UKCPS / Moorside Legal County Court Claim — Non-PoFA NTK but PoFA Sch 4 cited in Particulars — Defen

mynameispowwow

Hi all, first time poster here and would really appreciate your help as it's causing me distress. I have a County Court Claim issued against me by UKCPS Limited via Moorside Legal and I need help drafting my Defence. Deadline is 17 June 2026.

The facts:

• I am the registered keeper of a vehicle parked at Crescent Gardens Pay to Park, Harrogate HG1 2SG on 29 November 2025, 19:41–20:24 (hours of darkness)
• UKCPS issued a Notice to Keeper dated 11 December 2025 explicitly headed "Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA) – Issued on private land"
• I disputed the charge from the outset on the following grounds: Non-PoFA so no keeper liability; no contract formed due to signage not being readable/illuminated at night; requested evidence of landowner authority
• TRACE Debt Recovery instructed, then Moorside Legal issued a Letter of Claim dated 14 March 2026
• I responded to the Letter of Claim disputing liability and requesting the same evidence
• County Court Claim issued 15 May 2026, total claimed £257.74
• The Particulars of Claim state: "The Defendant is liable as the driver and/or keeper, in contract and/or pursuant to POFA Sch 4"
• This directly contradicts their own NTK which explicitly disclaims PoFA compliance
• AOS filed 26 May 2026, defending in full
• UKCPS is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC)

My grounds as I understand them:

1. The NTK is explicitly Non-PoFA — they cannot invoke Schedule 4 keeper liability having disclaimed it in their own notice
2. No contract was formed — parking was in hours of darkness, signage was not illuminated or readable from the parking position
3. Claimant has not evidenced authority from the landowner to operate the site and issue charges
4. The amount claimed is disproportionate and unenforceable as a penalty

Can anyone help me draft a Defence for filing on MCOL before 17 June? Very grateful for any assistance.

Gr1pr

I would suggest that you use the 11 paragraph Smart Parking defence template posted by member meltof on 12th April, in the group thread by member sluzz , mainly because of the non POFA compliant angle

I would suggest that the Barry Beavis case 11 years ago refutes your statement 4

mynameispowwow

Thank you so much - I will look into that immediately before drafting a response. I really appreciate this.

mynameispowwow

I've adapted the template for my specific facts — my NTK is explicitly headed Non-PoFA on the face of the document itself so I've referenced that directly in paragraph 3 rather than the research line. Also added night-time signage facts to paragraph 5. Happy for anyone to cast an eye over before I file. And once again THANK YOU to all you wonderful people.

DEFENCE

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. There can be no keeper liability in this case. At the time of this parking charge, this Claimant did not use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has confirmed as much in their own Notice to Keeper dated 11 December 2025, which was explicitly headed 'Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA) – Issued on private land'. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that it cannot hold a registered keeper liable where the mandatory statutory conditions have not been met. Furthermore, the Claimant's own Particulars of Claim directly contradicts their own Notice to Keeper 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' 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.

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 Defendant further notes that the vehicle was parked between 19:41 and 20:24 on 29 November 2025 — hours of complete darkness in late November. No illuminated or readable signage was visible from the parking position in those conditions, meaning the driver had no fair opportunity to know the location was private pay-to-park land or to understand any contractual terms. In these circumstances no offer capable of acceptance was made and no contract was formed. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs taken from the parking position at night demonstrating that signage was prominent, illuminated and readable at the time of parking.

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))'.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Gr1pr

You do not add anything after paragraph 11 , regardless of the draft content, its definitely not included in the recent templates over the last 9 months, so why did you add an out of date by 5 years statement. ? Where from. ?

mynameispowwow

Thank you, I've removed it. Defence now ends at paragraph 11.

Coupon-mad

I don't understand why this week - suddenly - posters keep adding a statement of truth? Where is it coming from? We need to stop this as we are wasting time on it.

yarpsnehpets

Do you have a copy of the NtK which can be examined?

I personally think that your defence is overly complex when a dozen lines will do it.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018923#Comment_82018923

No it won't. We do these several times daily.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 15/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/06/26

mynameispowwow

Update — Defence filed today (15 June). Used the template adapted for my specific facts (NTK explicitly Non-PoFA, POC citing PoFA Sch 4) with the night-time signage point added to para 5.

Massive thanks to everyone who helped with feedback and pointed me to the right template — really appreciated, especially given how stressful this whole process has been.

Will update this thread once I hear anything from the court. Fingers crossed for a Moorside discontinuation thread sooner rather than later!