DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118022--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 7, 2026, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you posted the current PoC?
#Post#: 118024--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: ElleLamps
Date: May 7, 2026, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in my first post.
#Post#: 118025--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 7, 2026, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Have you posted the current PoC?
>
--- End Quote ---
In the very first post in the thread.
#Post#: 118028--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 7, 2026, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Absolutely, their revised particulars of claim being
significantly incorrect needs to form part of your defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd be tempted to be careful with the wording of the defence
here for reasons I'll explain. It seems very unlikely that a
Notice to Driver was ever affixed to the vehicle, but we don't
know for sure. What we do know is this:
- When the driver returned to their vehicle, no Notice to Driver
was present
- None of the claimant's evidence shows that a Notice to Driver
was present
I'd be tempted to frame the argument on this point from this
perspective. It can then be denied that the claimant can rely on
the provisions of PoFA for several reasons. Firstly, you deny
that a compliant Notice to Driver was served for the reasons
above, and put them to proof that one was served. Then you can
move on to the fact that if, as claimed, a notice to driver was
served, then their subsequent Notice to Keeper was not issued
within the relevant period, further reinforcing that no keeper
liability can apply.
Of course, also point out the material errors (such as the March
date) - you could probably do this as two points: "It is denied
that a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March
2024, as the alleged parking event occurred over 8 months later
on 30 November 2024. The Defendant draws attention to the
Claimant's representative signing a statement of truth stating
his belief that the facts in the Particulars of Claim are true,
despite this not being the case." Then: "It is further denied
that a compliant Notice to Driver was served on the material
date. No Notice to Driver was present when the driver returned
to the vehicle, and none of the exhibits provided by the
claimant show any such notice affixed to the vehicle. The
Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant Notice to
Driver was properly served."
"Even if a compliant Notice to Driver was served, it is denied
that the subsequent Notice to Keeper complies with the
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act..."
and so on.
#Post#: 118030--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 7, 2026, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
I would think of starting that the original Particulars of Claim
were deemed not to comply with CPR 16.4 by the court, and the
amended Particulars of Claim to which you are now filing a
defence are factually incorrect, and go on to explain why with
the caveats discussed by [member=103]DWMB2[/member] above.
The person viewing your defence may not be aware that the
original Particulars of Claim were determined to be inadequate
by the court, so I’d definitely want to point this out
explicitly again in the new defence.
#Post#: 118031--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 7, 2026, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The wording here can hopefully be used to get them over a barrel
a little.
When it gets to witness statements they'll either have to
provide evidence that a Notice to Driver was served (which we
can probably assume didn't happen), or explain that their PoC
were factually incorrect, in which case you can argue that the
claimant's entire evidence should be considered unreliable.
#Post#: 118032--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: ElleLamps
Date: May 7, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well an initial NtK was sent on 4/12/24 and a second one on
3/01/25, so I think it can be assumed that nothing was put on
the car at the time, otherwise there would have been no need to
post one a few days after the incident. So you are correct that
they will either have to prove that they did place one on the
vehicle, or admit that the amended PoC is incorrect.
#Post#: 118040--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 7, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed - my point is that it's not for you to assume, it is for
the Claimant to prove their case, so state what you can state
without having to assume, and put them to proof on the rest.
#Post#: 118042--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 7, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO their PoC is reminiscent of an exam script where the student
writes relevant and irrelevant, correct and incorrect words in
the hope that they'll get marks for what's correct and not be
penalised for what's wrong.
IMO, the sole procedural basis for their claim against the
Defendant lies in para. 11 where they state that they are
pursuing them because they are the RK and therefore the
provisions of PoFA apply. So, in the case where their reference
to March is seen as a typo, the date given in the NTK would
apply, namely 30 Nov. But if a NTD was served then the NTK is
invalid because the 'date it was given' was 6 Dec. However,
paras 8(4) and 8(5) of PoFA would have effect:
(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address
for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the
keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the
relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is
the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
For an alleged breach on 30 Nov. and a Notice to Driver having
been served, then the earliest that a NTK could be given would
have been 29 Dec.
And if the date was March, then the NTK was not served within
the 'relevant period'.
Should the judge simply disregard the conflicting nonsense and
have to work out what set of compliant facts actually applies,
if any?
I'm no expert, but if I were the judge I'd show them the door
and write in red ink on the PoC 'Fail, D-, must try harder'!
And OP, you were sent only one NTK, not two. As another poster
commented, the second letter was a reminder - OK, it was couched
in similar language and form, but it was not a NTK.
As far as the Act is concerned, the system weakness IMO lies
with these provisions in PoFA:
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment
and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available
So discounts and 'arrangements for the resolution...etc.' are of
the industry's choosing, they're not prescribed in the Act. They
sent a so-called NTK and then a reminder telling you that they
would exercise 'the right to recover etc..' because the mandated
wording in a NTK is only that they would have the right and does
not refer to whether and how this would be exercised.
#Post#: 118064--------------------------------------------------
Re: HELP! Moorside Legal-Court Claim-Defence due
DIR By: ElleLamps
Date: May 7, 2026, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all. I have drafted the defence in line with your
recommendations. Fingers crossed it spooks Moorside Legal into
dropping the claim.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page