Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello

The defence deadline is 04:00 pm today.
Can you please have a look at this proposed draft.Chat GPT helped me with this.
Defence

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies any liability to the Claimant.
The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16. The PoC do not adequately plead the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to constitute breach, the basis of the alleged debt, or how the sum claimed has been calculated.
The PoC state that the Defendant is pursued as the driver and, alternatively, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has therefore failed to identify the driver and is put to strict proof of driver identity.
The Defendant is under no legal obligation to identify the driver and no adverse inference can be drawn from the Defendant exercising that right.
The Claimant relies upon ANPR images showing entry and exit times only. Such images do not identify the driver and do not establish the actual period of parking.
The Notice to Keeper alleges a stay from 08:36:05 until 15:52:12, a period of 7 hours 16 minutes.
The ANPR images merely record a vehicle entering and leaving the site boundary. They do not prove when the vehicle was parked, whether time was spent locating a space, waiting, loading, unloading, queuing, or exiting the site.
POFA Schedule 4 requires the Claimant to specify the period of parking. Entry and exit timestamps alone do not necessarily establish a period of parking.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complied fully with all mandatory requirements of POFA Schedule 4 necessary to transfer liability from driver to keeper.
The Defendant does not admit that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant.
The Claimant has provided no evidence of the signage relied upon, its wording, prominence, positioning, illumination or compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage was sufficiently clear and prominent to communicate any alleged four-hour maximum stay and to create a legally binding contract.
The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it possessed valid landowner authority at the material time to offer parking contracts, issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in its own name.
The Notice to Keeper merely refers to the land as the Claimant's client's private property. This is not evidence of authority.
The original parking charge was £100. The claim seeks £170 before interest and court fees.
The additional £70 is denied. It is not supported by POFA, was not incurred, and appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned the parking charge itself and does not support the addition of an extra £70 debt recovery sum.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for the additional £70.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered damages in the sum claimed or at all.
The Court is invited to find that the Claimant has failed to establish driver liability, keeper liability, contractual liability, entitlement to the additional £70, or any cause of action against the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: ___________________

Dated: ___________________

Hello, Everyone

I would be really grateful if someone could please help me finalise the draft for my defence to this claim, made by DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC.

Timeline of the claim form so far:

The claim was issued on 18/05/2026

AoS was submitted on 26/05/2026.

AoS was received on 26/05/2026.

After reading the information on the forums here, I worked out that the deadline to submit my defence is 4:00 pm on 19/06/2026. My calculation of 33 days may be wrong; please correct me if I am mistaken.
Unfortunately, I was away due to pressing commitments; hence, I could not ask for help earlier.

The background to receiving this claim form is that the driver parked at Apsley Retail Park, where parking is allowed for a maximum of 4 hours for shoppers.
They needed to attend a hospital appointment in London and had initially planned to drive, but after a major accident on the motorway, they decided to park in a nearby town and take the train instead. The driver hoped to get back within 4 hours, but I didn't go as planned, and the car ended up overstaying in the car park for 3 hours and 16 minutes.

28/11/2025 NTK Sent - Ignored; no communication was made to UKPC
Front
https://flic.kr/p/2sje7SU
Back
https://flic.kr/p/2sjjCJ8

All following letters from DCB Legal were ignored; no communication was made

Then the claim form was received, dated 18/06/2026
https://flic.kr/p/2sje8FT

After reading many similar topics here, I found a couple of defence drafts written by b789, but I'm not sure they fit my situation.

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 adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

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 16.7.3(1);

(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 submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

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 adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.

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 16.7.3(1);

(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 submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.

Could you please have a look at these and help me draft one that is most suitable in my situation, please?
Thank you so much

You can stop panicking. This is a standard “fishing” exercise designed to make the registered keeper either pay or name the driver.

1. No keeper liability at Gatwick Airport
Gatwick Airport land is subject to statutory control (airport byelaws). That means it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Without relevant land, PoFA cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. In plain terms: if the driver has not been identified, they cannot hold the keeper liable. That is why the original NCP letter tries to pressure the keeper with “pay or name the driver” wording. There is no legal obligation to name the driver.

So provided the keeper has not identified the driver at any point, this matter is fundamentally stuck for them. They can only pursue the driver, and they do not know who that is.

2. The Moorside “Letter Before Claim” is not a proper Letter of Claim
That letter from the utter incompetents at Moorside is a template demand. A compliant Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims must contain proper detail of the cause of action, a clear breakdown of the sum claimed, and the key documents they intend to rely upon (such as signage/terms and proof of landowner authority). What you have been sent does not do that. It reads like a payment invitation, not a protocol-compliant Letter of Claim.

3. Even if they issued a claim, it has minimal to zero chance of going to go to a hearing
They would have to plead a coherent cause of action against the keeper. Moorside are too incompetent and intellectually malnourished to do that properly. They cannot rely on PoFA, because Gatwick is not relevant land. If they try anyway, you defend on that basis and it is dead on arrival. This sort of case collapses long before any hearing because the keeper liability route is closed and they do not want the scrutiny of a defended claim where their paperwork and compliance will be examined.

4. What the Keeper should do now
Do NOT use their portal and do not ring them. Do NOT say who was driving. Do NOT get drawn into explaining the trip.

You should send a short, firm written response to Moorside along these lines:

• deny any keeper liability
• state the location is airport land subject to byelaws and therefore not relevant land under PoFA, so the keeper cannot be liable
• confirm the driver will not be identified
• state their letter is not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and request they either close the file or issue a compliant Letter of Claim with the required documents (signage terms in force, site plan, landowner authority, full breakdown of sums and the legal basis for any add-ons)
• require all further contact in writing

That is enough. You are not trying to “argue the whole case” now. You are putting them on notice that (a) Keeper liability is denied and (b) you will not be naming the driver.

5. What NOT to do

• Do not pay “to make it go away” (that is what the template is designed to achieve).
• Do not say “I wasn’t the driver” or give any narrative that hints who was.
• Do not be tempted into long complaints about ANPR failures or autopay at this stage. The winning point is simpler: no keeper liability.

Bottom line
If the driver is not identified, this is not something to worry about. They are posturing. The keeper’s position is strong because airport land blocks PoFA keeper liability entirely, and Moorside’s letter is not a proper protocol Letter of Claim. If they were stupid enough to litigate against the Keeper, it is readily defensible and very unlikely to ever reach a hearing.

Send the following email response to the morons at Moorside to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself. If it bounces back with a "not monitored" response, just send it again until it does not receive that fake bounce response:

Quote

Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [________] – National Car Parks Limited

Dear Sirs,

I am the registered keeper. Liability is denied. Any claim issued against the registered keeper will be defended in full as having no real prospects of success

1. No keeper liability (Gatwick Airport = non-relevant land)
Your client’s allegation concerns Gatwick Airport land, which is subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, there is no lawful mechanism to transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The driver will not be identified.

Your assertion that the keeper must either pay or name the driver is legally wrong and misleading. There is no legal obligation upon a keeper to identify a driver.

2. Your “Letter Before Claim” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your letter is a bare payment demand. It contains no meaningful detail of the alleged cause of action and encloses nothing at all.

In particular, you have failed to enclose the mandatory PAPDC documents (Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement) and you have provided none of the key documents which the Protocol requires a creditor to supply so that a debtor can understand the claim and obtain advice (including the contract/terms relied upon, evidence of signage, and proof of your client’s standing/authority at the location). This is not a compliant Letter of Claim.

3. Required action
Within 14 days of the date of this letter, you must either:

(a) confirm in writing that the matter is closed and that no further action will be taken against the registered keeper; or

(b) serve a fully compliant Letter of Claim, including the mandatory PAPDC enclosures, and providing (as a minimum) the following:

(i) your pleaded legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper despite PoFA being inapplicable on airport land;
(ii) copies of the Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon;
(iii) the precise contractual term(s) alleged to have been breached and an explanation of the alleged breach;
(iv) contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date and a site plan showing the sign locations and the alleged location of the vehicle;
(v) the written agreement/chain of authority showing your client’s standing to operate, enforce and litigate in its own name at that precise location;
(vi) a full itemised breakdown of the sum demanded and the legal basis for any added sums.

4. Regulatory notice/further conduct
You are now on notice that continuing to pursue the registered keeper where no keeper liability can arise, and/or continuing to state or imply that the keeper is required to pay or identify the driver, will be treated as improper conduct. If you persist, I will submit a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and will rely upon your pre-action non-compliance and misleading assertions in any proceedings, including on the issue of costs and case management.

I will not engage via any portal. All correspondence must be in writing to the address above and/or by email to [your email address].

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Address]
[Date]

Dear b789
Apologies for the delay in responding.
I am very grateful for your thorough and detailed response. It helped me understand the whole situation.
I emailed the above-suggested response to Moorside Legal and am currently dealing with their bounce-back auto-response nonsense.
Any idea how many attempts it would take until their automated message stops coming back? I am replying to their message with the response above, but not with a new email each time. I hope it makes sense to you.
Thank you

After searching the forum, I came up with this response; please advise if this is the correct one. I would appreciate your input.
''Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the £70 add‑on.

These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).

Your letter’s attempt at intimidation

I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.

To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.

Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:
• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.

If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]''

Thank you very much

They're probably fishing for liability.

Given your wording, can we assume that the driver has never been identified?

As LoC's go, that one is a shocker and totally non-compliant with the required protocol.

Thank you for your response, InterCity125

No, RK did not communicate with NCP, so the driver was never identified.

I was wondering what response I should send to Moorside Legal at this stage.

Good morning

Update:

The order for recovery was revoked, and I have now received a Notice to Owner from Westminster Council.

I have attached all the pages.

Please guide me on whether I have any chance of contesting it.

I really appreciate your help.

Many thanks









Google Street View
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1i89PujzSte9Zu1u6

Car Image:

OP, I can see that you're confused. Who wouldn't be with such a poorly worded OfR.

PCN in this context refers to one served by post - in parking jargon a 'regulation 10' PCN - and not one served by hand/affixed to a car, which applies to you.

Your grounds are that, in the words of your OfR, you did not receive the Notice to Owner/PCN.

The wording should be 'did not receive the enforcement notice', but what the hell, the council might get round to changing their wording one day, or not!

Thank you for the thorough explanation. I noticed on the back of the OfR that it also says 'Notice to owner', so I know for next time.
I have emailed Form TE9 and have received the acknowledgement.
Hopefully, this will go back to square 1.
Thank you again for your help; I appreciate the time you took to assist me.

If the OfR is addressed to you by name then you MUST submit the Witness Statement in time. Otherwise whoever is the addressee must act.

Why you are where you are is not priority at present, it's that you are where you are with an OfR which if submitted in time would mean that you go back to square 1.

Time is not your friend and 'Form TE3 with TE9 received a couple of days ago.' is too vague.

Post the OfR pl, just delete your details.

Thank you so much for your response.

In the witness statement, would the option 'I did not receive the Notice to Owner/Penalty Charge Notice(Parking Contravention)' still be valid in my situation?

PCN's record on the Westminster Website says it was 'handed to owner. Not sure who they handed over to, as when I returned to the car, there was no PCN attached to it.

PCN record on Westminster Website: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WOx2BB-m9CM4xfPf7bae6zoqD8YGM0Cb/view
                                   https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ohGI8UKRjoEpBood11vSwplUYKXXdHfN/view

Car Image on the Website         : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fn7YItr_nC7DNja4BcpwaD7vevxNvzbf/view


OfR                              : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jlvGrOh2OehAiQKsRUEwqd3-l4FCzhB/view
                                   https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lFt8uVxhLvym_iAyQoxnOGKb1s5e8-X/view