Free Traffic Legal Advice

I've been working on my defence all day and came across another thread involving Moorside Legal that is almost identical to my situation. I’ve gone through the cases and the information in that person’s defence, and everything seems to line up with my own claim. 

Before I try to use it, could someone with more experience please look over to make sure i do not mess this up? I don’t take any credit for the original wording — it was posted by user **B789** on another thread.

All the case law they relied on seems to apply to mine as well. At first, I thought Moorside had given a breakdown of the costs and interest, so I removed that point… but after reading more, it looks like they should be explaining why the amount is £170, how it’s made up, and what the added charges relate to.

There are a couple of things not covered in the original defence that I am not sure if I should add in? 

-1. They claim I “accepted the terms by parking”, but then say the breach was “No Stopping”. Those two things contradict each other. I’m not even sure what legally counts as “parking”, but the vehicle definitely wasn’t left unattended. 

2.  I was not the driver — should I mention this in the defence?

It was nearly four years ago, so I honestly can’t remember exactly how long the vehicle stopped for. It wasn’t a long time, but from what I’ve read, “parking” isn’t just about the length of time — it also depends on whether the vehicle was *left* or whether the driver stayed in control.

Any guidance would be massively appreciated before I go through with this. 

Defence posted by B789

 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).


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:

Hiya,

I have managed to find the original notice.

Direct link: https://ibb.co/Ld2Qr9HD

I am getting worried about this now as it is a lot of money just for stopping for a few minutes

Thank you. I’ve uploaded the form I received below. This is the only page that contains the actual details of the claim — the remaining pages are just blank forms to complete and don’t include any further information.

Direct link to image: https://ibb.co/d0ntkTkG



I don’t live in the area where the vehicle briefly stopped, so I used Google Street View to check the location. The image I’ve attached shows the area, and the small picture in the bottom right is my attempt to zoom in on the sign. Please note it happened on a Saturday, and those large gates were closed at the time.

Direct link to image: https://ibb.co/n8j2wK2x