Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Smartdriver on January 10, 2025, 03:13:15 pm

Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 25, 2026, 08:12:39 pm
Hi all.

Sorry to post again. I need to submit my defence tomorrow, ideally.

Would someone mind looking over my proposed submission (2 posts above).

I would be most grateful! Thanks
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 23, 2026, 09:26:25 pm
Hi all.

I wonder if someone would mind having a look at my defence as I need to submit it soon. Any comments, additions etc would be very welcome.

Thanks!
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 21, 2026, 03:18:22 pm
I’m about to file my defence. How does this sound?

(I asked ChatGPT to help me write it so would be good if someone could just check its correct)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In particular, the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with POFA paragraph 9, and therefore no keeper liability can arise.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5. They do not set out the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum claimed, nor the basis on which the Defendant is pursued as keeper. The claim discloses no cause of action and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. The Defendant’s family member was the driver. The driver attempted to pay for parking but the on-site payment machine was out of order. The driver then attempted to use the advertised mobile app, which repeatedly failed to load and process payment. The driver left the site to find an alternative method of payment, which is permitted under the BPA Code of Practice grace period provisions. No contract was formed because payment could not be made due to the Claimant’s own equipment failure.
5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including its terms, prominence, lighting, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage was inadequate to form any contract with the driver.
6. The Claimant’s added £70 “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment confirms that such add-ons are “designed to extort money from motorists” and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
7. Even if a contract had been formed (which is denied), the Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was not paid due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name. A strict chain of authority is required.
9. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
10. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: InterCity125 on March 05, 2026, 05:44:02 pm
On the balance of probabilities, it will not matter what you put in your defence statement in terms of the way the claimant behaves moving forward - as far as they are concerned, this is a game of statistics - as the matter progresses, more and more people pay out of either fear or ignorance - ultimately they behave in a manner where they always suggest that they are going 'all the way' - they rarely do.

So take the pressure off yourself and accept that you are a passenger in this process.

Note also that you are in the super-luxury position of knowing that the claimant cannot win - most people do not have that luxury so enjoy it.

TBH, the defence statement already offered is pretty sharp and one which you should consider?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 05, 2026, 04:56:14 pm
The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.

It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March therefore.

You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of Service, either of which you do through MCOL.

If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14 days, or 29 March.

It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.

Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.


Thanks - I am really not sure what needs to be in a defence, vs a witness statement et.  Ideally I want this struck out or discontinued before getting any further so I want to get it right
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: jfollows on March 05, 2026, 03:55:50 pm
The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.

It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March therefore.

You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of Service, either of which you do through MCOL.

If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14 days, or 29 March.

It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.

Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 05, 2026, 03:49:44 pm
I've looked through various threads and have got myself a bit confused about all of this process, as its all very new to me.

Can anyone give a guide to exactly what and how I need to submit and what the process is, timelines etc (ideally with examples - I've seen example wording in other posts but I don't know enough about this to know how similar my case is?

Assume I know nothing about any of it. Over the last couple of years I've been various lines of attack here and I want  to try to encompass them as best I can
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: DWMB2 on March 02, 2026, 08:05:31 pm
Yes, put anything in that you believe helps your case, my suggestion above was around how to handle one of their allegations, it wasn't a full defence.

I'm not sure I would make too much of the sparse particulars of claim in this case personally - that argument is essentially saying the particulars are too vague for you to respond properly. In this case, you are able to respond properly (hence my suggested words above), and you're able to respond with strong points.

You can challenge their inclusion of debt collector fees, and challenge the rate of interest charged (the delay in bringing proceedings is theirs, not yours).

However, personally I would lead with the PoFA arguments. These strike at the heart of their claim, and undermine their two claims as to your liability (1) that you are liable as the driver and (2) that you are liable as the keeper.

If you can demonstrate you are not liable either as the keeper or the driver then any points around VAT or their use of boilerplate becomes irrelevant (that's not to say don't include them, but it is to say put your strongest point first).

Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 02, 2026, 07:03:58 pm
Ok… I hadn’t noticed that.

What about all the other comments above about the claim being not detailed, the issue re VAT, boiler plate responses and the like?

Someone said earlier that this will be struck out or discontinued on that basis even if it was in time? It’s a few posts back. Let me know if you can’t see anything with the documents I posted last year.

I’d rather throw everything at them to get them to discontinue.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: DWMB2 on March 02, 2026, 06:40:04 pm
I think the original notice was probably in time
If this (https://imgbox.com/gJup7tKm) is the original notice, it is not in time at all.

That you weren't the driver puts you in a strong position. So, with regards to formulating your defence, take a look around the forum at some others and you'll get a sense of structure but, it is essentially a short series of statements that deals with each of the claimant's allegations, stating whether the defendant accepts, denies or cannot admit/deny each of them.

As an example of how you might approach some of their claim form:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. As the Defendant was not driving the vehicle, it follows that he cannot be liable as the driver.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) is denied. The Claimant failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper compliant with the provisions of PoFA, namely failing to deliver said notice within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as defined by paragraph 9(5) of the act. The period of parking ended on 25th August 2024. The Claimant issued a notice by post on 8th August 2024. Under paragraph 9(6) of PoFA, a. notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. This notice was therefore given on Monday 12th August 2024, this being 18 days after that on which the specified period of parking ended. As the Claimant has failed to issue a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, it is denied that the Defendant is liable as the registered keeper.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 02, 2026, 05:55:48 pm
I think the original notice was probably in time, but I didn’t see it for some time as the letter got accidentally put unopened into a box of paperwork and I only found it after the time to appeal.

I’ve had various threatening letters up till now and responded as per the advice above. As expected I just got template nonsense replies.
I was advised to wait till the actual claim arrived, which it now has nearly 2 years down the line. So I think now I need to reply to that properly and swiftly.

I can confirm I have not at any point revealed or even hinted at the drivers identity (this forum has taught me well!). I can also confirm and would testify under oath that the driver was not me.

I just want to try and make it go away as I’m tired of it now.

Thanks!
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: InterCity125 on March 02, 2026, 03:20:46 pm
Yes - all visible now.

So the original PCN was out of time for keeper liability.

Can you confirm that the driver's identity was never revealed at any stage?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 02, 2026, 02:47:01 pm
Are the original images visible now?

Let me know if not.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 01, 2026, 05:21:40 pm
Here you go - does that mean that you can’t see the original from my first post? https://imgbox.com/gJup7tKm
https://imgbox.com/wJ4PFPBc
https://imgbox.com/5KDIDJOF
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: InterCity125 on March 01, 2026, 02:17:10 pm
Could you post up the original PCN?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 01, 2026, 12:58:57 pm
Is anyone able to assist with this now I’ve received the claim from the court? I can post a new thread if needed but I know that’s frowned on.

Thanks!
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 28, 2026, 02:56:21 pm
Can I just check I don’t know if people can still see the documents I listed last year as Imgur is blocked in the UK now. Let me know if I need to post anything again
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 27, 2026, 07:26:49 pm
Well after a year, the claim has arrived.

Can you advise on what  to do now? Presumably the merits of their claim haven’t got stronger in the last 12 months.

https://imgbox.com/EZJFmicu

Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on April 07, 2025, 03:02:58 pm
So, send then the same response with the dates adjusted.

Have you reported them to the SRA yet?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on April 07, 2025, 02:49:51 pm
It’s identical word for word to the letter from them I posted in post 19, the only difference is the date. This one is dated 31 March. It appears to be just their standard postal generic fob off response to any email. I can post a picture of it when I get home but I’m not sure it adds anything as you have it already above. Last time I did get an email response as well a couple of weeks later which was marginally more individual so we will see if they do the same this time.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on April 07, 2025, 01:41:37 pm
Please don't paraphrase or simply say you have received a petter/response. Show us exactly the wording used.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on April 07, 2025, 11:30:12 am
Another letter, telling me once again - in writing - they are unable to reply to me in writing.

Still no sign of a claim though. Any idea how long that might take?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on March 13, 2025, 01:28:32 pm
Just mess wither incompetent little heads. Their refusal to engage properly with the PAP means that you should also report them to the SRA for failing to comply with professional obligations, particularly around transparency and good practice in litigation. This is especially relevant as they continue to ignore your reasonable requests.

Send this response so that are on notice:

Quote
Subject: Final Demand for Compliance with Pre-Action Protocol

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025

Your latest response is yet another example of your failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). I am giving you this final opportunity to correct your conduct before I escalate matters further.

To be absolutely clear:

The £70 charge – You have still failed to confirm whether this amount is inclusive of VAT. I am not interested in your tired regurgitation of ATA Codes of Practice, which hold no legal weight. Answer the question: is this sum inclusive of VAT? If it is, explain why your client is passing its VAT liability onto an alleged debtor. If it is not, confirm whether VAT has been accounted for in accordance with HMRC guidelines.

The nature of the principal sum – Your vague response is entirely inadequate. I asked you a simple question: is the PCN being pursued as damages for breach of contract or as a core contractual charge? This is a fundamental distinction in law. Your deliberate refusal to provide a direct answer is noted and will be brought to the court’s attention should you be foolish enough to issue a claim.

Your repeated refusal to comply with PAPDC amounts to unreasonable conduct and will be met with an appropriate response should this matter proceed. This includes but is not limited to:

- A formal costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for your client’s unreasonable pre-action conduct.
- A strike-out application should you persist in issuing a claim without first complying with the PAPDC.
- Further action regarding your clear failure to provide material information required under professional conduct rules.

You have seven days to provide proper answers. If you continue to ignore your obligations, I will highlight your embarrassing incompetence before the court and ensure your client is held to account for your failings.

No further warnings will be given.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 13, 2025, 12:57:26 pm
An email from Moorside Legal! They have not answered the questions I asked, of course, but does this change anything?

''Our client: National Car Parks Limited

We write further to your recent email.

Our answers to your questions are as follows:

•   The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.

•   By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract. ''

What now? Just wait for the claim form, I guess?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 07, 2025, 12:36:02 am
Yes indeed I sent the suggested reply word for word as advised above. This is their response to that.  The letter came today  in the post, I have had no email reply.

Should I now complain to SRA. If so, how, and on what grounds? What about HMRC as suggested as above also?
Or best just to leave them to (hopefully) mess it up?

For now, should I just send your suggested response to their generic email? And then wait for the claim to arrive?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on March 06, 2025, 11:37:25 pm
Are you saying that the letter you have shown us is their response to this letter:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ncp-birmingham-city-centre-judes-street-broken-machine-but-missed-letter/msg56325/#msg56325

If so, you should report them to the SRA

Send the following response to that letter:

Quote
Subject: Failure to Engage with Pre-Action Protocol Requirements

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025

I acknowledge receipt of your generic response, which fails to engage with my specific and reasonable requests for information under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). Your failure to provide meaningful responses is both obstructive and unreasonable.

For the avoidance of doubt, I require you to respond to my questions in full and in writing. Directing me to generic FAQs or a payment portal does not discharge your obligations under the PAPDC. I will remind you that paragraph 3.1 of the PAPDC requires you to provide “a summary of the facts” and “an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.” Your failure to do so will result in a costs sanction should this proceed to litigation.

To be clear:

[indent[1. I require a direct answer regarding the additional £70 charge: Is it a debt recovery fee, and if so, does it include VAT?
2. I require clarity on whether the principal sum is being pursued as damages for breach of contract or as consideration for a parking contract.[/indent]

If you fail to respond adequately, I will raise this with the court as a clear example of unreasonable conduct, and I reserve the right to seek costs on this basis.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on March 06, 2025, 07:00:28 pm
https://imgur.com/a/ayShhTb

Well what a surprise.

They haven't answered the questions I asked (not that I expected them to) or indeed given any sort of response at all. So I guess it's just another letter to ignore until a claim form arrives? Is there anything I need to do in the meantime? I assume nothing has recently changed with this company to advise a different approach?

As an aside, it really really irritates me that they say 'We got your recent request for contact, but we aren't able to contact you individually in writing', in an actual written letter, sent to me individually, in writing. Sigh.

EDIT - sorry the link didn't work
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on February 04, 2025, 07:44:44 pm
Oh yes, you will receive a claim. When you receive it, come back and show us the claim form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and we will advise on deadlines, on how to submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and we will provide the defence, draft order and persuasive appeal transcripts that go together.

A bridge to cross when we come to it.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 04, 2025, 07:41:16 pm
Interesting. Very interesting.

I will await their response with interest but not much expectation. I suppose then at some point in the nearish future I will get the actual claim itself? And then come back here
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on February 04, 2025, 07:33:59 pm

Any ideas what I can expect?

They are obliged to respond to your response to the LoC. They will use a boilerplate stock answer which does not explain the VAT questions asked. When they do respond, you can then report them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud (in the £millions).

We advise everyone to report VAT concerns involving the conduct of the legal and Debt Recovery firms operating as parasites clinging limpet-like to the 'rogue' private parking industry.

The report in your case specifically concerns Moorside Legal because the attached evidence (their response to the VAT questions) is about their failure to confirm whether consumers are being unlawfully hit with the VAT element of their added 'fees'.

This is not about parking charges (these cannot exceed £100).  It is all about the added £70 admin/DRA costs that the DLUHC called 'extorting money from motorists'.

These third party debt collectors include Moorside Legal, BW Legal, DCB Ltd, DCB Legal, Gladstones Solicitors, Empira, TNC, CIS, Trace Debt Recovery, ZZPS, Debt Recovery Plus, QDR solicitors, CST Law, Elms Legal and others who are listed as members of the BPA and/or IPC Approved Operator or approved debt firms.

Because the concern is that they steadfastly refuse to answer questions about the VAT on their DRA fee, it is now widely suspected that some or all of the private parking industry specialist Debt Recovery firms (including legal firms) may be operating as follows.

Either:

(a) not paying HMRC the VAT element on the £60 or £70 per PCN 'admin fees' that they charge for 'debt recovery'. This amounts to £multi-millions p.a. due to parking cases now exceeding well over 12m DVLA look-ups per year.  Within weeks, £70 per PCN is added and aggressively demanded. 90% of those cases that result in court claims include multiple £70 'fees' that the parking operator clients have never paid and appear to be unjust enrichment of the DRAs;

or

(b) including VAT within the fixed £70 'fee' which they describe as "our costs". This has the object or effect of making the consumer pay the VAT, which HMRC has already stated is unlawful in cases of enforcement or debt recovery fees.

The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection, which is specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus taxable:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3255

You will have given Moorside Legal a chance to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what they call "our costs" but they will have swerved the questions.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 04, 2025, 07:16:32 pm
I guess enough people probably get scared and pay up that it’s worth a try for the few who challenge it?

Their email auto response says  ‘We aim to respond to all emails within 28 days of receipt in the order in which they are received. We kindly ask that you do not chase a response during that time as it will allow us to respond to your email as quickly as possible.’If a claim has been issued
If a County Court Claim has been issued against you, emailing us will not put the claim on hold. You will need to follow any instructions given to you by the Court to prevent a Judgment being obtained against you. You may wish to seek independent legal or debt advice’.   (Though not from forums, obvs).

 So that already goes beyond the 30 days they’ve given me to respond which kind of adds to the sense of it all being formulaic really. Unless I’m going to pay, they don’t care what I say.

 I suppose I now just have to wait to see what happens.  Any ideas what I can expect?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on February 04, 2025, 07:02:06 pm
You couldn't make it up when you see that sort of response. In what universe is it considered to be "unreasonable" to use all resources to plead a defence when you consider that their own correspondence is simply boilerplate templates.

Moorside Legal are staffed by wannabe paralegals with the lowest competency rate you can imagine. Any one bragging that they work for Moorside Legal are either intellectually malnourished or just unable to see how pathetic they are.

We have not yet seen a single claim issued by Moorside Legal that does not embarrassingly (in the legal sense) fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). This allows a defence to request the claim to be struck out at allocation stage. The simple fact that they have not cottoned on to this incredibly basic failure and corrected themselves, is, quite frankly, cringeworthy and an obvious sign that they are not reputable enough to use the word "Legal" in their name.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: DWMB2 on February 04, 2025, 06:57:03 pm
Of course, someone who has been sued by a company represented by a law firm is unlikely to hold a particularly favourable view of that law firm.

Quote
'we know what you've posted is a template from a forum, if you don't tell us what your defence is in your own words we will regard it as unreasonable behaviour and ask for our costs at court

If they issue thousands of claims with identical wording, they ought not to be surprised when they receive similar defences in response.

Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 04, 2025, 06:49:01 pm
I've just done a quick google search for Moorside legal. The reviews seem to be either 5 star 'X was helpful thank you' or 1 star 'bunch of scammers' with nothing in between (mostly 'scammers'). I was amused to read several people who posted that they had a response 'we know what you've posted is a template from a forum, if you don't tell us what your defence is in your own words we will regard it as unreasonable behaviour and ask for our costs at court'

Presumably there's no chance of them actually being successful at that?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 04, 2025, 06:40:05 pm
Right -  letter sent as above. Thanks!

What can I expect now?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: DWMB2 on February 04, 2025, 10:41:10 am
The claims that Moorside issue seem to be even more scant on detail than the DCB Legal ones, which I didn't think was possible. They're only a couple of steps away from "The defendant is indebted to the claimant because we say so".
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on February 04, 2025, 10:28:23 am
Just respond with the suggested letter. They are going to issue the claim, whatever is said. However, you can rest assured that when they do issue the claim, they will fail miserably by not complying with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which is most likely going to lead to the claim being struck out at allocation stage.

It never fails to amuse me how incompetent the supposed "professional" legals are in fact anything of the sort. They are an embarrassment to their profession.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 04, 2025, 12:37:05 am
Thanks. Should I at this point mention any of the original issues with this case? Or just respond in the terms below?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on February 03, 2025, 11:24:06 am
Respond as follows:

Quote
Moorside Legal
Jade Building
Albion Mills
Albion Road
Greengates
BD10 9TQ

By email to: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk

[Date]

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

[YOUR ADDRESS]

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully,


[YOUR NAME]

Save as a PDF file and attach to an email addressed to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on February 02, 2025, 08:07:30 pm
https://imgur.com/a/FCmWG39

Here you go, hope that works
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: DWMB2 on January 30, 2025, 08:06:49 pm
Yes, please show us the letter.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on January 30, 2025, 07:48:29 pm
Hi all.

I have now received a letter entitled ‘Letter of Claim’ so I assume now is the point at which I have to do something.

I’d very much welcome your advice on the next steps.

Do you need to see the letter?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on January 12, 2025, 09:30:18 am
So I guess I just have to wait now. Do you have any idea how long it might take?
It may never happen. However, it is more likely to happen sooner than later. Exactly how long? Who knows?

They have up to 6 years to file a claim from the date of the alleged contacvention. So, if you change address in the next 6 years, remember to let them know of your address change.
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on January 11, 2025, 06:28:52 pm
Thank you so much. Really really helpful (and hopeful). So I guess I just have to wait now. Do you have any idea how long it might take?
Title: Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: b789 on January 10, 2025, 04:14:36 pm
Welcome. You are correct that it is now too late to appeal. No big deal. If you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to NCP.

You can safely ignore any debt collectors or letters demanding money unless it is a Letter of Claim (LoC). If Moorside Legal are acting as a debt collector, you ignore them, at this stage. They will eventually issue an LoC which we need to know about but it is not important if it is not responded to.

What will need to be responded to is the eventual N1SDT Claim Form that will come from the CNBC with Moorside Legal acting on behalf of NCP. When that is received, show it to us redacting only your personal details, the claim number, your VRM and the MCOL password. Make sure that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and all dates remain visible.

Moorside Legal always make a Fata mistake in the PoC of claims they issue and that is very valuable for your defence. The most likely outcome will be that the claim is struck out at allocation stage. Even if it wasn't, the claimant will discontinue before it gets to a hearing.

Moorside Legal are bulk litigator and not a very good one at that. Easily beaten.

So, when you receive the LoC, come back and let us know.
Title: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but missed letter
Post by: Smartdriver on January 10, 2025, 03:13:15 pm
I have been a longtime lurker on this forum and its predecessor PePiPoo for many years but have never needed to ask for help myself until now so I hope you will be able to advise me. I recently found a box with a pile of unopened mail in it - someone in the house had 'moved it out of the way to deal with' and not told me, then forgotten it (yes I know, I know, don't ask. Anyway, we are where we are and have to deal with it now.

I found a letter 25 July 2024 from NCP car parks with a parking charge notice for the Birmingham City Centre car park - Judes Street. I'm not entirely sure where that is as I've never actually parked there myself. It states my vehicle (I am the registered keeper) entered the car park at 14.57:34 and left at 15.10.51 -  a total of just over 13 minutes.

The circumstances as told to me by the driver (which was not me) was travelling with my 13 year old child, entered the car park, found a space and went to the machine, the only one in the car park, which was out of order. The driver then attempted to pay by the app detailed on the signage, but did not get a verification code to allow payment. They took a photo of the defective machine which was the only machine in the car park so there was no alternative way to pay. The driver, realising they would be  unable to pay, got back in the car and left the car park to find parking elsewhere. A couple of minutes later I found a verification code on my phone - I was at home. It seems like when using the bank card on the app, the details from the bank related to the bank card were linked to my phone number not the drivers. I immediately rang the driver to see what was going on, but by that point they had already driven out to park elsewhere.

I also found a reminder letter (photo attached) and a number of letters from Trace Debt recovery, and now from Moorside Legal. They are stating I now owe £170.

I guess we are now beyond the time of any appeal, so this will need to be treated as if it had been ignored (which it had, but not intentionally).

What's the best approach here? Have I go any hope of fighting this and if so, what's the best way to go about doing it? (I'm assuming its best not to contact the legal people at this stage?)

Thanks for any and all advice!

https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2FpDXEwgn&data=05%7C02%7Csarah.marwick%40nhs.net%7Ce2dce5b915ca437e0c9308dd3188afbe%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638721185310285100%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SE5%2FmsqFd8PBxOEoWtdKIAmGkpVGKrV3SKKv2tVZgKQ%3D&reserved=0 (https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2FpDXEwgn&data=05%7C02%7Csarah.marwick%40nhs.net%7Ce2dce5b915ca437e0c9308dd3188afbe%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638721185310285100%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SE5%2FmsqFd8PBxOEoWtdKIAmGkpVGKrV3SKKv2tVZgKQ%3D&reserved=0)