Moorside Legal - Claim2

Fines_suck

Hi MSE,

Received Court papers against Moorside Legal - this is the second one I have been issued.

Below is a photo of the claim form.

Moorside CCJ-2.jpg

My partner opened the letter and is extremely concerned that, following this route, we will be worse off should we loose the fight. I have advised her that I don't want to pay these extortionists for an honest mistake.

Considering I forgot to pay as I got on train as my mind was on work - this has happened Moore than one occasion, hence the second CCJ court papers - what chance do I realistically have of success? It has sown a seed in my mind doubting myself and that I would be better off paying up, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

If this gets to court I don't feel I can stand up in front of a judge and plead "sorry your honour I forgot to pay" and expect to be let off - but this is the honest truth.

Any comments / help would be much appreciated

Gr1pr

Definitely not a CCJ, its a claim form from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL

NCP via Moorside Legal, issue date 8th April

Breach not pleaded, the total of 4. separate dates for the pcns not pleaded , just an ambiguous range of dates

Use the Chan and Akande defence template in the defence template thread in announcements, after completing the AOS stage online first

Coupon-mad

That's a claim for 4 PCNs yet no breach allegation(s) is/are stipulated and there aren't 4 dates pleaded. So it is a hopeless claim for them, not you!

Please change your thread title. You do NOT have a CCJ, and will not get one.

My partner opened the letter and is extremely concerned that, following this route, we will be worse off should we loose the fight.

That's a strange thought, given the fact that post 2 of the NEWBIES thread tells everyone that the odd case lost at a hearing sees the D pay far LESS than the claim.

Hence it's a no-brainer to always defend a parking claim because they are inflated. Did you/she not read that bit?!

Obviously they can't have an added £70 per PCN, nor interest on the whole lot! Instead of £839, if you got all the way to a hearing, followed court directions, attended, and yet lost on all 4 PCNs, the sum would be c£570.

But that's not going to happen!

You've seemingly forgotten what everyone heard on the news last month: NCP are in administration. Guess what? Several NCP defence wording posts have been made here this past month, pointing out that NCP can't litigate.

Read. Copy. Laugh!

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 08/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 13/04/26 and before or on 27/04/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 11/05/26

h2g2

You can definitely raise as a preliminary matter in the defence that these particulars are defective and the claim should be struck out.

In particular they do not specify:

• The land these claims arise from
• The periods of parking claimed for
• The actual term or condition breached

This makes it impossible for the defendant to know where, when, or how these claims have arisen, and makes it impossible to form a coherent defence.

Coupon-mad

You'll also have Henderson v Henderson (cause of action estoppel) as a defence point to add, if this is a second claim re the same location, vehicle, same year, same signs, etc.

I found this wording re cause of action estoppel, albeit it needs the full case citations added:

This claim repeats claim no. [xxxxxxxx], involving the same parties, car park, dates, and alleged breach. Courts have held (Arnold v NatWest [1991]; Henderson v Henderson [1843]; Aldi v WSP [2008]; Henley v Bloom [2010]) that a party cannot bring a second action for the same issue and must raise all related claims at once. Bringing duplicate claims is an abuse of process. Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), the Defendant respectfully asks that this second claim be struck out by the allocating judge.

Fines_suck

@Gr1pr I will read up on the Chan and Akande case

@Coupon-mad, thank you for your comments - I have changed the thread title as you have stated, I did hear that NCP are in administration and did chuckle to myself, I will review the Henderson vs Henderson defence point you mention as this is, at present, the second set of HMCT papers received, and is the same place same signs etc

@Le_Kirk thanks for highlighting key dates, this is very useful

@h2g2 thanks for your comment, you make a good point

I have some reading to do on this and I will file the AOS by 27/04.

Thank you all for your responses.

Fines_suck

Hi MSE,

Looking for some assistance with my defence please, will the below satisfy section 3,

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

or do I stick with the below:

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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: '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 (like this) fail
to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ
Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts
upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.' The
vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was
the registered keeper.

Another point to raise where would the best be placed - under item 6?

The Defendant would also like to highlight a further issue
with the Claimant’s website ‘pay later’ option. The option clearly
stated that alternative payment methods included 'Pay Later via
the Website'; however, when the Defendant attempted to use this
method within 24 hours of parking, the option was not available.
While this specific issue may be directly applicable to the
incident at hand, it also serves as further evidence of the lack
of clarity and inconsistency in the Claimant’s payment system,
which contributes to unfairly trapping motorists into receiving
PCNs.

h2g2

Why not a bit of both?

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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: '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'.

4. 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 (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.' The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was
the registered keeper.

5. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the inadequate PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5) and;
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on and;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts), making it impossible to understand what behaviour by the driver supposedly incurred these alleged charges
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred - only a broad range of dates covering a two month period, making it impossible to guess which parking events are being referred to;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity, but further making it difficult to understand the precise nature of the claim.

[Edited to correct the error @1505grandad carefully spotted.]

Coupon-mad

Good. To fit that in, the OP may have to remove the final template paragraph about costs & keep that for WS stage later.

1505grandad

"(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred - only a broad range of dates covering a two month period, making it impossible ( - ) guess which parking events are being referred to;"

Pedantic observation - should be "to" added here ( - )