Court Claim from Moorside Legal

[Mukha]

Hi All, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, the vehicle was sold in 2024 BUT I was not the driver at the time. Please can I get help regarding a court claim from Moorside legal threatening CCJ on behalf of Anchor Security Services relating to 2023.

Particulars of Claim The Claim is for an unpaid Parking Charge issued for a breach of contractual terms on 20/01/2023 at WISEMORE CENTRAL. WALSALL WALSALL WS2 8EQ to vehicle XXXX XXX. The signage displayed at the site set out contractual terms and offered a contractual licence, which the Defendant accepted by parking. The Claimant has authority to operate the site and issue charges. The breach was: FAILURE TO PAY FOR FULL DURATION OF STAY. The Defendant is liable as the driver and/or keeper, in contract and/or pursuant to POFA Sch 4, and the charge remains unpaid despite demand. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170.00 being the total of the PCN. 2. Costs and Court fees. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a vear from 17/02/2023 to 12/04/2026 on £170.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier
payment at a daily rate of £0.02

I have had no correspondence from the parking company . I assume it has been going to the new owner.

Please can you help. Do I have a defence or is a lost cause.

Thank you

[Mukha]

Just to clarify I was the registered keeper at the time of the offence in 2023 but was not the driver. The car was later sold in 2024.

[des8]

What was the date of issue of claim?
Can you post up a redacted copy of the whole claim form. please.. first removing identifying details/
You need to acknowledge receipt of the claim, but do not enter a defence..
Then send a Subject Access Request to Anchor (https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ccess-request/)
Also send a CPR31.14 letter to Moorside (https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-of-documents/)

[Mukha]

Please find attached the claim.form

[des8]

Thanks ... so if you acknowledge the claim you will have until 19th May to file a defence.

When you send your CPR31.14 to Moorside what you are asking foe specifically is the signage as at January 2023, the original PCN and NTK with proof of posting, landowner authority, and a breakdown of the sum claimed

[Mukha]

Hi All, as advised I sent out SAR to Anchor and CPR31.14 to Moorside. I received the SAR request from Anchor but nothing from Moorside regarding the CPR31.14. I am attaching the info sent by Anchor.

[Mukha]

[Mukha]

[Mukha]

As I only have received SAR from Anchor can you please advise how I should file a defence as I have only until the the 19th May.

[Mukha]

like I mentioned previously I was not the driver. The driver who has a disability and went through the drive through. It was dark and entered the drive thru their were no signs upon entering the drive thru (can provide pictures) or any where in the drive thru. Mcdonalds messed the order twice the driver was asked to move to window 3 and wait. Again no signs. At no point was the driver parked in any of the bays of the carpark but was within the designated drive thru area. Please advised how best to file a defence. thank you

[des8]

Here's a template you can use if you wish
Dates etc need to be checked

You will need to send it as an attachment to an email to court and defence solicitor
Put claimant name V your name and claim number in the subject line

1. .The Defendant received the claim xxx from Anchor security Services on dd/mm/yy
2. .Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with
   
   CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   i state that the claim is for an unpaid parking charge and refers to a Parking Charge Notice
   
   ii. allege that the Defendant is liable as the Driver or /keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liabilities.
4. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
5. Because of the inadequacies of the PoC, and the fact that the Defendant had no knowledge of this event, not having received the PCN a CPR31.14 request was sent to the claimant, but did not generate a response.
6. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
   5. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
7. RELEVANT FACTS
   1. Claim received dd.mm.yyyy
   2. No PCN received
   3. CPR31.14 sent dd.mm. Yyyy to solicitors No response received
   4. 4 SAR sent… to claimant. Response received dd.mm.yyyy
8. APPLICABLE LAW
9. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.
   
   Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
10. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle reg. no. yy XXX at the time of the alleged event
11. .In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
    However the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant is ignorant of the driver's identity and his allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition
12. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was " Failure to pay for full duration of stay”

13. Following receipt of copy PCN following a Subject Access Request to Claimant it is recalled that this event concerns a visit to McDonald’s Drive Through, where McDonalds staff twice made a mistake on the order and instructed the driver to wait at another serving window whilst they sorted the matter

14 It was dark and no signs were visible

15. Under the circumstances it is denied that the driver is liable for any parking charge

.Defendant’s liability as the keeper

1. 16It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs ten to fifteen (inclusive) of this Defence.
   
   17Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
   1. Contrary to condition Schedule 4 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has failed to supply:
      1. a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
      2. what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.
   2. Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that: … The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
   3. Contrary to Schedule 4 9(2)(b) . the Parking Charge Notice (copy supplied by Claimant following SAR dated dd mm yy) does not state as mandated “that the parking charges have not been paid in full

Recovery of Claimant’s charges
16.:If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge (in this incident £100) as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper.

17.Alternatively, if the defendant is being sued as the driver, it is noted that the amount claimed is £170, with no explanation for the increase.

18 No copy of the signage has been supplied to enable the Defendant to verify if there is any justification for inflating the parking charge

19 In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).

20In this claim inflating the parking charge without justification may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )

21. the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all

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 …………………………………………..

Dated