Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: ElleLamps on May 01, 2026, 10:15:18 pm
-
Hello.
By way of update, today I received a Notice of Discontinuance from Moorside Legal! Thank you for your help. This community is a valuable resource and your efforts or hugely apprciated.
-
Thank you so much. Yes, the "paragraph noted" lines were to make sure I was responding to all points (and give me a clear visual that I had addressed them all) but I can take them out.
I'll also address the other suggestions you made before I run out to the post office to get it sent.
Thanks for all of your help. I'm sure I'll be back once I receive their witness evidence. I'm hoping that they will contradict themselves enough that I can get them to drop the claim before it gets to a trial.
-
This is a strong draft - it's good to see a forum member who has clearly put in the effort and done their research.
A couple of points for consideration...
I think you can skip the "Paragraph _ is noted" lines. Whilst the Civil Procedure Rules require a defendant to deal with every allegation, this is not necessarily a requirement to make mention of every paragraph, if some of those paragraphs merely provide context to the same allegation, or don't actually make any allegation. If there's nothing to respond to in a particular paragraph, then I'm not sure you need to respond.
to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case)
You should make clear which element(s) you believe were absent in this case, and briefly explain why you take this position.
the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices.
The use of the word 'reportedly' makes this point feel rather vague. What others report that they do isn't directly relevant. What they have actually done in this specific case is. If your point here is that the terms of the alleged contract in this specific case were unfair due to being unclear, you should say this, and briefly explain why.
-
This is what I have so far
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and asserts that no contract was formed and no debt is owed.
2. The claim was subject to an order dated 13 March 2026, requiring the Claimant to serve compliant particulars of claim by 4pm on 28 April 2026. The Claimant served them late and did not apply for relief. The claim therefore ought to be struck out.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the Defendant responds as follows:
4. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) is noted. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has a right to pursue a claim under Schedule 4(1)(a) of the Protections from Freedom Act 2012 ('POFA').
5. Paragraph 2 is noted.
6. As to paragraph 3, the Defendant notes that the agreement provided at Exhibit 1 is dated 23 April 2025, which post dates the alleged contravention. The Claimant has provided no evidence that it was authorised to manage parking on the site on the date of the alleged contravention, nor the scope of the agreement by reference to a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view). The Claimant is put to proof.
7. Paragraph 4 is denied. It is denied that the vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by a warden and the Claimant is put to proof. The Defendant asserts that the photographs show no PCN attached to the vehicle. In the absence of the same, it is denied that the PCN was correctly served as per the requirements of Sch4 of POFA. Further, a PCN cannot be issued to a vehicle, but only to an individual driver based on contract. The Claimant has failed to provide proof that the driver was sufficiently made aware of the PCN.
8. As to paragraph 5:
i. 5(a) is noted. The Claimant is put to proof that it was authorised by the Freeholder to manage the land at all material times. The Defendant adopts and repeats paragraph 6 of the amended defence.
ii. 5(b) It is not admitted that “prominent signs” were displayed. The Claimant provides no evidence of where any sign was located in relation to the vehicle’s location or the size of the sign. The single evidential photo of a sign gives no context, is unlit and was taken at night with flash.
iii. 5(c) is noted. The Defendant argues that, based on the photographs, this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone.
iv. As to paragraph 5(d), 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.
9. Paragraph 6 is not admitted. The Defendant adopts and repeats paragraph 8(iv) of the Defence.
10. Paragraph 7 is noted.
11. Paragraph 8 is denied. It is denied that a Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, as the alleged parking event occurred over 8 months later, on 30 November 2024. The Defendant draws attention to the Claimant's representative signing a statement of truth stating his belief that the facts in the Particulars of Claim are true, despite this not being the case. It is further denied that a compliant NtD was served on the material date. No NtD was present when the driver returned to the vehicle, and none of the exhibits provided by the Claimant show any such notice affixed to the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant NtD was properly served.
12. As to paragraph 9, it is denied that the Claimant had the right to make a request for registered keeper details pursuant to paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, in circumstances where a NtD was not correctly issued.
13. Save that the Defendant admits that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued, paragraph 10 is denied. It is denied that the NtK was compliant with paragraph 8 of schedule 4. The Defendant asserts:
i) The NtK does not specify a period of parking, only a timestamp. This fails PoFA 8(2)(a), as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
ii) Further Paras 8(4) and 8(5) of PoFA stipulate that:
(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
If, as alleged, the NtD was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, the NtK was not served within the 'relevant period' (i.e by 24 May 2024).
iii) Further, and in the alternative, if it is alleged that the NtD was affixed to the vehicle on 30 November 2024, then the earliest that a NtK could be given would have been 29 December 2024. The NtK, having been sent on 6 December 2024, was not served within the relevant period.
iv) The Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper. As the Notices were defective, there can be no Keeper liability. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.
14. Paragraph 12 is not admitted.
15. Paragraph 13 is denied. The claim is for £255 but the initial charge was only £100. No explanation or calculation is given for the additional £155. There is no indication if this includes damages, debt recovery fees, interest or VAT. No breakdown has been provided. Pursuant to Sch4 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.
16. Paragraph 14 is noted.
17. The original Particulars of Claim were deemed not to comply with CPR 16.4. The amended Particulars of Claim are factually incorrect and were served late, no application for relief from sanctions having been made. In light of the same, the Court is invited to exercise its discretion in accordance with CPR 3.4 to strike out the claim.
-
Feel free to show us if you would like feedback or a sense check.
-
Thank you all. I have drafted the defence in line with your recommendations. Fingers crossed it spooks Moorside Legal into dropping the claim.
-
IMO their PoC is reminiscent of an exam script where the student writes relevant and irrelevant, correct and incorrect words in the hope that they'll get marks for what's correct and not be penalised for what's wrong.
IMO, the sole procedural basis for their claim against the Defendant lies in para. 11 where they state that they are pursuing them because they are the RK and therefore the provisions of PoFA apply. So, in the case where their reference to March is seen as a typo, the date given in the NTK would apply, namely 30 Nov. But if a NTD was served then the NTK is invalid because the 'date it was given' was 6 Dec. However, paras 8(4) and 8(5) of PoFA would have effect:
(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
For an alleged breach on 30 Nov. and a Notice to Driver having been served, then the earliest that a NTK could be given would have been 29 Dec.
And if the date was March, then the NTK was not served within the 'relevant period'.
Should the judge simply disregard the conflicting nonsense and have to work out what set of compliant facts actually applies, if any?
I'm no expert, but if I were the judge I'd show them the door and write in red ink on the PoC 'Fail, D-, must try harder'!
And OP, you were sent only one NTK, not two. As another poster commented, the second letter was a reminder - OK, it was couched in similar language and form, but it was not a NTK.
As far as the Act is concerned, the system weakness IMO lies with these provisions in PoFA:
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available
So discounts and 'arrangements for the resolution...etc.' are of the industry's choosing, they're not prescribed in the Act. They sent a so-called NTK and then a reminder telling you that they would exercise 'the right to recover etc..' because the mandated wording in a NTK is only that they would have the right and does not refer to whether and how this would be exercised.
-
Agreed - my point is that it's not for you to assume, it is for the Claimant to prove their case, so state what you can state without having to assume, and put them to proof on the rest.
-
Well an initial NtK was sent on 4/12/24 and a second one on 3/01/25, so I think it can be assumed that nothing was put on the car at the time, otherwise there would have been no need to post one a few days after the incident. So you are correct that they will either have to prove that they did place one on the vehicle, or admit that the amended PoC is incorrect.
-
The wording here can hopefully be used to get them over a barrel a little.
When it gets to witness statements they'll either have to provide evidence that a Notice to Driver was served (which we can probably assume didn't happen), or explain that their PoC were factually incorrect, in which case you can argue that the claimant's entire evidence should be considered unreliable.
-
Agreed.
I would think of starting that the original Particulars of Claim were deemed not to comply with CPR 16.4 by the court, and the amended Particulars of Claim to which you are now filing a defence are factually incorrect, and go on to explain why with the caveats discussed by @DWMB2 above.
The person viewing your defence may not be aware that the original Particulars of Claim were determined to be inadequate by the court, so I’d definitely want to point this out explicitly again in the new defence.
-
Absolutely, their revised particulars of claim being significantly incorrect needs to form part of your defence.
I'd be tempted to be careful with the wording of the defence here for reasons I'll explain. It seems very unlikely that a Notice to Driver was ever affixed to the vehicle, but we don't know for sure. What we do know is this:
- When the driver returned to their vehicle, no Notice to Driver was present
- None of the claimant's evidence shows that a Notice to Driver was present
I'd be tempted to frame the argument on this point from this perspective. It can then be denied that the claimant can rely on the provisions of PoFA for several reasons. Firstly, you deny that a compliant Notice to Driver was served for the reasons above, and put them to proof that one was served. Then you can move on to the fact that if, as claimed, a notice to driver was served, then their subsequent Notice to Keeper was not issued within the relevant period, further reinforcing that no keeper liability can apply.
Of course, also point out the material errors (such as the March date) - you could probably do this as two points: "It is denied that a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, as the alleged parking event occurred over 8 months later on 30 November 2024. The Defendant draws attention to the Claimant's representative signing a statement of truth stating his belief that the facts in the Particulars of Claim are true, despite this not being the case." Then: "It is further denied that a compliant Notice to Driver was served on the material date. No Notice to Driver was present when the driver returned to the vehicle, and none of the exhibits provided by the claimant show any such notice affixed to the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant Notice to Driver was properly served."
"Even if a compliant Notice to Driver was served, it is denied that the subsequent Notice to Keeper complies with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act..." and so on.
-
Have you posted the current PoC?
In the very first post in the thread.
-
Yes, in my first post.
-
Have you posted the current PoC?
-
Absolutely, their revised particulars of claim being significantly incorrect needs to form part of your defence. Especially when their initial boilerplate nonsense was thrown out by the court, they had an opportunity to get it right and didn’t.
-
Great, thanks.
The PoC specifically state that a NtD was affixed to the car. This is factually incorrect. The date they say it was placed on the car is also incorrect on the PoC (24 March 2024 when the incident was in November 2025). I wonder if the PoC can be attaked on that basis, and what other routes there may be to avoid keeper liability.
I've also noticed that the date the landowner authority to Parking Control Management was signed (23.04.25)post dates the alleged parking infringement date, so I'll argue that they have no authority to pursue the case in their name.
-
There is no requirement to serve a Notice to Driver, in fact the majority of companies don’t.
A Notice to Keeper is sufficient, and if it complies with the legislation it can be used to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Providing pictures without explicitly stating a period of parking doesn’t comply, for example.
-
I am drafting the defence to this today, as it needs to be served by Tuesday, so any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
SO, I see that there were two NtK. Does that mean that they can't pursue the keeper, becuse a NtD was not served?
Also, there is not period of parking, but the photos have different times on there. Would that not count?
-
I've noe attached links to documents which should be labeled.
Exhibit sheet 1 https://ibb.co/gLkBb2XW
Court order https://ibb.co/60N1DVph
Photo of vehicle at location (4) https://ibb.co/gZ8FZvmG
Photo of vehicle at location (3) https://ibb.co/Jj7GfZ8k
Photo of vehicle at location (2) https://ibb.co/ZptDw26Q
Photo of signage https://ibb.co/v6NfJNBN
Photo of vehicle at location https://ibb.co/Ps04Q6v5
https://ibb.co/5XDT0rjN
Exhibit sheet 4 https://ibb.co/rKW48X2z
https://ibb.co/rG2jMt6z
Notice to keeper (2) https://ibb.co/5WFzrmrB
Notice to keeper (1) https://ibb.co/tPLb4kPs
Parking signage (2) https://ibb.co/Y74LQYVD
Exhibit sheet 3 https://ibb.co/dwZtw1Yx
Parking signage (1) https://ibb.co/YBNBtWS0
Exhibit sheet 2 https://ibb.co/YTjvk2Dc
Landowner authority (2) https://ibb.co/4wxhdcZ7
Landowner authority (1) https://ibb.co/z0cntZ0
-
In terms of terminology, there was no Notice to Driver, which would have been attached to the car, but a Notice to Keeper followed by a reminder follow-up notice.
7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);
(d)inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made;
(f)specify the time when the notice is given and the date.
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,
by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.
The NtK does not specify a “period of parking” for one thing.
It would help significantly is the separate posts above were also labelled, it’s a huge pain having to look at each one to find the NtK, for example, and I suspect many people will give up.
-
I've now attached links to the documents which should be labeled.
Exhibit sheet 1 https://ibb.co/gLkBb2XW
Court order https://ibb.co/60N1DVph
Photo of vehicle at location (4) https://ibb.co/gZ8FZvmG
Photo of vehicle at location (3) https://ibb.co/Jj7GfZ8k
Photo of vehicle at location (2) https://ibb.co/ZptDw26Q
Photo of signage https://ibb.co/v6NfJNBN
Photo of vehicle at location https://ibb.co/Ps04Q6v5
https://ibb.co/5XDT0rjN
Exhibit sheet 4 https://ibb.co/rKW48X2z
https://ibb.co/rG2jMt6z
Notice to keeper (2) https://ibb.co/5WFzrmrB
Notice to keeper (1) https://ibb.co/tPLb4kPs
Parking signage (2) https://ibb.co/Y74LQYVD
Exhibit sheet 3 https://ibb.co/dwZtw1Yx
Parking signage (1) https://ibb.co/YBNBtWS0
Exhibit sheet 2 https://ibb.co/YTjvk2Dc
Landowner authority (2) https://ibb.co/4wxhdcZ7
Landowner authority (1) https://ibb.co/z0cntZ0
-
"but a NtD was posted to me, and then followed up with a NtK."
Can you post up a copy of these?
-
So that we can properly advise, please show us the Exhibits that Moorside refer to in their updated particulars.
Please also show us the order made by the judge, so that we can see if they have sufficiently met its requirements.
-
Hello,
I received a parking ticket back in 2024, which I ignored, and now court proceedings have been issued against me by Moorside Legal.
I followed the general advice on here, and filed a defence to their scant Particulars of Claim, stating that there were deficient. I also made no offer at mediation. The matter has been referred back to court, and a judge ordered Moorside legal to serve an updated Particulars of Claim, which they have done. I now need to draft a defence, and need some advice on how to respond.
Background to the claim: My vehicle was parked on land controlled by PCM, not in a bay. The driver was there for a few minutes making a food delivery as part of their job. No ticket was placed on the car, but a NtD was posted to me, and then followed up with a NtK.
Moorside has provided a contract with the landowner, but it is dated AFTER the date of the parking ticket. They also have incorrectly stated that a ticket was place on the car, when it wasn’t.
Are you able to advise how to respond to the new Particulars of claim? The defence must be filed and served by 12 May 2026.
Thanks
Links to image of Particulars is below
https://ibb.co/FbfB07Dy
https://ibb.co/Ps8XhpnV
https://ibb.co/MDpqhXp8