon mad