Defence check requested (NCP / Moorside Legal)

dogbretheren

Hello, I'd be grateful for a check before I file. I'm posting on behalf of a family member (the named Defendant), and I'll be putting up a second, separate parking claim shortly. Apologies in advance for two threads close together. I've used the Chan & Akande "no breach specified" version because the Particulars state no breach and no location.

Claim details:

• Claimant: NCP
• Solicitor: Moorside Legal Services Ltd.
• Amount claimed: £344.08. Court fee: £50.00. Legal representative's costs: £50.00. Total: £444.08.

Particulars of Claim:

"1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charges issued to vehicle [VRM REDACTED]. 2. Charges were issued between 17/12/2025 and 09/01/2026 on land managed by C. 3. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the charges. 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the charges remain unpaid and have escalated. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £340.00 being the total of the PCNs. 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 06/02/2026 to 19/05/2026 on £340.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.04."

I've used the standard Template Defence unchanged for paras 1–4 (denial + strike-out + Chan & Akande), 7–11 (no contract/CRA, landowner authority, legitimate interest/Beavis distinguished, Somerfield costs, Code of Practice Act) and 14 (costs/discontinuance). The three below are the only ones I've written or added, so they're the ones I'd like checked:

Para 5 (facts known to the Defendant):
"The facts in this Defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Claimant's sparse and incoherent POC do not 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action' (CPR 16.4, 16PD3, 16PD7): they do not identify the location of any alleged event, do not state how many separate charges are relied upon, and give no individual date, time or alleged contravention, such that the Defendant cannot understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and heads of cost are being pursued. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making the retrieval of material evidence difficult, which is prejudicial. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver; the Defendant otherwise has little knowledge of the events, save as set out below."

Para 6 (response to the POC):
"Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied and the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied and not admitted; the Claimant pleads only that 'charges were issued between 17/12/2025 and 09/01/2026 on land managed by C', identifying no location, no number of charges and no individual date, time or circumstance, such that the Defendant cannot plead to the allegations. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied; the Defendant has seen no evidence of any breach of any prominent contractual term, nor of the signage or terms relied upon, and the basis of liability ('the driver or keeper') is pleaded in the alternative and is unclear. The quantum is exaggerated: the aggregated sum of £340.00 described as 'the total of the PCNs' is unparticularised, no individual parking charge on private land can exceed £100 (the cap in the applicable Code of Practice), and the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages which is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, being unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court held that an £85 charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement'; the same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice, and interest should also be disallowed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of its allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the two authorities above."

Para 13 (added re NCP administration):
"The Defendant notes that National Car Parks Limited entered administration on 16 March 2026, with Joint Administrators appointed from PwC, and was therefore in administration when this claim was issued on 21 May 2026. On entering administration the directors' powers to act on the company's behalf are suspended, and the conduct of litigation in the company's name falls to the Joint Administrators. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Joint Administrators have authorised the bringing and continuation of this claim, and have expressly instructed Moorside Legal Services Ltd to pursue it on the company's behalf, failing which the Defendant invites the Court to find the claim is not properly constituted."

Thanks in advance for any steer.

Le_Kirk

That is not the standard defence for a Moorside Legal case where no breach is pleaded. You use the standard template paragraphs #1 & 2 and add "and driver" to paragraph #2 if you were the driver, then you use the special paragraph #3 that is referred to and linked in the template defence thread. I think the last paragraph to add is your #13 but it will surely be #11. Make sure that it will all fit in the defence box on MCOL

Coupon-mad

Those paragraphs are very good though for a NCP claim so you could remove the final template paragraph about costs and the one about the Code of Practice and the fact they are 'extorting money from motorists' (which is only commentary).

This will never go to a hearing.

bendeneo

Hi both, I have the exact same Court Claim from NCP/Moorside.

Could you give me the link for the 'Standard Template' please? I have used the search bar, and looked around in the sticky, but want to be sure I am using the most up to date. Thanks in advance, Ben

NB - the password for MoneyClaim didnt work, so I called Civil National Business Centre, and they told me to submit via email, and gave a couple of versions of the form i need to fill in…I take it I am filling in N9D ?

N9B Specified defence and counterclaim* form: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/866787/N9B_web_0818_save.pdf N9D Unspecified defence and counterclaim* form: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1120796/N9D_1122_save.pdf For Part Admissions (N9A+N9B) and Defences (N9B) is:ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Le_Kirk

The usual reason for the password not working is that you are confusing 0 & O or capital I and lower case i.

bendeneo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043624#Comment_82043624

Ah yes, the Capital 'I' was the issue… thanks for that.

Sadly it looks like because I called them up, it won't let me add anything online at this time, but that could be simply be due to them performing the next steps in the background as I had emailed the Acknowledgement…..

Coupon-mad

"Sadly it looks like because I called them up, it won't let me add anything online at this time, but that could be simply be due to them performing the next steps in the background as I had emailed the Acknowledgement"

Aaarghhh why did you go off-piste and email the AOS instead of simply getting the password right … or asking us first?

You've now blocked MCOL for yourself!

But surely you aren't putting a defence in without advice. Please start your own thread!

bendeneo

I didnt mean to go off-piste, I called them twice to try and sort it, and they told me to speak to Moorside, and then Moorside told me to contact MCOL…. so they sent me around the houses..

Ok will start my own thread now.

Coupon-mad

You only had to double check the password, no need to ring anyone. We'll help you see this off on your own thread.

😊