Moorside Court Claim

WIlip31

Hi guys,

Another moorside court claim here and ready to defend until the end. So any help will be gratefully accepted and received.

AOC was submitted on 05.06.26 and issue date was 27.05.26

AOC was recieved 08/06/2026.

POC are:

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charges issued to vehicle xxxxxx

2. Charges were issued between 16/12/2025 and 18/12/2025 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. £340.00 being the total of the PCNs.

Planning to use the defence below.

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))'.

Looking forward to hearing your advice and responses.

Gr1pr

If that is the same as the one below, the 10 paragraph Chan and Akande defence template, then its good to go

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6674315/ncp-moorside-defence-help-please

WIlip31

Yes used the same one as it got your approval on the other thread.

Gr1pr

Great, good to see ones where the incorrect banned " double quote speech mark character is not there, lol

Coupon-mad

Is it NCP, or which Claimant?

Are you sure the POC don't even state the car park location? If they don't, change para 2 to this instead:

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Claimant has not even bothered to specify in its statement of case, the location(s) of the private land, nor even how many 'PCNs' it is pursuing or dates and times ('between 16/12/2025 and 18/12/2025 on land managed by C' is meaningless). Nor have they made a legal case for the statement 'D is liable as the driver or keeper' which is unsupported if the C failed to comply with the POFA 2012, as is suspected but the POC is silent on this too, so the Defendant is having to guess. The POC are embarrassing and should be struck out on allocation. There is not even a term or breach pleaded, so in the absence of specific allegations, the Defendant can only admit that they were the registered keeper (but liability is denied).

WIlip31

Claimant is Uk Parking Administration.

And the POC is copied and pasted word for word minus the full costs bit at the end.

Coupon-mad

OK well I've given you your para 2 and 3 then (in fact all if it, given I wrote the template)!

😀

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 27/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 15/06/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 29/06/26; unless you submitted your defence yesterday you are late!

WIlip31

Submitted this morning late, but no default judgment in mcol yet…..

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82053192#Comment_82053192

And there can't be because you won that race! All is normal as per the 8 steps now.