DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112176--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 5, 2026, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.
It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March
therefore.
You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of
Service, either of which you do through MCOL.
If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14
days, or 29 March.
It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.
Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will
actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.
#Post#: 112177--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: March 5, 2026, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.
>
> It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15
March therefore.
>
> You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment
of Service, either of which you do through MCOL.
>
> If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14
days, or 29 March.
>
> It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.
>
> Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will
actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks - I am really not sure what needs to be in a defence, vs
a witness statement et. Ideally I want this struck out or
discontinued before getting any further so I want to get it
right
#Post#: 112178--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 5, 2026, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On the balance of probabilities, it will not matter what you put
in your defence statement in terms of the way the claimant
behaves moving forward - as far as they are concerned, this is a
game of statistics - as the matter progresses, more and more
people pay out of either fear or ignorance - ultimately they
behave in a manner where they always suggest that they are going
'all the way' - they rarely do.
So take the pressure off yourself and accept that you are a
passenger in this process.
Note also that you are in the super-luxury position of knowing
that the claimant cannot win - most people do not have that
luxury so enjoy it.
TBH, the defence statement already offered is pretty sharp and
one which you should consider?
#Post#: 113951--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: March 21, 2026, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m about to file my defence. How does this sound?
(I asked ChatGPT to help me write it so would be good if someone
could just check its correct)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sum
claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was
not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to
strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be
held liable as keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply
with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In particular, the Notice to
Keeper was not compliant with POFA paragraph 9, and therefore no
keeper liability can arise.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to
comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5.
They do not set out the contractual terms relied upon, the
conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum
claimed, nor the basis on which the Defendant is pursued as
keeper. The claim discloses no cause of action and should be
struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. The Defendant’s family member was the driver. The driver
attempted to pay for parking but the on-site payment machine was
out of order. The driver then attempted to use the advertised
mobile app, which repeatedly failed to load and process payment.
The driver left the site to find an alternative method of
payment, which is permitted under the BPA Code of Practice grace
period provisions. No contract was formed because payment could
not be made due to the Claimant’s own equipment failure.
5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place
on the material date, including its terms, prominence, lighting,
and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant
avers that the signage was inadequate to form any contract with
the driver.
6. The Claimant’s added £70 “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is
an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA
Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment
confirms that such add-ons are “designed to extort money from
motorists” and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments
have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
7. Even if a contract had been formed (which is denied), the
Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was
not paid due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working
payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the
Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner
authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has
standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name.
A strict chain of authority is required.
9. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as
having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of
process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the
claim be dismissed.
10. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this
Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.
#Post#: 114162--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: March 23, 2026, 4:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
I wonder if someone would mind having a look at my defence as I
need to submit it soon. Any comments, additions etc would be
very welcome.
Thanks!
#Post#: 114414--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: March 25, 2026, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
Sorry to post again. I need to submit my defence tomorrow,
ideally.
Would someone mind looking over my proposed submission (2 posts
above).
I would be most grateful! Thanks
#Post#: 115939--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: April 15, 2026, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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 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
ZPxxxxx
25/07/2024
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’
#Post#: 115957--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 15, 2026, 6:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could reply with the following;
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your recent communication.
I have noted its contents and will make the following comments;
Firstly, it is ironic that you are critical of my so called
'internet defence' when you yourselves are using a boiler-plate
/ robo-claim in your County Court claim form - the wording of
the Claim has no relevance to the facts of the matter at hand.
To be clear, both you and your client are fully aware that I was
not the driver at the material time.
Furthermore, your client's NtK was produced and posted well
beyond the 14 day limit for PoFA keeper liability.
Meaning; that I cannot be held liable for the unpaid charges
under any circumstance.
How many times do I need to state this before the penny drops?
I notice that your latest letter is very careful to skirt around
this inconvenient truth?
You should also understand that the is no legal requirement for
me to reveal who was driving and, as such, I will not be doing
so.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further in this matter.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 115966--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 15, 2026, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01#1.1,<br
/>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
HTML https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/06/08/matrix_freedom_scamming_vulnerable_people/
#Post#: 115968--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
DIR By: Smartdriver
Date: April 15, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you suggest I reply at all, given that it’s now in the court
process? This just has the feel of the usual standard
threatening letters. I’m tempted just to completely ignore it
and let them dig themselves deeper. Or is it worth replying in
the hope they give up?
I also think it’s amusing they suggest the driver should have
gone home and paid later… firstly the whole point is that
because they couldn’t pay they didn’t park and therefore owe
nothing. But I bet if the driver had done that they would still
have sent the notice anyway!
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page