Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all. I submitted my defence via MCOL.

I’ve just had an email from Moorside Legal saying the below. I presume this is bluff and I should just ignore? What’s the next steps and likely outcome?

Thanks!



‘Dear Smartdriver

Re:        Our Client: National Car Parks Limited
        Our Ref: NCP001/xxx
        Claim Number: N1xxxxxx
We write in relation to the above matter and futher to your claim response dated 26/03/2026.

Please find the details of the private parking charge notice ('PCNs') below.

PCN Reference   Date   Location   Reason
ZPxxxxx
   25/07/2024   Birmingham City Centre Birmingham B5 4AN   Parked without payment of the parking charge
 Your Defence
 
We have reviewed your Defence and respond as follows: -


We note your Defence is what is known as an 'internet defence.' The High Court of Justice has recently addressed such templates used by litigants in person in the case of Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd (t/a CHL Mortgages) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1092 (KB).  We suggest that you review the Judgment and in particular paragraph 37 which states:  “Claimants that rely upon stock templates that are purchased by or given to them and that are nonsensical can expect to incur the Court's displeasure. Those indifferent towards wasting the Court's resources can anticipate having claims stayed or struck out and costs ordered against them. Claims listing elderly statutes and home-made legal labels and maxims can expect to be identified as being totally without merit.”
We dispute that the Particulars of claim are vague. They provide the date (25 July 2024), the site (Birmingham City Centre, Birmingham B5 4AN) and the reason for the breach 'Parked without payment'.
The Notice to Keeper was served to your current residence. You had the opportunity to nominate a driver or pay a reduced fee. You also had the opportunity to appeal and chose not to do so.
If the payment app was not working at the scene, why was a further attempt to pay not tried later on during the day or when the driver had access to internet facilities or wifi.
Copies of signgage and landowner authority will be provided should this matter reach hearing.
The Parking Charge is not a penalty. Our Client is not required to establish loss. The Parking Charge is in place to encourage users of the private land to comply with the terms and conditions, which ensures efficient and safe management of the car park for all users.   
Any additional fees are due to the costs incurred as a result of the debt recovery process and issuing this Claim. These are not unreasonable especially considering you had the opportunity to name the Driver or appeal and you chose not to do so, despite being in receipt of our Client's letters.
 
In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible.

Settlement Proposal

Our Client remains open to settling the matter without the need for the Claim to progress further, and as such proposes the following settlement options:

£200.00 via one lump sum payment payable within the next 7 days; or

£220.00 via 2 monthly payments with the first payment due within the next 7 days.

How to pay

There is still time to make payment to avoid the need for a Court hearing. You can do so in any of the following ways: -

You can call us on 0330 822 9950 to make the relevant payment arrangements. You will need you customer reference number - xxxxxxxx; or
You can make payment via bank transfer to the following account -
Account holder name: Moorside Legal Services Limited
Bank name: Lloyds bank
Sort code: 306541
Account number: 49689760

If you choose to make payment, via bank transfer you must use the following reference as your payment reference xxxxxxxx  to ensure we can quickly allocate the payment to your matter. If you do not, we may not be able to allocate the payment to your matter
If you choose to make regular card payments to us these will be made under a Continuous Payment Authority ('CPA'). This authorises us to take the agreed amount on a regular basis. CPAs can be set up weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. If we are unable to take your payment, we will attempt to take the payment later that day. If that fails, we will reattempt the next working day.
 
If you wish to provide an alternative payment proposal, please contact us within 7 days of receipt of this email.

If the Claim is not settled
 
We hope this matter can be settled without further Court action, however if we are not able to reach a settlement, please be aware that our Client intends to proceed with the Claim.
 
If the Claim proceeds, the Court will ask both Parties to file and serve a Directions Questionnaire, therefore we attach a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire and confirm the same has been filed with the Court.

Email Service

As you provided this email address when you defended the Claim, we intend to use it to serve documents on you throughout these proceedings and will do so in PDF format. We will assume you agree to this course of action unless you tell us otherwise within 7 days. In accordance with Practice Direction 6A, if there are any limitations to your agreement to accept service by such means, please let us know within 7 days.

Subject to your agreement, we will also agree to accept email service to litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk.

You may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Yours sincerely

M H’

 

It's probably worth taking a look at the case they refer to - it's quite a leap to suggest that a defence produced after seeking advice online (even if materially similar to other 'internet defences') is comparable to the filings referred to in Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd.

The claimants in that case (and the similar associated claims) were described as having been duped by a "get rich quick scheme", and the arguments relied on in the claims are very much of the "Freeman on the Land" flavour, in that they are at best pseudo-legal. To try and equate a defence to a parking charge with the arguments deployed in the Stamp & Ors case is, speaking charitably, one hell of a stretch.

If it were me, I'd probably temper my language slightly in any response, as I work on the basis of presenting myself as a reasonable defendant seeking to further the overriding objective, rather than someone seeking to put anyone's back up, but this may be a matter of personal preference.

PS - if you want some fun bedtime reading, you may want to look into the 'Stamp' mentioned in that case - here's a starter for 10: Matrix Freedom – the scam conspiracy theory that makes £500k a month from the vulnerable

They won't give up, but I'd probably be tempted to reply - any correspondence may well be shown in court at some point. If it were me I'd probably want to draw a distinction between the ridiculous 'Stamp' case and your defence, as their attempt to draw comparison is misguided, namely because you haven't used a stock template. Even if you had, the judge in the Stamp case was specifically critical of claimants using templates that are "nonsensical" and that list "elderly statutes and home-made legal labels". The only statutes/cases you list are from 2012 and 2015 respectively - this is rather different to Stamp et al trying to rely on the Magna Carta from 1215.

There's a clear difference between blindly using an inappropriate template, and writing a defence that directly addresses the Particulars of Claim - where Particulars of Claim for different cases are practically identical, it is inevitable that defences will likewise be similar.

I wouldn't get drawn into any extended back and forth, but there's probably no harm in getting your objection on record.