DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94851--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal - New Particulars of Cla
im and Documents
By: IAN28221 Date: October 20, 2025, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
these are the links to the documents
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/DwnPDt02/2025-10-20-Email-from-Moorside-Legal-15-47-REDACTED.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/4N59KnfB/2025-10-20-Further-Particulars-of-Claim-and-documents-REDACTED.png
#Post#: 94885--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: October 20, 2025, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why have you reacted the location in the PoC???? And where is
the rest of the PoC, especially including the Statement of Truth
(SoT) and the signature and name of the person signing it????
What time did they send those to you? If by email, the time the
email was sent.
The ONLY names you need to redact are YOURS!!! The judge ands
the name of the county court are not secret or outside of the
public domain!
#Post#: 94887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: October 20, 2025, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought the whole document was uploaded on the separate link
including the email. I sent two links. not sure how else to get
the document to you.
I understand you cannot put court documents on a public domain
that is why I have redacted. I am content to send you the whole
document should you wish directly.
The email and documents from Moorside Legal were received at
15.47 today but I didn't see till later and did email the court
to enquire if anything had been received before the 4pm
deadline. seems they did send before the deadline.
I am assuming I am going to have to submit each page
individually through the link you sent previously. Let me see
what I can do.
The email and the points of claim are from a JohnMoody.
Litigation Paralegal, trust that assists.
#Post#: 94888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: October 20, 2025, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link to the letter from Moorside Legal
HTML https://postimg.cc/BL5tCL0V
#Post#: 94894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: October 20, 2025, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of other free sties that allow you to upload
documents. Use one that preferably doesn't include soft p0rn
links. A good one to use is
HTML https://imgbb.com
. You can't show
images of PDF files so you need to convert them into .jpg or
.png files first. Try
HTML https://www.pdf2go.com
for that.
Who signed the SoT on the further PoC? I need the name and
position within Moorside Legal!!!
The Further PoC now:
[indent]• Alleges that the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of
PoFA 2012;
• States that the defendant was the keeper and/or driver of the
vehicle;
• Identifies the “consideration” as the facility to park;
• Asserts that the breach arose by parking contrary to displayed
terms;
• Claims a £100 PCN plus £60 debt-recovery uplift; and
• Adds interest and fees to reach £245 total.
• Exhibits are referenced (PCN, signage, and photographs) but
not visible because you have failed to upload them.[/indent]
Preliminary Assessment of Compliance
At first reading, the “Further PoC”:
[indent]• Superficially follows the judge’s order by stating
whether the claim relies on PoFA and a “relevant contract”.
• Still fails to provide the exact contractual wording or to
identify the specific clause breached—contrary to PD 16 §7.5 and
the requirements of paragraph 2 of the order (“…identifying the
clause or obligation breached, the consideration, and the nature
of any trespass or tort”).
• Retains the vague “keeper and/or driver” formulation, so it
does not specify the cause of action with precision.
• Provides no breakdown of interest calculation or reference to
any statutory basis under s. 69 County Courts Act 1984.[/indent]
Consequently, while Moorside Legal met the filing deadline,
there is a serious argument that they have not achieved
substantive compliance with the court’s order. A claim remains
strike-out-eligible under paragraph 3 of that order if the court
determines that the directions were not properly satisfied.
Further, just looking at the cover letter with that, John Moody
has conducted litigation within the meaning of section 12 of the
Legal Services Act 2007.
Here’s why:
[indent]1. Conducting litigation includes, among other things,
[indent]• filing or serving documents on behalf of a party;
• corresponding formally with the court on behalf of a party in
an existing claim; and
• performing steps required by procedural rules in the conduct
of the claim.[/indent]
2. The email you’ve shown is addressed to the court (“Please
update the Court record”) and explicitly states that Moorside
acts for the Claimant, serving the “updated Particulars of Claim
and Enclosures”.
That is a formal procedural step in the litigation.
3. The sender is identified as “John Moody, Paralegal.”
Unless he personally holds an individual authorisation (e.g. as
a solicitor, CILEX litigator, or other authorised person under
the LSA 2007), he is not permitted to conduct litigation, even
if his employer (Moorside Legal) is an SRA-authorised entity.
The High Court reaffirmed this in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell
Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) — unauthorised employees
cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision; only
authorised or exempt individuals may do so.
4. Therefore, by sending that email on behalf of the claimant
and directly corresponding with the court regarding service of
pleadings, John Moody has undertaken a reserved legal activity
that he is not individually authorised to perform.[/indent]
That step is technically a breach of section 14 LSA 2007,
potentially exposing both the individual and the firm to
regulatory action if the act was unauthorised.
I will now wait for you to answer the questions and show us the
attachments that were sent with the further PoC before I advise
on what you should do next.
#Post#: 94895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: October 20, 2025, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
please see the attache link for the Further Particualrs of Claim
and supporting documents
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/CFB15rZ
#Post#: 94911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: October 20, 2025, 10:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the following email to the court and Cc in Moorside Legal
and yourself with the following:
[quote] Subject: UKCPS Ltd v [Defendant] — Non-compliance with
Order of 03/10/2025; automatic strike-out (para 3)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I refer to District Judge [judges name which you redacted]’s
Order dated 03/10/2025.
Paragraphs 1–2 struck out the original particulars and required
the Claimant by 4:00pm on 20/10/2025 to file and serve
Particulars of Claim that:
[indent](i) state whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4
to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and, if so,
identify the relevant obligation; or, if not brought under PoFA,
identify the cause of action; and
(ii) if contract is relied upon, identify the contracting
parties, the consideration and the alleged breach; or, if tort
is relied upon, identify the tort.[/indent]
At 15:47 on 20/10/2025 the Claimant served “Further Particulars
of Claim”, signed under a Statement of Truth by “John Moody,
Litigation Paralegal”. Those particulars do not comply with the
Order. They do not elect a single cause of action. They do not
identify any PoFA “relevant obligation” or any period of
parking. If contract is alleged, they do not identify the
parties, the specific term allegedly breached, or any
site-specific consideration. No trespass or other tort is
pleaded.
Further, the Statement of Truth and service appear to have been
effected by a non-authorised individual. In Mazur & Anor v
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) the High
Court reiterated that an unauthorised employee cannot conduct
litigation or sign a statement of truth on behalf of a party.
The Claimant has therefore failed to comply with paragraphs 1–2
of the Order. Under paragraph 3, the claim stands struck out
automatically and without further order. I respectfully invite
the Court to record the strike-out on the file and to vacate any
listed dates.
I also seek my costs of and occasioned by this issue. I seek
costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
Alternatively, I seek a summary assessment under CPR 44.2 in the
Court’s general case-management discretion.
In view of paragraph 3 above, I also invite the Court to direct
that a copy of its order and the offending documents are
referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for
investigation.
Exhibits:
[indent]A1: Order of 03/10/2025.
A2: Claimant’s service email timed 15:47 on 20/10/2025.
A3: “Further Particulars of Claim” (showing lack of
particulars).
A4: Statement of Truth page signed “John Moody, Litigation
Paralegal”.[/indent]
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Claim number][/quote]
If you get no confirmation before the defence deadline, make
sure you give me a couple of days notice to prepare the amended
defence. Keep the exhibits lean (A1–A4 above) for this request;
the PoFA and signage evidence belongs in the defence if the
court does not accept automatic strike-out.
#Post#: 96075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: October 29, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Not heard anything fro the Court or Moorside Legal following the
email sent to the court as suggested.
Should we begin the process of filing the defence?
I await to hearing from you.
Regards
#Post#: 96084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: October 29, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT send anything as your amended defence until the very last
minute. If you have not heard anting back from either the court
or Moorside Legal by 3:30pm on Monday 3rd November, you can send
the following as your "holding" amended defence. It is sent as a
PDF attachment in an email to the court and CC'd to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and yourself.
I repeat, do not send anything before the deadline and then,
only if you have had no response from either the court or
Moorside.
[quote]
[center]IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [County Court name][/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
UKCPS Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DEFENCE[/center]
1. This Amended Defence is filed without prejudice to the
Defendant’s position that the claim stood struck out
automatically under paragraph 3 of the Court’s Order dated 3
October 2025 owing to the Claimant’s non-compliance with
paragraphs 1–2. It is filed protectively and in the alternative
only.
2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the
relief claimed, or at all.
A. Non-compliance with the Court’s Order / CPR
3. By Order dated 03/10/2025 the court struck out the original
Particulars of Claim (PoC) for breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) and
directed the Claimant, by 4:00pm on 20/10/2025, to file and
serve PoC which (i) state whether the claim is brought under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and, if
so, identify the “relevant obligation”; or (ii) if not under
PoFA, identify the cause of action; and, where contract is
alleged, to set out the contracting parties, the consideration
and the alleged breach.
3. The “Further Particulars of Claim” served by email at 15:47
on 20/10/2025 still fail to comply. They equivocate between
PoFA, contract and a vague “licence not granted”, never elect a
single cause of action, do not identify any “relevant
obligation”, fail to plead any period of parking, do not
identify the contractual parties, consideration or the specific
term allegedly breached, and plead no coherent tort. They are
generic, not fact-specific.
4. In consequence, the Claimant has not complied with paragraphs
1–2 of the Order. Under paragraph 3, the claim stands struck out
automatically. The Defendant invites the Court to record
strike-out and deal with costs. If, however, the Court treats
the Further PoC as compliant, the Defendant pleads to the merits
as follows.
B. No contract formed: prohibitive signage / no offer
5. The signage relied upon (Claimant’s exhibit “Controlled Land
– Terms and Conditions”) is prohibitive, as held in the
persuasive appellate decision in PCM(UK) Ltd v Bull & Others
(Southampton CC, 2016, DJ Glen), prohibitive signage cannot give
rise to a contractual licence and is incapable of creating
liability in contract.:
[indent](a) “Parking is only permitted for residents … in
possession of a valid virtual permit.”
(b) “No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any
length of time.”[/indent]
6. Such wording makes no contractual offer to non-permit
holders; it is a prohibition. With no offer, there can be no
acceptance or consideration by a non-permit motorist. At most,
the facts alleged could amount to trespass—actionable only by
the landholder and sounding in nominal damages. The Claimant
pleads neither landowner title nor a tort, and has no locus to
claim in trespass.
C. PoFA not engaged and keeper not liable
7. If (contrary to §5–6) the Claimant relies on PoFA keeper
liability, it has not met the strict requirements of Schedule 4:
[indent](i) Paragraph 9(2)(a): the NtK (dated 17/10/2024) does
not specify any period of parking. The CCTV stills span only ~86
seconds and some frames are not timestamped. Instantaneous
images are not a “period of parking” and cannot evidence that
the vehicle was parked at all (as opposed to momentary presence,
manoeuvring or stopping to read terms).
(ii) Paragraph 9(2)(e): the NtK’s wording focuses on the driver
being liable and merely “invites” the keeper to pay or name the
driver, rather than clearly inviting the keeper to pay the
parking charges as PoFA requires.
(iii) Paragraph 9(2)(f)–(i): strict proof is required that all
mandatory information and warnings were given in the prescribed
form and within the statutory deadlines.[/indent]
8. PoFA is a statutory gateway. Non-compliance is fatal to any
attempt to hold the registered keeper liable. The Claimant has
not pleaded, still less proved, full compliance as held in the
persuasive appellate decision in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v
Edward (Leeds CC, 2023), where no evidence of a period of
parking exists, PoFA liability cannot arise.
D. No standing and non-disclosed landowner authority
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous,
unredacted contract with the landholder that: (a) identifies the
site and signage in force at the material time; (b) confers
authority to form contracts with motorists and to litigate in
the Claimant’s own name; and (c) sets the £100 sum as liquidated
damages (not a penalty or disguised damages). A bare assertion
of authority is insufficient.
E. Inadequate particulars and lack of evidence
10. The Further PoC rely on a facsimile sign, not proof of the
actual terms posted at the material time and entrance(s). The
Defendant requires strict proof of:
[indent](a) full-site signage plans and photographs
contemporaneous with the material date;
(b) the visibility/legibility of any purported terms from a
driver’s position;
(c) the route taken and whether any contractual terms could be
read before the alleged breach.[/indent]
11. The CCTV stills do not evidence parking or any breach of a
clear term. An 86-second window is equally consistent with a
driver stopping briefly and/or reading the signs and
leaving—conduct that cannot fairly be penalised. The industry's
own Code of Practice confirms that a mere instant (or seconds)
does not constitute a “period of parking” capable of proving
breach and requires a minimum of 5 minutes is a "consideration
period" before any charge can be issued.
F. Unrecoverable additional sums (“debt recovery”)
12. The claim includes an added £60 “recovery/administration”
sum. The persuasive appellate decision in Excel Parking Services
Ltd v Wilkinson (2020, Sheffield CC, HHJ Jackson) confirmed that
“debt recovery” add-ons are not recoverable. This is double
recovery and not recoverable in small claims for private parking
charges.
13. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis allowed a single
sum (there, £85) as a deterrent where clear, prominent signage
existed; it did not endorse bolt-ons. Numerous circuit-wide
decisions have disallowed such add-ons, and the Government’s
Private Parking(Code of Practice) Act 2019 has banned them. The
court is invited to strike out the add-on as an abuse of
process.
G. Signature / conduct of litigation
14. The Further PoC are verified by a statement of truth signed
“John Moody, Litigation Paralegal”. Only an authorised litigator
may conduct litigation or sign statements of truth on behalf of
a represented party. Absent evidence that Mr Moody is an
authorised person, conducting litigation, including filing or
serving pleadings and signing statements of truth, is a reserved
legal activity under sections 12 and 14 of the Legal Services
Act 2007, as reaffirmed in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell
Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). The SoT is defective. The
court may disregard a defective statement of truth and/or
exercise its case-management powers as to sanctions.
H. Beavis distinguished
15. If the Claimant seeks reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis, the
facts are far removed: (i) signage here is prohibitive, not an
offer to all users on clear, prominent terms; (ii) no commercial
justification is pleaded; (iii) the alleged parking is not
evidenced as a meaningful duration; and (iv) the claim includes
unlawful bolt-ons. Beavis does not assist the Claimant.
I. Conclusion
16. Accordingly, the Defendant invites the Court to confirm the
automatic strike-out under paragraph 3 of the Order dated 3
October 2025. In the alternative, if the claim is treated as
subsisting, the Defendant asks that it be dismissed in its
entirety with costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) for the
Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
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:
Date:[/quote]
You can sign the defence by simply typing your full name as the
signature.
#Post#: 96087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: October 29, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
Will do as instructed and keep you posted.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page