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

Archibaldseyes

Thanks for the guidance. I've found the meltof defence from 12th April and adapted it for my NCP/Moorside case. The main change I've made is to paragraph 3, because unlike Smart Parking, NCP/Moorside DO cite POFA in the POC. Here are my adapted paragraphs 2 and 3 for checking:

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 an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity. Insofar as the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to establish keeper liability, the Claimant is put to strict proof that every requirement of paragraphs 8 or 9 (as applicable) of Schedule 4 was strictly met, including the mandatory wording and the strict timing requirements for service of any Notice to Keeper. Until such proof is provided, there can be no keeper liability and the Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper.

Can anyone confirm paragraph 3 is right for a Moorside/NCP case where POFA is cited in the POC, and the rest of the meltof 11-paragraph defence is used unchanged?

Coupon-mad

"The main change I've made is to paragraph 3, because unlike Smart Parking, NCP/Moorside DO cite POFA in the POC."

Wrong! Not unlike Smart/DCB Legal claims. The point is that they also falsely cite POFA in the POC, exactly like your case.

Archibaldseyes

Understood, thank you for the correction. So I should use the original meltof paragraph 3 unchanged:

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

And keep all other 10 paragraphs from the meltof defence exactly as posted on 12th April, with only the claim-specific details (claim number, defendant name) changed. Can anyone confirm this is correct before I file?

Coupon-mad

Change 'never' to rarely. Then yes, it's done.

Archibaldseyes

Perfect, thank you Coupon-mad. Changed 'never' to 'rarely' in paragraph 3. Will file via MCOL next week. Really appreciate everyone's help.

Coupon-mad

Ooooh… we forgot to tell you to add a sentence or two about NCP being in administration which means they cannot litigate without the express permission of the Administrators.

Archibaldseyes

Thank you Coupon-mad, really glad you caught that before I filed. I've added the following as paragraph 12 before the Statement of Truth:

12. The Defendant notes that National Car Parks Limited entered administration on 16 March 2026, with PwC appointed as administrators. A company in administration cannot commence or continue litigation without the express permission of the administrators. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the administrators have specifically authorised the continuation of this claim and that Moorside Legal Services Ltd have been expressly instructed to pursue it on behalf of the administrators. In the absence of such proof, this claim should be stayed or struck out.

Can anyone confirm this wording is correct before I file? Defence deadline 13 May.

Le_Kirk

I think it is fine BUT do you really want it stayed, surely you want it struck out?

Coupon-mad

Yes you want it struck out. Good wording.

Archibaldseyes

Good points, so I have now edited it to:

12. The Defendant notes that National Car Parks Limited entered administration on 16 March 2026, with PwC appointed as administrators. A company in administration cannot commence or continue litigation without the express permission of the administrators. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the administrators have specifically authorised the continuation of this claim and that Moorside Legal Services Ltd have been expressly instructed to pursue it on behalf of the administrators. In the absence of such proof, this claim should be struck out.