-
Great work, well done! Make sure they pay you ;)
Given that you're posting this 19 minutes after the list time for the hearing, we can assume it was a relatively brief affair.
-
Well done, and thanks to @DWMB2 for deleting my earlier irrelevant comment. Moorside appears to have followed up its original unreasonable behaviour with more of the same in its defence.
-
SUCCESS!!!!!!!
Claim for costs granted at £490.74
Judge in his judgement commented that the Claim was fundamentally "Defective". Used his discretion and granted costs summarily assessed at £490.74 and payable in 14 days
-
Have deleted a couple of back and forth comments to reduce noise - this is not a hearing of the initial claim (that having been struck out), nor is it a counter claim. It is a hearing in respect of the OP's costs application.
-
If there is a legitimate explanation as to why 'technical issues' have made it impossible to file a witness statement for a hearing they have been aware of since 10th December until 3 hours before the hearing, then it is an explanation beyond my comprehension. They could have got around any such issue (if one existed) by attending the hearing...
I think your primary point on the WS is as I noted above, that serving one so late is on its own unreasonable, then if you need it, you can draw attention to the fact you disagree with some of its contents, as Intercity rightly notes.
Good luck - have all these arguments ready to go - depending on the judge, you might not have to say much (particularly if it's the same one that struck out their claim in the first place). Let us know how you get on.
-
Plus, "I had a number of questions for their representative and their non-attendance puts me at a disadvantage."
-
When combined with non-attendance, the WS is nothing but second / third hand hearsay evidence - you can point that out.
-
exactly. THye did not respond to any of my emails before
-
"Our only computer has been broken since 10th December. Miraculously it started working again today at 12.14pm."
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
this was received at 12.14 for a 3pm hearing and they state in their email to the court
We act for the Claimant in the above matter.
By way of filing, please find attached the Claimant's Witness Statement.
We confirm the same has been served on the Defendant by way of service.
Notice of non-attendance
Please accept this email as the Claimant’s notice of non-attendance. We kindly request that the Court consider the said Witness Statement in lieu of attendance. We could not send the Witness Statement earlier due to internal technical issues suffered in document production.
-
On the face if it John Moody's assertion that the case was struck out 'purely because he signed the documents' appears incorrect - the Judge also commented on their failure to follow CPR in his strike out commentary. He also comments on Moorside's serial behaviour in that respect.
This needs to be drawn to the Judge's attention at the hearing.
-
What time was this received?
I note it is dated with today's date - this would seem to mean they have also only sent it to the court today. When you have the opportunity I would point out to the judge that the witness statement is dated today, that you received it less than ___ hours before the hearing, and that you are of the view that it is further unreasonable conduct of them to send a 54 page bundle on the day of the hearing, essentially ambushing you with evidence you have had no reasonable opportunity to consider and prepare a response to.
They've had since 10th December to respond to this.
-
Please see the link attached
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ddcc35c1-1f7b-4a0d-b70c-7b580e21f9de
-
Google Drive is often used, ensure that the settings are correct and post a link here. Dropbox and other things also possible.
-
I have just received the following albeit somewhat last minute from Moorside for a hearing today. I only propose to send the statement to you as the entire document is some 54 pages. How can I send the attachment to you?
-
In the circumstances, other than hat you provided previously is there any other advice/guidance? it looks like I will need to attend the hearing listed this coming week.
The above post is a pretty comprehensive summary of what to expect at the upcoming hearing. The fact they have declined to even respond to your contact is further evidence you can present in the matter of costs.
-
Hi,
Trust you are keeping well.
I have written to Moorside and chased up further offering to settle the matter at an agreed costs claim figure. They have disregarded all emails and not responded at all.
In the circumstances, other than hat you provided previously is there any other advice/guidance? it looks like I will need to attend the hearing listed this coming week.
-
Excellent news. The order you have quoted is simply the court listing a hearing for your costs application. The parking claim itself is already struck out and remains dead. The only live issue is whether the claimant should now be ordered to pay your costs and, if so, how much. You must attend that hearing; if you do not, the judge can just refuse the application or make no order.
Between now and 16 January 2026, you should get three things in order.
First, assemble a small, focused bundle of documents. You should have at least:
– Your N244 and any witness statement you filed with it.
– The judge’s order dated 3 October 2025 which struck out the original particulars and gave them the “lifeline” with a deadline of 20 October.
– The claimant’s “Further/Amended Particulars of Claim” dated 20 October 2025, including the Statement of Truth signed by “John Moody, litigation paralegal”.
– Your email or letter to the court explaining why the Further PoC did not comply and drawing attention to Mazur and the Legal Services Act issues.
– The strike-out order dated 5 November 2025 saying the claim is struck out and making no order as to costs.
– The latest order listing the 16 January 2026 costs hearing.
Take at least two copies of this bundle to court: one for you and a spare that can be handed up if the judge wants it.
Second, prepare a clear costs schedule. This is a simple one-page breakdown of what you are asking for. You base it on the Litigant-in-Person (LiP) rate of £24 per hour. List, in plain language and with realistic hours, the time you spent on necessary work caused by the claim and by their unreasonable conduct.
For example, time spent reading the Letter of Claim and claim form, researching and drafting the defence, dealing with allocation, reading and analysing the Further PoC and the Mazur issue, and preparing the N244 and this costs application. Add up the hours, multiply by £24, and then add any actual out-of-pocket expenses such as the N244 court fee, postage/printing, and your travel (public transport or mileage at 45/mile return plus parking) to attend the costs hearing. Put a single total at the bottom. Make sure the hours are honest and not obviously inflated.
Third, have a short note of what you will say to the judge. You do not need to file it formally; it is mainly for you. In that note, set out briefly:
- that the claim was struck out by the court under CPR 3.3 and 3.4,
- that you are the successful party,
- that in small claims the court can only award costs under CPR 27.14, and
- that you rely on 27.14(2)(g) because of the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour.
Then list, in simple terms, what you say was unreasonable:
- vague and defective particulars;
- failure to comply properly with the October order;
- the court noting this was not the first breach;
- the use of a “litigation paralegal” to sign statements of truth and conduct litigation despite Mazur confirming that unqualified staff cannot conduct litigation;
- and the fact that you had to spend considerable time and effort defending a claim which the court then struck out of its own motion.
Finish your note with a simple line along the lines of: “I respectfully invite the court to find the claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and to order them to pay my costs as per the attached schedule, within 14 days.”
On the day of the hearing, the judge will usually start by confirming that this is your application for costs and then ask why you say you are entitled to them. Use your note to anchor yourself.
Explain that you are the successful party, that you are only claiming the fixed litigant-in-person rate and reasonable expenses, and that in your submission the claimant’s conduct has gone beyond ordinary mistakes and clearly crossed the CPR 27.14(2)(g) “unreasonable behaviour” threshold. Hand up your costs schedule if the judge does not already have it.
If someone attends for Moorside (highly unlikely) and tries to dismiss the situation as minor “errors”, calmly bring the judge back to the realities:
- the claimant is not a litigant in person but a regulated firm of solicitors who hold themselves out as professionals in this area.
- Despite that, they issued and pursued a claim which the court itself found so defective that it was struck out of the court’s own initiative under CPR 3.3 and 3.4.
- The strike-out order expressly records repeated breaches of the CPR and references Mazur, confirming that unqualified staff cannot conduct litigation or sign statements of truth.
You can say that for an SRA-regulated firm this pattern is not just unreasonable but frankly embarrassing and falls well below the standards expected of competent solicitors; it should not be for a consumer defendant to absorb the time and cost of dealing with that level of procedural incompetence. You can add, without overdoing it, that such conduct is of a kind that may merit separate consideration by the SRA, but that for present purposes you simply ask the court to mark it appropriately by exercising its discretion under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and ordering the claimant to pay your costs as set out in your schedule.
As for contacting Moorside beforehand, you are entitled to try. You can send a “without prejudice save as to costs” email offering to settle your costs application if they pay an agreed sum. Keep it short and factual: refer to the fact the claim has been struck out, that a costs hearing is listed, that you consider their conduct unreasonable, and that you will be seeking an order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for the amount in your schedule. Then state the sum you would accept in full and final settlement of your costs, on condition it is paid by a specific date, and that if they do not agree you will proceed to the hearing and may show the judge that you made a reasonable settlement proposal. You can pitch the offer either at the full figure in your schedule or slightly discounted; that is up to you.
In short: the claim itself is finished, you have a discrete hearing on your costs, you should turn up with a tidy bundle, a sensible costs schedule, and a clear explanation of why their conduct was unreasonable and why the judge should now exercise the 27.14(2)(g) discretion in your favour.
Here is a draft email you can send to Moorside Legal at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (or any other email address they may have used to send you correspondence. You CC yourself also:
Subject: UKCPS Ltd v [Your Name] – Costs Application Listed 16 January 2026
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
Dear Sirs,
I write regarding the above matter.
As you are aware, by order dated 5 November 2025 the court struck out your client’s claim of its own initiative under CPR 3.3 and 3.4, expressly referring to repeated breaches of the CPR and to Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). I am therefore the wholly successful party. The only issue now outstanding is my application for costs, which has been listed for hearing at 3:00 pm on 16 January 2026.
In my submission, the conduct of this litigation by a supposedly professional, SRA-regulated firm of solicitors has gone well beyond ordinary procedural mistakes. Issuing and pursuing a vague and non-compliant claim, failing properly to comply with the court’s October order, and using an unqualified “litigation paralegal” to conduct litigation and sign statements of truth after Mazur is not just unreasonable; it is embarrassing for a firm in your position and falls materially below the standard expected of competent solicitors. It should not be left to a consumer defendant to absorb the time and cost of dealing with that level of procedural incompetence.
At the costs hearing I will be inviting the court to find that your and your client’s behaviour amounts to “unreasonable behaviour” within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g) and to order that you pay my costs of and occasioned by the proceedings, at the litigant-in-person rate of £24 per hour together with my out-of-pocket expenses, as set out in my schedule.
However, in order to avoid the need for a further hearing and the associated time and expense for all concerned, I am prepared to compromise. If you agree to pay the sum of £[insert figure you are willing to accept] in full and final settlement of my costs, such payment to be made within 14 days of acceptance, I will notify the court that my costs application is withdrawn and that no further order is required.
If you do not accept this proposal, or if I receive no response, I will proceed with the application on 16 January 2026 and may place this letter before the court on the issue of costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
-
Hi,
Trust you are well.
I am unsure how to send you the copy so I paste below the order I have received from the court following my application for costs to be paid by the claimant:
"The hearing of the defendant's application for an order that the Claimant pay the Defendants costs (see copy attached) will take place In Person at 3:00 PM .on the 16 January 2026 at. the County Court at ?????. When you should attend. 30 minutes has been allowed for this hearing.
Cases are listed in accordance with local hearing arrangements determined by the Judiciary and implemented by court staff. Every effort is made to ensure that hearings start either at the time specified or as soon as possible thereafter. However, listing practices or other factors may mean that delay is unavoidable. Furthermore, in some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different court. Please contact the court for further information on the listing arrangements that may apply to your hearing".
Any advice, guidance or assistance appreciated in readiness for this hearing.
Also, is to advisable to write to Moorside Legal and suggest to them to settle out of court and avoid attendance at the hearing? i.e pay what I have claimed and call it a day.
Look forward to your responses.
-
You can still pursue costs despite the “no order for costs” wording. That direction only means the court didn’t award costs automatically at strike-out. It doesn’t block a later application.
Because the claim was on the small claims track, you must base any request only on CPR 27.14(2)(g). That rule lets the court order one party to pay the other’s costs if they have behaved unreasonably. No other CPR provision about costs applies after allocation.
Act quickly. File an N244 within about 14 days of the strike-out order or as soon as possible. Ask for:
• An order that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs of and caused by the proceedings, summarily assessed under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
• Payment within 14 days.
Support it with a short witness statement showing the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour (failure to comply with the October order, defective particulars, use of an unauthorised paralegal). Attach the October and November orders and the offending pleadings.
List only reasonable post-issue costs: time preparing the defence and correspondence, time spent on the strike-out issue, and this application. Use the litigant-in-person rate of £24 per hour (PD 46 para 3.4) and include any court fees or minor out-of-pocket expenses.
-
Sorry for the further post but just to clarify. The Court made a No Order for Costs - is that just applicable to the claimants?
In case Moorside do anything after this recent order was made, can I still pursue my costs? If so, do I have a time limit to do so? If I do, can I only claim reasonable costs after the claim was issued.
Also, are you able to accept a financial contribution if I do pursue costs and have these granted? It is only fair that you should be compensated given all the work you have done to assist on this matter.
-
Thank you again.
I think I'll let "sleeping dogs lie" so to say unless they do anything.
The Court was Huddersfield County Court and the Judge was District Judge Akers for your information.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Great news. You don’t need to redact the name of the court or the judge. Please let us know those details.
Well done for persevering and following the advice.
That’s a complete win. The court has struck the claim out of its own initiative under CPR 3.3(4), citing both CPR 3.4 (abuse or no reasonable grounds) and Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341, which established that unqualified staff such as “litigation paralegals” cannot conduct litigation or sign statements of truth.
This means:
• The claim is permanently struck out, not stayed or adjourned.
• The judge explicitly recognised both procedural defects (the invalid statement of truth) and a pattern of non-compliance.
• “No order for costs” simply means the court is not automatically awarding costs. It does not prevent you from making an application for costs if you can show unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) or CPR 44.2(2)(a).
You now have two possible steps depending on how much you wish to pursue it:
Option 1 – Let it stand (simplest)
You can simply accept the strike-out as final. The claim is dead unless the claimant makes a formal application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, which they are highly unlikely to succeed in.
Keep the order safe — that’s your complete defence outcome.
Option 2 – Apply for Costs
If you want to recover your wasted time and expenses, you can file an N244 seeking your costs, supported by a short witness statement.
You’d rely on:
CPR 44.2(2)(a) – the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs.
CPR 27.14(2)(g) – the court may order costs where a party has behaved unreasonably.
You’d argue that:
• The Claimant’s repeated breaches of CPR 16.4, its failure to comply with the 3 October 2025 order, and its reliance on an unauthorised “litigation paralegal” to sign the statement of truth amount to unreasonable conduct. The Defendant should not be out of pocket for having to prepare a Defence and correspondence caused solely by the Claimant’s misconduct.
You can request:
• Your time spent (at £24 per hour, Litigant-in-Person rate under PD 46 para 3.4).
• Postage, printing and travel if any.
A short schedule attached will suffice.
-
Hi,
Trust you are keeping well.
I have received an Order dated 6 November 2025 from the court today which states the following (I have removed the name of the Judge and the Court:
"Before District Judge ????? sitting at the County Court at ???????.
Upon the Court considering the Claimant's amended particulars of claim dated 20 October 2025
And upon the Court noting that the statement of truth to the same has been signed by John Moody in their capacity as a "litigation paralegal"
And upon the Court being mindful of Mazur && anr v. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (2025)] EWHC 2341 and
noting that a "litigation paralegal" is not a person that is authorised to "conduct litigation" as defined by Section 12(1) and 13(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007.
And upon the Court giving careful consideration to Civil Procedure Rule 3.3 and 3.4, being mindful of the
overriding objective and further being mindful that this is not the first time in these proceedings that the Claimant has been in breach of the CPR and/or a fundamental principle of litigation.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The claim is struck out.
2. No order for costs.
Dated 5 November 2025"
I am correct to assume this is the end of the matter? If so, all thanks to you (and your team).
-
Thank you.
Will do as instructed and keep you posted.
-
DO NOT send anything as your amended defence until the very last minute. If you have not heard anting back from either the court or Moorside Legal by 3:30pm on Monday 3rd November, you can send the following as your "holding" amended defence. It is sent as a PDF attachment in an email to the court and CC'd to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and yourself.
I repeat, do not send anything before the deadline and then, only if you have had no response from either the court or Moorside.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [County Court name]
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UKCPS Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. This Amended Defence is filed without prejudice to the Defendant’s position that the claim stood struck out automatically under paragraph 3 of the Court’s Order dated 3 October 2025 owing to the Claimant’s non-compliance with paragraphs 1–2. It is filed protectively and in the alternative only.
2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all.
A. Non-compliance with the Court’s Order / CPR
3. By Order dated 03/10/2025 the court struck out the original Particulars of Claim (PoC) for breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) and directed the Claimant, by 4:00pm on 20/10/2025, to file and serve PoC which (i) state whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and, if so, identify the “relevant obligation”; or (ii) if not under PoFA, identify the cause of action; and, where contract is alleged, to set out the contracting parties, the consideration and the alleged breach.
3. The “Further Particulars of Claim” served by email at 15:47 on 20/10/2025 still fail to comply. They equivocate between PoFA, contract and a vague “licence not granted”, never elect a single cause of action, do not identify any “relevant obligation”, fail to plead any period of parking, do not identify the contractual parties, consideration or the specific term allegedly breached, and plead no coherent tort. They are generic, not fact-specific.
4. In consequence, the Claimant has not complied with paragraphs 1–2 of the Order. Under paragraph 3, the claim stands struck out automatically. The Defendant invites the Court to record strike-out and deal with costs. If, however, the Court treats the Further PoC as compliant, the Defendant pleads to the merits as follows.
B. No contract formed: prohibitive signage / no offer
5. The signage relied upon (Claimant’s exhibit “Controlled Land – Terms and Conditions”) is prohibitive, as held in the persuasive appellate decision in PCM(UK) Ltd v Bull & Others (Southampton CC, 2016, DJ Glen), prohibitive signage cannot give rise to a contractual licence and is incapable of creating liability in contract.:
(a) “Parking is only permitted for residents … in possession of a valid virtual permit.”
(b) “No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of time.”
6. Such wording makes no contractual offer to non-permit holders; it is a prohibition. With no offer, there can be no acceptance or consideration by a non-permit motorist. At most, the facts alleged could amount to trespass—actionable only by the landholder and sounding in nominal damages. The Claimant pleads neither landowner title nor a tort, and has no locus to claim in trespass.
C. PoFA not engaged and keeper not liable
7. If (contrary to §5–6) the Claimant relies on PoFA keeper liability, it has not met the strict requirements of Schedule 4:
(i) Paragraph 9(2)(a): the NtK (dated 17/10/2024) does not specify any period of parking. The CCTV stills span only ~86 seconds and some frames are not timestamped. Instantaneous images are not a “period of parking” and cannot evidence that the vehicle was parked at all (as opposed to momentary presence, manoeuvring or stopping to read terms).
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(e): the NtK’s wording focuses on the driver being liable and merely “invites” the keeper to pay or name the driver, rather than clearly inviting the keeper to pay the parking charges as PoFA requires.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(f)–(i): strict proof is required that all mandatory information and warnings were given in the prescribed form and within the statutory deadlines.
8. PoFA is a statutory gateway. Non-compliance is fatal to any attempt to hold the registered keeper liable. The Claimant has not pleaded, still less proved, full compliance as held in the persuasive appellate decision in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (Leeds CC, 2023), where no evidence of a period of parking exists, PoFA liability cannot arise.
D. No standing and non-disclosed landowner authority
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landholder that: (a) identifies the site and signage in force at the material time; (b) confers authority to form contracts with motorists and to litigate in the Claimant’s own name; and (c) sets the £100 sum as liquidated damages (not a penalty or disguised damages). A bare assertion of authority is insufficient.
E. Inadequate particulars and lack of evidence
10. The Further PoC rely on a facsimile sign, not proof of the actual terms posted at the material time and entrance(s). The Defendant requires strict proof of:
(a) full-site signage plans and photographs contemporaneous with the material date;
(b) the visibility/legibility of any purported terms from a driver’s position;
(c) the route taken and whether any contractual terms could be read before the alleged breach.
11. The CCTV stills do not evidence parking or any breach of a clear term. An 86-second window is equally consistent with a driver stopping briefly and/or reading the signs and leaving—conduct that cannot fairly be penalised. The industry's own Code of Practice confirms that a mere instant (or seconds) does not constitute a “period of parking” capable of proving breach and requires a minimum of 5 minutes is a "consideration period" before any charge can be issued.
F. Unrecoverable additional sums (“debt recovery”)
12. The claim includes an added £60 “recovery/administration” sum. The persuasive appellate decision in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020, Sheffield CC, HHJ Jackson) confirmed that “debt recovery” add-ons are not recoverable. This is double recovery and not recoverable in small claims for private parking charges.
13. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis allowed a single sum (there, £85) as a deterrent where clear, prominent signage existed; it did not endorse bolt-ons. Numerous circuit-wide decisions have disallowed such add-ons, and the Government’s Private Parking(Code of Practice) Act 2019 has banned them. The court is invited to strike out the add-on as an abuse of process.
G. Signature / conduct of litigation
14. The Further PoC are verified by a statement of truth signed “John Moody, Litigation Paralegal”. Only an authorised litigator may conduct litigation or sign statements of truth on behalf of a represented party. Absent evidence that Mr Moody is an authorised person, conducting litigation, including filing or serving pleadings and signing statements of truth, is a reserved legal activity under sections 12 and 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007, as reaffirmed in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The SoT is defective. The court may disregard a defective statement of truth and/or exercise its case-management powers as to sanctions.
H. Beavis distinguished
15. If the Claimant seeks reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis, the facts are far removed: (i) signage here is prohibitive, not an offer to all users on clear, prominent terms; (ii) no commercial justification is pleaded; (iii) the alleged parking is not evidenced as a meaningful duration; and (iv) the claim includes unlawful bolt-ons. Beavis does not assist the Claimant.
I. Conclusion
16. Accordingly, the Defendant invites the Court to confirm the automatic strike-out under paragraph 3 of the Order dated 3 October 2025. In the alternative, if the claim is treated as subsisting, the Defendant asks that it be dismissed in its entirety with costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) for the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
You can sign the defence by simply typing your full name as the signature.
-
Hi,
Not heard anything fro the Court or Moorside Legal following the email sent to the court as suggested.
Should we begin the process of filing the defence?
I await to hearing from you.
Regards
-
Send the following email to the court and Cc in Moorside Legal and yourself with the following:
Subject: UKCPS Ltd v [Defendant] — Non-compliance with Order of 03/10/2025; automatic strike-out (para 3)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I refer to District Judge [judges name which you redacted]’s Order dated 03/10/2025.
Paragraphs 1–2 struck out the original particulars and required the Claimant by 4:00pm on 20/10/2025 to file and serve Particulars of Claim that:
(i) state whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and, if so, identify the relevant obligation; or, if not brought under PoFA, identify the cause of action; and
(ii) if contract is relied upon, identify the contracting parties, the consideration and the alleged breach; or, if tort is relied upon, identify the tort.
At 15:47 on 20/10/2025 the Claimant served “Further Particulars of Claim”, signed under a Statement of Truth by “John Moody, Litigation Paralegal”. Those particulars do not comply with the Order. They do not elect a single cause of action. They do not identify any PoFA “relevant obligation” or any period of parking. If contract is alleged, they do not identify the parties, the specific term allegedly breached, or any site-specific consideration. No trespass or other tort is pleaded.
Further, the Statement of Truth and service appear to have been effected by a non-authorised individual. In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) the High Court reiterated that an unauthorised employee cannot conduct litigation or sign a statement of truth on behalf of a party.
The Claimant has therefore failed to comply with paragraphs 1–2 of the Order. Under paragraph 3, the claim stands struck out automatically and without further order. I respectfully invite the Court to record the strike-out on the file and to vacate any listed dates.
I also seek my costs of and occasioned by this issue. I seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Alternatively, I seek a summary assessment under CPR 44.2 in the Court’s general case-management discretion.
In view of paragraph 3 above, I also invite the Court to direct that a copy of its order and the offending documents are referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation.
Exhibits:
A1: Order of 03/10/2025.
A2: Claimant’s service email timed 15:47 on 20/10/2025.
A3: “Further Particulars of Claim” (showing lack of particulars).
A4: Statement of Truth page signed “John Moody, Litigation Paralegal”.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Claim number]
If you get no confirmation before the defence deadline, make sure you give me a couple of days notice to prepare the amended defence. Keep the exhibits lean (A1–A4 above) for this request; the PoFA and signage evidence belongs in the defence if the court does not accept automatic strike-out.
-
please see the attache link for the Further Particualrs of Claim and supporting documents
https://postimg.cc/gallery/CFB15rZ
-
There are plenty of other free sties that allow you to upload documents. Use one that preferably doesn't include soft p0rn links. A good one to use is https://imgbb.com. You can't show images of PDF files so you need to convert them into .jpg or .png files first. Try https://www.pdf2go.com for that.
Who signed the SoT on the further PoC? I need the name and position within Moorside Legal!!!
The Further PoC now:
• Alleges that the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012;
• States that the defendant was the keeper and/or driver of the vehicle;
• Identifies the “consideration” as the facility to park;
• Asserts that the breach arose by parking contrary to displayed terms;
• Claims a £100 PCN plus £60 debt-recovery uplift; and
• Adds interest and fees to reach £245 total.
• Exhibits are referenced (PCN, signage, and photographs) but not visible because you have failed to upload them.
Preliminary Assessment of Compliance
At first reading, the “Further PoC”:
• Superficially follows the judge’s order by stating whether the claim relies on PoFA and a “relevant contract”.
• Still fails to provide the exact contractual wording or to identify the specific clause breached—contrary to PD 16 §7.5 and the requirements of paragraph 2 of the order (“…identifying the clause or obligation breached, the consideration, and the nature of any trespass or tort”).
• Retains the vague “keeper and/or driver” formulation, so it does not specify the cause of action with precision.
• Provides no breakdown of interest calculation or reference to any statutory basis under s. 69 County Courts Act 1984.
Consequently, while Moorside Legal met the filing deadline, there is a serious argument that they have not achieved substantive compliance with the court’s order. A claim remains strike-out-eligible under paragraph 3 of that order if the court determines that the directions were not properly satisfied.
Further, just looking at the cover letter with that, John Moody has conducted litigation within the meaning of section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Here’s why:
1. Conducting litigation includes, among other things,• filing or serving documents on behalf of a party;
• corresponding formally with the court on behalf of a party in an existing claim; and
• performing steps required by procedural rules in the conduct of the claim.
2. The email you’ve shown is addressed to the court (“Please update the Court record”) and explicitly states that Moorside acts for the Claimant, serving the “updated Particulars of Claim and Enclosures”.
That is a formal procedural step in the litigation.
3. The sender is identified as “John Moody, Paralegal.”Unless he personally holds an individual authorisation (e.g. as a solicitor, CILEX litigator, or other authorised person under the LSA 2007), he is not permitted to conduct litigation, even if his employer (Moorside Legal) is an SRA-authorised entity.
The High Court reaffirmed this in
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) — unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision; only authorised or exempt individuals may do so.
4. Therefore, by sending that email on behalf of the claimant and directly corresponding with the court regarding service of pleadings, John Moody has undertaken a reserved legal activity that he is not individually authorised to perform.
That step is technically a breach of section 14 LSA 2007, potentially exposing both the individual and the firm to regulatory action if the act was unauthorised.
I will now wait for you to answer the questions and show us the attachments that were sent with the further PoC before I advise on what you should do next.
-
Here is the link to the letter from Moorside Legal
https://postimg.cc/BL5tCL0V
-
I thought the whole document was uploaded on the separate link including the email. I sent two links. not sure how else to get the document to you.
I understand you cannot put court documents on a public domain that is why I have redacted. I am content to send you the whole document should you wish directly.
The email and documents from Moorside Legal were received at 15.47 today but I didn't see till later and did email the court to enquire if anything had been received before the 4pm deadline. seems they did send before the deadline.
I am assuming I am going to have to submit each page individually through the link you sent previously. Let me see what I can do.
The email and the points of claim are from a JohnMoody. Litigation Paralegal, trust that assists.
-
Why have you reacted the location in the PoC???? And where is the rest of the PoC, especially including the Statement of Truth (SoT) and the signature and name of the person signing it????
What time did they send those to you? If by email, the time the email was sent.
The ONLY names you need to redact are YOURS!!! The judge ands the name of the county court are not secret or outside of the public domain!
-
these are the links to the documents
https://i.postimg.cc/DwnPDt02/2025-10-20-Email-from-Moorside-Legal-15-47-REDACTED.png
https://i.postimg.cc/4N59KnfB/2025-10-20-Further-Particulars-of-Claim-and-documents-REDACTED.png
-
I received the following today just before the deadline set by the court.
Can you review and let me know what can be done now. As will be seen the person dealing with the matter is a litigation paralegal to answer your earlier question.
I will upload the documents through the process previously suggested.
-
The judge has struck out the claimants PoC. However, he has thrown them a lifeline.
They must submit new PoC that answer the questions in the order, which are the ones mentioned in the defence that are missing. They must do so by 4pm 20 October. If they don’t, the claim is struck out,
If they do respond, you then have until 4pm 3 November to submit an amended defence which is based on the amended PoC.
Let’s wait and see whether the claimant complies. If they do, show us the new PoC and we can create a suitable defence in response.
Oh, and there’s no need to redact Judge Akers name or the county court where he sits.
-
Please see the contents on the link below.
https://postimg.cc/mcbjCyXT
Thank you
-
Guide: Posting Images (https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/)
-
I have today received an Order for the Court. I am unable to send you an attachment as I cannot see a link for an attachment as I need to know if there any steps I need to take. Your advice guidance would be appreciated.
Many thanks as always
-
And did you get the information you were advised to ask?
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
We need this information because we believe that the person who was acting for Moorside is not authorised to conduct litigation (acting for Moorside, even if under supervision) and they are in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007, which is a criminal offence.
If you need to understand more about why we are now asking these questions, you can read this thread:
Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/why-the-recent-high-court-appellate-case-of-mazur-is-very-relevant-to-all-cases-/)
-
Yes, I had a mediation call from a guy called Stuart. He was very pleasant and more or less said what you state and concluded the call on basis that there was no agreement and so would report back to court and just to wait and hear from them. He simply said that Moorside representative was maintaining their claim and because of my stance there was no prospect of a settlement and he would inform Morrside as well.
-
You are showing a naivety that this firm of utterly incompetent, supposed legal professionals at Moorside hope for. You have had, or should have had, your mandatory mediation phone call.
That phone call was supposed to be your opportunity to negotiate a settlement. Our advice is to only offer £0. The mediation is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved. It is without prejudice and has no bearing on the case going forward. When was you mediation call and what did you say on it?
This is the advice we give to defendants for their mediation call:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
If the claim has now been transferred to your local county court, you now have to wait for the judges directions which you should show us when you receive them. They will contain some dates and deadlines which are important.
The odds of this actually reaching hearing are very slim to none. This is because they are hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who is going to be easily intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear. They will wait until the very last minute to discontinue, if the claim is not struck out beforehand.
So, did you have a mediation call? If yes, what did you say? If not, then just wait for the directions and then show us when you receive them.
-
No.
You offered £0 to settle in the mediation session and it was not accepted.
-
Good evening,
I have now received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings to transfer the case to a local court for allocation and case management directions with a notice of allocation to be sent out in due course. Clearly mediation failed to resolve the matter.
In your expert opinion should I suggest a resolution to Moorside to conclude matters by agreement? Basically, each party goes on their own respective paths and that is the end of the matter? If so, do you have a template to use to make such a proposal / offer?
Alternatively, your thoughts.
-
Please don’t post in CAPITALS like that, it’s hard to read and it’s akin to shouting.
They need to have your email address. If they call you, block their number.
-
If Moorside try to contact you by phone, you can simply block their number. As for your email address, do you really want to have to rely on unreliable postal service for delivery of any documents?
-
HOW CAN I AVOID MOORSIDE LEGAL HAVING MY CONTACT DETAILS AS I DO NOT WANT THEM TO BOMBARD ME WITH EMAILS AND TELEPHONE CALLS LIKE THE DEBTOR COLLECTORS WERE DOING. CAN I ASK THE COURT NOT TO DISCLOSE MY DETAILS AND JUST PROVIDE TO THE COURT?
-
Of course you provide a contact phone number.
-
DO I NEED TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE MEDIATION SECTION? AS IT SUGGESTS - "If you do not provide contact details for mediation, your appointment may not take place, which could then result in sanctions for non attendance".
-
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
Good evening,
Further to the previous communications and attachments. I have now received the following documents form the Court.
What are the next steps? Can you assist?
I have also informed the Court and Moorside Legal that I am not pursuing the counter-claim.
Look forward to hearing from you.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you again.
Please see attached received today. Any action to take other than the recent posts?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
However, anything you send to the CNBC has to be copied in to the claimant or their solicitor.
This might be a good thing - the chances of the claimant discontinuing are potentially higher if they know it's just a defended claim. If there was (or they believed there was) still a live counterclaim that they'd have to send someone along to defend, then they'd be more likely to persist with the claim as they'd be sending someone anyway.
-
Well, they're going to strike out your counterclaim if you don't do anything. It's just that it has crewed up the process. You can try emailing the CNBC with your request. However, anything you send to the CNBC has to be copied in to the claimant or their solicitor.
-
Thank you.
Do you think it would be in order for me to email the court and say I withdraw the counter claim but still intend to pursue the defence.
Unfortunately, I am not going to get round to telephone them and also do not want them to make an administrative error.
-
you need to call the CNBC and tell them you do not intend to counterclaim.
-
Hi,
No I did not pay any counterclaim fee. In fact, I did not respond to the Notice to Pay and the notes on that suggested if I did not pay then that would be dismissed or words to that effect.
With the papers I sent you as an attachment the exact copy of the response I filed with the Court by email and also posted to them together with the Defence you provided the case laws and draft Order.
Does that help you?
All was sent by email and by post within specified times.
-
This has all gone a bit Pete Tong - I assume you haven't paid any counterclaim fee? If not, it should be dead by now anyway.
With regards to the paper form, did you fill anything in on the defence section?
-
Also, should I register through the MCOL or is to no longer possible?
-
Hi,
Are you able to assist?
I sent everything to court by email and by post as - I believe - was suggested as I did not have access to a Govt Gateway account.
As stated, I only put on the response that they should reimburse my costs and out of pocket expenses but I have not done anything about that and left it.
I have not heard anything back form the court as yet other than the Notice to Pay as sent to you to review / consider.
The only other documents were from Morside Legal again as sent to you for review / consideration.
Please help!!! (pretty please).
Again, apologies if I did anything wrong in the submission of the papers to the court.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
:'( Apologies. Did I get in=t wrong? I thought I had to complete the response pack as well together with your proposed documents. I only put on that I expected any legal and out of pocket expenses to be reimbursed. Does that now affect the case?
-
Who on earth advised you to counterclaim??????????
In post #10 you were instructed on how to respond to the claim and how ti submit an AoS if you needed extra time. Why did you complete the paper AoS when you were given explicit instructions on how to file it using MCOL??????
-
Further to sending the defence and response pack to the Court. I attach a copy of the response and the subsequent letter / Notice to pay I received from the Court. I have taken no action to date.
I have on 11 July now received a letter dated 7 July 2025 with payment instructions, a defence to the counter-claim and a questionnaire from Moorside Legal.
What are the next steps?
Await your responses.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Typical claim issued by the incompetents at Moorside Legal. With an issue date of 3rd June, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 7th July to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you send all the documents as a single PDF attachment (in the order of 'defence', 'draft order' and then the 2 'transcripts') in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of UKCPS Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UKCPS Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
7. Further, the Defendant responded in full to the Claimant’s Letter of Claim, raising detailed questions and requesting disclosure in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). The Claimant’s solicitor failed to respond at all to that letter, thereby breaching paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the PAPDC. The Claimant's failure to engage meaningfully or provide the requested information denied the Defendant the opportunity to understand the claim or consider settlement, frustrating the Protocol's objectives and wasting court resources.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0)
CEL v Chan Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0)
-
I have had no communications with anyone before other than the email sent and so have never agreed to pay.
Just to quickly clarify this point... They aren't claiming you have. They're claiming that the driver, by parking, agreed to the terms and conditions of parking at the site, and thereby agreed to pay a parking charge.
-
Further to your assistance and letter sent to Moorside Legal by email (copy attached (redacted). I have seen received the Court Claim (Copy attached (redacted) but no response to the email.
Interestingly, the claim form suggests "... 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D Is liable as the driver or keeper".
I have had no communications with anyone before other than the email sent and so have never agreed to pay.
Can you assist.
What should I now do given they have now issued a claim?
Await your response.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you appreciate. Will do and will keep you guys posted.
-
DO NOT respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) with what you have drafted. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not PoFA compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) and will be backed up by the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
Additionally, you will rely on Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] should this ever get as far as a hearing (extremely unlikely if you follow the advice).
All the waffle about CCTV or ANPR images is useless. Even if they had a close up HD image of the driver, they would still have no idea who that person was. There is no magical unicorn database where an image of a person can be input and out spurts all the personal details of that person.
Respond to the LoC with the following by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0).
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
-
Don't send the letter you drafted. It hurts your defence. Wait for advice.
-
Further to the above. I am also enclosing a copy of the photograph I was sent with the initial letter from UKCPS from which it can be seen the vehicle is still running at the entrance of the car park, the rear passenger is alighting from the vehicle and the car is not even in a car parking bay.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Further to the above messages I am enclosing copies of all letters received in chronological order (personal details redacted) to date.
I have to date not responded to any of these letter.
Somhow Trace and Moorside Legal have managed to get my mobile number and I have not answered them. In fact, I have blocked the various calls made to me.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and then post all documents you’re talking about to enable us to come to our own conclusions and give you good advice.
Just talking about what you’ve received without showing us isn’t very helpful!
Every case is different.
-
Would a reply in the following terms suffice - if it is suggested I reply:
"I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim dated [date] in relation to the alleged parking charge (Reference: [Reference Number]) at [Car Park Location]. I dispute this charge in its entirety and set out below my full and detailed reasons for doing so.
Firstly, I wish to make it absolutely clear that at no point was my vehicle parked in your client's car park. I was briefly stopping to drop off a passenger, a manoeuvre that took mere moments and during which the vehicle remained attended at all times. My vehicle did not enter any designated parking bays, nor was it left unattended in a manner that could constitute parking. Your client's signage, even if compliant (which I do not concede), would only apply to vehicles that were actually parked, not those engaged in a brief drop-off or pick-up. The distinction is crucial, as no contractual parking terms could possibly have been formed under these circumstances.
Furthermore, I must emphasise that your client has suffered no loss whatsoever as a result of this brief stop. The principle established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply in this situation, as that case specifically concerned vehicles that were parked, not those momentarily stopping. Your client's demand for what appears to be an arbitrary sum of £100 or more is grossly disproportionate when there has been no occupation of a parking space, no prevention of other customers from parking, and no financial loss incurred by the landowner. A parking charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to be enforceable, and in this case, there is simply no loss to estimate.
I also note with concern the evidential shortcomings in your client's case. The photographic evidence provided shows only the rear of my vehicle, failing to demonstrate that the vehicle was actually parked or left unattended. There is no visible proof of any parking contravention having occurred. In fact, the images conspicuously fail to show the driver or any activity that might constitute parking. Without clear evidence that my vehicle was parked in breach of any terms, your client's claim lacks any substantive foundation.
Additionally, should your client be attempting to pursue me as the registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I must remind you that strict compliance with the Act is required. This includes the obligation to serve a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged incident, containing all prescribed information in the correct format. Should your client have failed in any aspect of these statutory requirements, which I believe may well be the case, then I cannot be held liable as the keeper. I require your client to provide unequivocal evidence of full compliance with the Act before this matter can proceed any further.
In light of the above points, all of which I am prepared to argue robustly in court should it become necessary, I consider this matter to be closed. Should you choose to disregard this comprehensive defence and proceed with legal action, please be advised that I will not only defend the claim vigorously but will also seek to recover all associated costs incurred in doing so. I trust that upon proper consideration of the facts set out above, your client will recognise that this claim is entirely without merit and will discontinue it without further delay.
I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been dropped. Should you fail to provide such confirmation within 14 days of the date of this letter, I will have no alternative but to assume that your client intends to pursue the matter unreasonably, and I will prepare my defence accordingly".
-
I was sent a parking charge / penalty letter / Notice by UKCPS on 17 October 2024. For me going into a car park managed by them and dropping somebody off. In fact, on their own photograph you can see the passenger alighting from the carr and the car not even in a parking bay. Also, the driver cannot be seen as the car rear is facing the camer.
I have ignored their letter and so they referred to Trace Debt Recovery. Agai, I have ignored and it was then passed to 'Moorside Legal' in March 2025. I continued to ignore the letter (and some how bothe Trace and Moorside have obtaine dmy mobile telephone number and have been making calls to me which I have not answered and simply ignored and blocked.
Moorside legal on 23 April 2025 sent me a "Letter of Claim' more or less telling me to reply within 30 days. I have not done so. Should I submit a reply suc as a dispute etc or just continue to ignore.
In the meantime the original cgarge of £60.00 has now increased to £170.00 with a suggestion in the letter that is will increase to £277.00 when it goes to the County Court.
Any suggestions / ideas as to what I should or should not do?