NCP / Moorside - defence help please

bendeneo

Hi all, thanks for any help in advance.

I had a look at previous threads, and apologies if I am being dumb, but I can't find the right template to start from.

I have a claim from NCP/Moorside in the Civil National Business Centre.

Their wording is:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C ) for a Parking Charges issued to vehicle XXXXXX.
2. Charges were issued between 31/01/2025 and 03/06/2025 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 being to 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% per year from 30/06/2025 to 16/06/2026 on £340 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier repayment at a daily rate of £0.04

Can someone point me to the right template please? Or let me know what to type in the search bar?

Gr1pr

Use the Chan and Akande defence template, due to the alleged breach not pleaded in those POC above

That other recent thread you posted in had the up to date advice for claims like yours, Le_Kirk even explained it for you and the OP

Questions:---

1 Are you able to login to MCOL. ? Or has emailing your AOS to the CNBC blocked you from entering your defence on MCOL. ?

2 Can you post your MCOL claim history below Please ? ( Copy and paste. )

3 Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below too

bendeneo

This is what I have put together from what I think is the most up to date template…. could someone check it please?

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. 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'.

4. 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 Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. 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).

6. 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 Beavis.

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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))'.

Gr1pr

Looks good, if you used the 10 paragraph template defence in the 2nd post in the defence template thread in announcements , and only added the special Chan and Akande paragraph 3

How about answering my questions about please. ?

bendeneo

Hi there, sorry, your reply wasnt showing when I pasted the 10 point defence.

Answers to your questions:

1 Are you able to login to MCOL. ? Or has emailing your AOS to the CNBC blocked you from entering your defence on MCOL. ?

• It looks like it is allowing me now thankfully

2 Can you post your MCOL claim history below Please ? ( Copy and paste. )

• For some reason it wont let me paste so I have tried to attach it as a file

3 Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below too

• 18 June 2026

I have also just pasted below what I am seeing on the 'Claim History' page:

Claim SummaryClaimantNational Car Parks LimitedClaim NumberXXXXXXXXDefendant XXXXXX XXXXXXXAmount Claimed£354.00Court Fee£50.00Solicitor Costs£50.00  Total Amount£454.00Issue Date18/06/2026
Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 18/06/2026

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 29/06/2026

Recent Transactions

Available options

You have submitted an Acknowledgment of Service. You can respond to the claim by filing a Defence or Part Admission.

Acknowledgment of ServiceResponse Forms

Start Defence - you dispute the whole claim or wish to make a claim (a counterclaim) against the claimant, complete the defence form.

Start Part Admission - you admit part of the amount claimed, complete the Admission and the Defence form.

View Instructions - If you admit all of the amount claimed, complete the Admission form.

bendeneo

NB - I got the wording from this post from 'Coupon mad' from 31st July 2023 , and then added the Chan and Akande part 3

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

Is that the most recent?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 18/06/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 21/07/26.

That is the up-to-date defence, just follow the link to get the latest Chan & Akande wording.

Gr1pr

Yes, correct, if you look it was actually edited in February 2026, so is the latest

As you are using the correct defence template and the correct paragraph 3, its good to go on MCOL into the start defence box, copy and paste, save and submit

However, you will need to delete the following banned double quote characters first, in paragraph 3

"

I suggest that you remove the " in your defence template post above too, so it does not mislead anyone

But

You have plenty of time if you want to wait for other replies

bendeneo

Thanks @Le_Kirk and Thanks @Gr1pr

So all looks good to go, I'll leave it a day or two in case somebody suddenly spots something.

Thanks for all the help!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051793#Comment_82051793

Use the new para 2 I just wrote minutes ago for another Moorside thread,

And add a para 11:

11. 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.