DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49787--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: December 14, 2024, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> No. It means that if crucial correspondence that requires a
timely response are not received, at least within the required
timeframe, you could end up receiving a claim that you are not
aware of and if not responded to by the required deadlines, the
claimant can request a CCJ by default.
>
> You need to make it absolutely clear to Moorside Legal, which
address they must use for service of documents. It doesn't
matter which one you choose as long as it is one where you can
receive timely notification.
>
> If Moorside Legal are using an address that you do not wish to
use as an address for service of legal documents, you must
immediately send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO of
Moorside Legal and instruct them to update their records with
your address for service and for them to erase any other address
they hold for you.
>
> The highlighted words are there for a reason and you must use
them in your notice. The contact details for the DPO will be in
their privacy policy statement on their website.
>
--- End Quote ---
Understood, it makes no difference to me as nothing is going to
get missed as long as they actually send this. Ideally, I would
prefer they send me e-mails...
So I just wait for their letter of claim?
#Post#: 49792--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: b789
Date: December 14, 2024, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you wait for an LoC. Ignore all debt collection
correspondence. It is to be ignored. We don't need to know about
it.
An LoC or the actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC s what we
need to know about.
#Post#: 49795--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: December 14, 2024, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Yes, you wait for an LoC. Ignore all debt collection
correspondence. It is to be ignored. We don't need to know about
it.
>
> An LoC or the actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC s what we
need to know about.
>
--- End Quote ---
Understood. No LoC. The debt collectors stopped sending letters
regarding this as soon as Moorside Legal got involved.
I just read some horror stories in the CNBC's reviews so I hope
they will actually send the paperwork!
#Post#: 52496--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: January 8, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Yes, you wait for an LoC. Ignore all debt collection
correspondence. It is to be ignored. We don't need to know about
it.
>
> An LoC or the actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC s what we
need to know about.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi [member=26]b789[/member],
LoC has arrived now to the London address, not where the vehicle
is registered. Interesting because the letters they posted look
similar to what the court sends. Is that legal? Another point to
note is that they are now only asking for £170 as opposed to
£277 as they did in the last letter…
Moorside Legal AC1
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/4H1g5BVj/LOC-1.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/4H1g5BVj
Moorside Legal AC2
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/jDBSC3Xh/Loc-2.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/jDBSC3Xh
Am I right in thinking that I just ignore this and we wait for
the real LoC from the Court?
#Post#: 52546--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: b789
Date: January 8, 2025, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Those are real LoC. They do not come from the court. LoC or
Letter Before Claim (LBC), are the same thing. We don’t need to
see anything except the first page. You can ignore the forms
that came with it.
The first letters from Moorside Legal acting as debt collectors
and were for £170 each but estimating court costs too. As
advised, they were to be ignored at that stage.
Are you satisfied that the address they are using is the one you
will use for service of documents? If not, you will need to
respond and inform them that they need to use your other address
for service. If not, then you can just wait for the actual N1SDT
Claim Form to arrive.
There are two options for dealing with Moorside Legal’s two
separate Letters of Claim.
Option 1: Suggest Consolidation of Both Claims
This involves writing to Moorside to ask them to withdraw one of
the Letters of Claim and combine both claims into a single claim
to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). If they refuse,
you can later raise the issue of abuse of process during court
proceedings.
How it Works:
Inform the claimant that two separate claims are
disproportionate and unfair.
Request that they combine both claims into one to save costs and
time. If they refuse and proceed with two claims, raise the
issue with the court as part of your defence or in a strike-out
application.
Legal Basis:
CPR Rule 1.1 – Overriding Objective
CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) – Abuse of Process
Henderson v Henderson (1843)
Benefits:
[indent]1. Shows your reasonableness to the court by trying to
resolve the issue early.
2. Could lead to lower overall costs if the claimant agrees to
consolidate the claims.
3.Reduces the risk of facing two separate claims and associated
court fees.[/indent]
Risks:
[indent]1. It gives the claimant a chance to fix their mistake
by combining the claims.
2. If they consolidate, you may not get a chance to argue cause
of action estoppel later.[/indent]
Option 2: Let the Claimant Issue Two Claims
This involves allowing the claimant to issue two separate
claims. Once the first claim is dealt with, you can argue cause
of action estoppel to get the second claim struck out as an
abuse of process. This tactic exposes the claimant’s vexatious
conduct and is likely to result in a costs order being awarded
in your favour for the claimants unreasonable behaviour.
Additionally, the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside Legal, is
known to issue claims that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to
include a clear statement of facts in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC). Based on persuasive appeal case law, including CEL v Chan
[2023] and CPMS v Akande [2024], it is highly likely that the
first claim will be struck out at the allocation stage for
failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Therefore, it is expected
that the first claim will not proceed to a hearing due to these
procedural errors.
How it Works:
Defend the first claim on its merits, but expect it to be struck
out at allocation stage due to the claimant’s failure to comply
with CPR 16.4(1)(a). When the second claim is issued, argue that
it is barred by cause of action estoppel because the claimant
should have brought both claims together. Include a request for
a strike-out in your defence as a preliminary matter, inviting
the court to strike out the second claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
without the need for a separate application.
Legal Basis:
Cause of Action Estoppel (Henderson v Henderson)
Res Judicata (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002])
CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) – Abuse of Process
CPR Rule 16.4(1)(a) – Failure to Include a Clear Statement of
Facts in the Claim Form
White Book annotation 38.6.1 – Costs for Unreasonable Behaviour
Benefits:
[indent]1. Stronger legal argument – cause of action estoppel is
well-established in case law.
2. The claimant’s bulk litigator is known to make procedural
errors in claim forms, meaning the first claim is likely to be
struck out at allocation stage.
3. Exposes the claimant’s conduct – shows the claimant is
wasting court time by pursuing two claims.
4.Potential to recover costs – you can request a costs order for
unreasonable behaviour if the claimant’s conduct is found to be
vexatious.
5. Higher chance of the second claim being struck out – courts
do not like multiple claims for related matters.
6. No need to pay the £303 N244 application fee – cause of
action estoppel can be raised as part of your defence.[/indent]
Costs Order for Unreasonable Behaviour:
Although CPR 27.14(2)(g) does not apply to the small claims
track, the White Book annotation 38.6.1 states that costs may be
awarded if a claimant has behaved unreasonably, particularly
where a notice of discontinuance is served. The claimant’s
conduct in issuing two separate claims for what is essentially
the same matter can be argued to be unreasonable behaviour, and
a costs order can be requested as part of the defence.
Which Option Is Better?
Option 2 (Let Them Issue Two Claims) is the better strategy if
you want to expose the claimant’s abuse of process and vexatious
conduct. It provides a stronger legal argument and increases
your chances of recovering costs for the claimant’s unreasonable
behaviour.
Additionally, given that the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside
Legal, frequently issues claim forms that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a),
the first claim is almost certain to be struck out at allocation
stage anyway. This significantly strengthens the argument for
cause of action estoppel in the second claim and increases the
likelihood of obtaining a costs order for the claimant’s
unreasonable behaviour.
Option 1 (Suggest Consolidation) is better if you want to be
seen as cooperative and reasonable early on and prefer to handle
just one claim to reduce the hassle of dealing with multiple
claims.
In conclusion, Option 2 is what I would recommend as it gives a
stronger legal argument using cause of action estoppel, exposes
the claimant’s vexatious behaviour, and takes advantage of the
likelihood that the first claim will be struck out for
procedural errors. This strategy increases the chances of the
second claim being struck out and costs being awarded in your
favour.
#Post#: 52941--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: January 11, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Are you satisfied that the address they are using is the one
you will use for service of documents? If not, you will need to
respond and inform them that they need to use your other address
for service. If not, then you can just wait for the actual N1SDT
Claim Form to arrive.
--- End Quote ---
Yes it’s fine, I don’t mind if they go to London or Bristol one
as long as they do get delivered... I am at both pretty much
every other day so it’s no difference.
--- Quote ---
> Additionally, the claimant’s bulk litigator, Moorside Legal,
is known to issue claims that breach CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing
to include a clear statement of facts in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC). Based on persuasive appeal case law, including CEL
v Chan [2023] and CPMS v Akande [2024], it is highly likely that
the first claim will be struck out at the allocation stage for
failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Therefore, it is expected
that the first claim will not proceed to a hearing due to these
procedural errors.
--- End Quote ---
I am happy and want to go with option 2 but I have to be honest,
I would need a bit more hand holding throughout the process as I
struggled to follow the detail. I understood that this could
have been combined into 1 claim as they are basically the same
allegation happening on 2 different dates. That alone will be my
defence to struck the 2nd claim correct?
Either way they have literally changed the signage since the
driver parked there so I doubt they would be able to prove that
the driver didn’t comply with the “contractual signage“... I
will wait for the court claim letters to arrive so I can add
this to MCOL. Would you be able to help with the defence when
the time comes?
#Post#: 52944--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: b789
Date: January 11, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course we will assist with the defence and we hand hold
throughout the process.
#Post#: 75231--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: June 7, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=26]b789[/member],
It's been over 150 days since those letters were sent, but
nothing informing me that they applied for CCJ. Have they just
decided not to or is it more likely that royal mail just never
delievered it.
I run the trustonline.org.uk search in the past and it showed
nothing but paying £6 each time is getting a bit ridiculous.
That said I do not wish to have CCJ on my credit file only
because Royal Mail might have not delivered the post. Is there
any way to check if they did anything on this or ensure that all
court all notifications are done via e-mail?
#Post#: 75248--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: b789
Date: June 7, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They cannot "apply for a CCJ". They have to issue a claim for
debt. There is whole process that they need to go through.
Before they can issue a debt claim. They first need to issue a
Letter of Claim (LoC) that explains the nature of the claim and
it must give you at least 30 days to respond.
You will let us know when they issue an LoC and we will provide
a response you can send them. Only after they have sent you an
LoC, you have responded with the questions we advise you to ask
and after they have provided a suitable response to that, can
they then issue an actual N1SDT Claim Form.
Again, we advise on how to respond and provide the necessary
defence. You then have a whole process where you are notified of
receipt of your defence, a response from the claimant
acknowledging receipt of the defence that has been forwarded by
the CNBC which is then followed with an N180 Directions
Questionnaire which is followed with a mediation phone call
which is then followed by allocation to your local county court
and then a judge will issue direction with dates and deadlines
or may even strike to the claim at that stage. It goes on and on
until the claim is either struck out or they discontinue, which
is the most likely scenario.
If it ever got as far as a hearing, which is extremely rare,
they would still have to be successful to obtain a CCJ and, if
you were so unlucky, as long as it was paid within 30 days,
there is no record of it. It is completely expunged.
The only way you get a CCJ without knowing about it is if you do
not receive the claim and then you would have to apply to have
the CCJ set aside under CPR 13.2 or CPR 13.3. That would only
happen if you do not have any mechanism in place to receive your
post at whichever address the vehicle ir registered at or you
advised them to which address you should be served.
They have up to 6 years from the date of the alleged
contravention to be able to issue a claim. So, if you do move
before then, make sure you update your address with the parking
operator.
Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
>
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
>
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
>
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
>
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
>
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
>
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
>
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
>
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
>
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
>
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
>
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
>
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
>
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
>
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
>
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 75262--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Parking PCNs – No Payment – Chobham Academy Stratford
DIR By: correcthaunt
Date: June 7, 2025, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] - Thank you for taking the time to
explain the process in detail, as this helps me with
understanding what to expect.
That said they had issued me 2 LoC back in Jan as per Reply #13
on: January 08, 2025, 06:20:37 pm in this very post [it's on
page 1]. I never responded to them and it's been well over 30
days now. So do I just leave it or ask them to issue 1SDT Claim
Form?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page