UKCPS - Moorside Legal Parking Claim August 2026

DJA_80

I have been issued a PCN by UKCPS for "unpaid parking charge" for stopping for approx. 30 seconds at Leeds train station to drop someone off while in heavy rain and from memory being busy at the time also and passing the drop off point, due to misleading signage and having to find somewhere to safely turn around.

I did not see any signage at the time and definitely did not willingly enter into any form of contract with the landowner.

I have also followed the steps in the ‘Newbies thread’ to AOS on MCOL & need to submit my defence by 08/09/2026 (the issue date was 20/8/2026)

I have used the template and made some small amends to section 3.1 to include the specifics of my case and I have prepared the following defence in line with another recent case regarding nearly identical circumstances (UKCPS - Moorside Legal Parking Claim March 2026 Thread). I really appreciate the various contributions from key people I have seen recently in the forums / threads supporting others and fighting back against the completely unfair and unjust attempt to scam and bully honest members of the public. If anyone would be kind enough to give the information / response a once over, and advise if I need to make any amendments ahead of submission, that would be greatly appreciated.

Information stated in the POC

The Claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge issued for a breach of contractual terms on 27/01/2026 at Leeds City Station Leeds LS1 4DY to vehicle XXXXXXX. The signage displayed at the site set out contractual terms and offered a contractual licence, which the Defendant accepted by parking. The Claimant has authority to operate the site and issue charges. The breach was: No Stopping. The Defendant is liable as the driver and/or keeper, in contract and/or pursuant to POFA Sch 4, and the charge remains unpaid despite demand. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170.00 being the total of the PCN. 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 24/02/2026 to 18/08/2026 on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.02.

Proposed 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. No prominent signage was observed in the vicinity of where the vehicle came to a stop that clearly set out the terms and conditions of use, nor has any evidence been provided demonstrating that adequate signage was in place outlining the full terms and conditions of any purported contract. At the time it was busy with vehicles, conditions were poor and it was raining. Any signage that may have been present was not sufficiently visible or positioned in a manner capable of alerting a motorist. In particular, no signage was within a clear line of sight from a seated position within the vehicle. The vehicle did not park but only paused briefly while in transit, and no reasonable opportunity was available to review, understand, or accept any contractual terms. Accordingly, no contract could have been formed through offer, consideration, and acceptance.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

You could add that there are no double red lines so it isn't a valid 'no stopping' zone at all.

DJA_80

Great point, thank you Coupon-mad, I will add that in to the section too

Xboxman02

Hi @DJA_80

As you know I have recently been through all of this at the same location for the alleged same breech of contract.

N.B I am not a professional or expert in any of this kind of thing, I am not sure exactly where to include certain pieces of information, but did manage to work my way through it to the point where within ~5 weeks of the court date UKCPS & Moorside discontinued.

One thing that I used as a part of my witness statement was that the POC clearly contradicts itself & confirms that you did not enter into any agreement. (see Section E of my WS)

They say you entered into a contractual agreement with the land owner -

which the Defendant accepted by parking

But you never actually parked so irrespective of anything else no contract was offered, reviewed or accepted.

There is a clear distinction between stopping & parking, again the breech in the POC was

The breach was: No Stopping

So unless you parked (where is the evidence of your parking??) & then stopped you didnt enter into the any agreement by their own definitions so they should just stop wasting your time.

Stopping is not parking

The Precedent-Setting Cases

1. Ashby v Tolhurst [1937] - Barrister discussion parking Vs stopping

• The Context: A car was stolen from a private car park, and the owner sued the car park operators.
• The Precedent: Lord Greene MR defined parking a car as leaving it in a place, drawing an analogy to a licence where you pay for permission to leave property on someone else's land. This established that entering a property, stopping briefly (e.g., to read terms and conditions), and leaving does not form a parking contract, because the car was never "left" there

2. Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016]

• The Context: A resident was fined by a parking enforcement company for stopping outside the entrance of her apartment block for a few minutes to unload heavy furniture.
• The Ruling: Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC overturned the fine, ruling that momentarily stopping to carry out an activity does not equate to "parking."
• The Precedent: The judge noted that the concept of parking involves "leaving a vehicle... until required again." He stated that an interpretation of "parking" that penalises delivery vans, postmen, or residents unloading goods for a brief moment is contrary to common sense and commercial reality.

https://contestorlegal.co.uk/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking/

Another thing you may wish to include is that under the IPC code of conduct signage including surface marking must be concise, unambiguous and not misleading. - See Section 3 -

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

Feel free to use the image below taken from the BBC news article covering the chaos at the station as an exhibit showing that you have clear surface markings saying "Drop Off" yet the also claim they have signs saying no stopping, I wouldn't call that clear, concise or unambiguous

What is it drop off or no stopping or are you supposed to drop someone off without stopping 😂

Hopefully this will help provide a solid enough defence to have them just drop it but I highly doubt it will.

They just use intimidation tactics to take you right to the 11th hour before discontinuing & I am 99.9% sure that they will, as a loss in court would not only expose them to your costs but potentially open the door for all previously paid charges to be subject to review & hopefully a legal professional would seek to have those that paid these illegal charges refunded.

Best of luck with everything, keep the thread updated & stay positive.

Car1980

Yes, this is a peculiarity with UKCPS claims that scuppers their no-stopping cases and I've pointed it out before. But they always discontinue anyway, so I doubt they even read defences and won't be aware their particulars shoot them in their own feet.

DJA_80

Thank you so much Coupon-mad, Xboxman02 & Car1980 - All really helpful and invaluable information for me and my fight against the unfair and unjust parking / stopping allegations UKCPS and Moorside have imposed.