DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: November 8, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Trust you are keeping well.
I have received an Order dated 6 November 2025 from the court
today which states the following (I have removed the name of the
Judge and the Court:
"Before District Judge ????? sitting at the County Court at
???????.
Upon the Court considering the Claimant's amended particulars of
claim dated 20 October 2025
And upon the Court noting that the statement of truth to the
same has been signed by John Moody in their capacity as a
"litigation paralegal"
And upon the Court being mindful of Mazur && anr v. Charles
Russell Speechlys LLP (2025)] EWHC 2341 and
noting that a "litigation paralegal" is not a person that is
authorised to "conduct litigation" as defined by Section 12(1)
and 13(2) of the Legal Services Act 2007.
And upon the Court giving careful consideration to Civil
Procedure Rule 3.3 and 3.4, being mindful of the
overriding objective and further being mindful that this is not
the first time in these proceedings that the Claimant has been
in breach of the CPR and/or a fundamental principle of
litigation.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The claim is struck out.
2. No order for costs.
Dated 5 November 2025"
I am correct to assume this is the end of the matter? If so,
all thanks to you (and your team).
#Post#: 97428--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: November 8, 2025, 6:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great news. You don’t need to redact the name of the court or
the judge. Please let us know those details.
Well done for persevering and following the advice.
That’s a complete win. The court has struck the claim out of its
own initiative under CPR 3.3(4), citing both CPR 3.4 (abuse or
no reasonable grounds) and Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell
Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341, which established that
unqualified staff such as “litigation paralegals” cannot conduct
litigation or sign statements of truth.
This means:
[indent]• The claim is permanently struck out, not stayed or
adjourned.
• The judge explicitly recognised both procedural defects (the
invalid statement of truth) and a pattern of non-compliance.
• “No order for costs” simply means the court is not
automatically awarding costs. It does not prevent you from
making an application for costs if you can show unreasonable
conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) or CPR 44.2(2)(a).[/indent]
You now have two possible steps depending on how much you wish
to pursue it:
[indent]Option 1 – Let it stand (simplest)
You can simply accept the strike-out as final. The claim is dead
unless the claimant makes a formal application for relief from
sanctions under CPR 3.9, which they are highly unlikely to
succeed in.
Keep the order safe — that’s your complete defence outcome.
Option 2 – Apply for Costs
If you want to recover your wasted time and expenses, you can
file an N244 seeking your costs, supported by a short witness
statement.[/indent]
You’d rely on:
[indent]CPR 44.2(2)(a) – the usual rule that the unsuccessful
party pays the successful party’s costs.
CPR 27.14(2)(g) – the court may order costs where a party has
behaved unreasonably.[/indent]
You’d argue that:
[indent]• The Claimant’s repeated breaches of CPR 16.4, its
failure to comply with the 3 October 2025 order, and its
reliance on an unauthorised “litigation paralegal” to sign the
statement of truth amount to unreasonable conduct. The Defendant
should not be out of pocket for having to prepare a Defence and
correspondence caused solely by the Claimant’s
misconduct.[/indent]
You can request:
[indent]• Your time spent (at £24 per hour, Litigant-in-Person
rate under PD 46 para 3.4).
• Postage, printing and travel if any.[/indent]
A short schedule attached will suffice.
#Post#: 97457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: November 9, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again.
I think I'll let "sleeping dogs lie" so to say unless they do
anything.
The Court was Huddersfield County Court and the Judge was
District Judge Akers for your information.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
#Post#: 97460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: November 9, 2025, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the further post but just to clarify. The Court made a
No Order for Costs - is that just applicable to the claimants?
In case Moorside do anything after this recent order was made,
can I still pursue my costs? If so, do I have a time limit to do
so? If I do, can I only claim reasonable costs after the claim
was issued.
Also, are you able to accept a financial contribution if I do
pursue costs and have these granted? It is only fair that you
should be compensated given all the work you have done to assist
on this matter.
#Post#: 97463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: November 9, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can still pursue costs despite the “no order for costs”
wording. That direction only means the court didn’t award costs
automatically at strike-out. It doesn’t block a later
application.
Because the claim was on the small claims track, you must base
any request only on CPR 27.14(2)(g). That rule lets the court
order one party to pay the other’s costs if they have behaved
unreasonably. No other CPR provision about costs applies after
allocation.
Act quickly. File an N244 within about 14 days of the strike-out
order or as soon as possible. Ask for:
[indent]• An order that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs
of and caused by the proceedings, summarily assessed under CPR
27.14(2)(g).
• Payment within 14 days.[/indent]
Support it with a short witness statement showing the claimant’s
unreasonable behaviour (failure to comply with the October
order, defective particulars, use of an unauthorised paralegal).
Attach the October and November orders and the offending
pleadings.
List only reasonable post-issue costs: time preparing the
defence and correspondence, time spent on the strike-out issue,
and this application. Use the litigant-in-person rate of £24 per
hour (PD 46 para 3.4) and include any court fees or minor
out-of-pocket expenses.
#Post#: 101776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: December 9, 2025, 7:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Trust you are well.
I am unsure how to send you the copy so I paste below the order
I have received from the court following my application for
costs to be paid by the claimant:
"The hearing of the defendant's application for an order that
the Claimant pay the Defendants costs (see copy attached) will
take place In Person at 3:00 PM .on the 16 January 2026 at. the
County Court at ?????. When you should attend. 30 minutes has
been allowed for this hearing.
Cases are listed in accordance with local hearing arrangements
determined by the Judiciary and implemented by court staff.
Every effort is made to ensure that hearings start either at the
time specified or as soon as possible thereafter. However,
listing practices or other factors may mean that delay is
unavoidable. Furthermore, in some instances a case may be
released to another judge, possibly at a different court. Please
contact the court for further information on the listing
arrangements that may apply to your hearing".
Any advice, guidance or assistance appreciated in readiness for
this hearing.
Also, is to advisable to write to Moorside Legal and suggest to
them to settle out of court and avoid attendance at the hearing?
i.e pay what I have claimed and call it a day.
Look forward to your responses.
#Post#: 101867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: December 10, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent news. The order you have quoted is simply the court
listing a hearing for your costs application. The parking claim
itself is already struck out and remains dead. The only live
issue is whether the claimant should now be ordered to pay your
costs and, if so, how much. You must attend that hearing; if you
do not, the judge can just refuse the application or make no
order.
Between now and 16 January 2026, you should get three things in
order.
First, assemble a small, focused bundle of documents. You should
have at least:
[indent]– Your N244 and any witness statement you filed with it.
– The judge’s order dated 3 October 2025 which struck out the
original particulars and gave them the “lifeline” with a
deadline of 20 October.
– The claimant’s “Further/Amended Particulars of Claim” dated 20
October 2025, including the Statement of Truth signed by “John
Moody, litigation paralegal”.
– Your email or letter to the court explaining why the Further
PoC did not comply and drawing attention to Mazur and the Legal
Services Act issues.
– The strike-out order dated 5 November 2025 saying the claim is
struck out and making no order as to costs.
– The latest order listing the 16 January 2026 costs
hearing.[/indent]
Take at least two copies of this bundle to court: one for you
and a spare that can be handed up if the judge wants it.
Second, prepare a clear costs schedule. This is a simple
one-page breakdown of what you are asking for. You base it on
the Litigant-in-Person (LiP) rate of £24 per hour. List, in
plain language and with realistic hours, the time you spent on
necessary work caused by the claim and by their unreasonable
conduct.
For example, time spent reading the Letter of Claim and claim
form, researching and drafting the defence, dealing with
allocation, reading and analysing the Further PoC and the Mazur
issue, and preparing the N244 and this costs application. Add up
the hours, multiply by £24, and then add any actual
out-of-pocket expenses such as the N244 court fee,
postage/printing, and your travel (public transport or mileage
at 45/mile return plus parking) to attend the costs hearing. Put
a single total at the bottom. Make sure the hours are honest and
not obviously inflated.
Third, have a short note of what you will say to the judge. You
do not need to file it formally; it is mainly for you. In that
note, set out briefly:
[indent]- that the claim was struck out by the court under CPR
3.3 and 3.4,
- that you are the successful party,
- that in small claims the court can only award costs under CPR
27.14, and
- that you rely on 27.14(2)(g) because of the claimant’s
unreasonable behaviour. [/indent]
Then list, in simple terms, what you say was unreasonable:
[indent]- vague and defective particulars;
- failure to comply properly with the October order;
- the court noting this was not the first breach;
- the use of a “litigation paralegal” to sign statements of
truth and conduct litigation despite Mazur confirming that
unqualified staff cannot conduct litigation;
- and the fact that you had to spend considerable time and
effort defending a claim which the court then struck out of its
own motion.[/indent]
Finish your note with a simple line along the lines of: “I
respectfully invite the court to find the claimant has behaved
unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and to order them to pay my
costs as per the attached schedule, within 14 days.”
On the day of the hearing, the judge will usually start by
confirming that this is your application for costs and then ask
why you say you are entitled to them. Use your note to anchor
yourself.
Explain that you are the successful party, that you are only
claiming the fixed litigant-in-person rate and reasonable
expenses, and that in your submission the claimant’s conduct has
gone beyond ordinary mistakes and clearly crossed the CPR
27.14(2)(g) “unreasonable behaviour” threshold. Hand up your
costs schedule if the judge does not already have it.
If someone attends for Moorside (highly unlikely) and tries to
dismiss the situation as minor “errors”, calmly bring the judge
back to the realities:
[indent]- the claimant is not a litigant in person but a
regulated firm of solicitors who hold themselves out as
professionals in this area.
- Despite that, they issued and pursued a claim which the court
itself found so defective that it was struck out of the court’s
own initiative under CPR 3.3 and 3.4.
- The strike-out order expressly records repeated breaches of
the CPR and references Mazur, confirming that unqualified staff
cannot conduct litigation or sign statements of truth.[/indent]
You can say that for an SRA-regulated firm this pattern is not
just unreasonable but frankly embarrassing and falls well below
the standards expected of competent solicitors; it should not be
for a consumer defendant to absorb the time and cost of dealing
with that level of procedural incompetence. You can add, without
overdoing it, that such conduct is of a kind that may merit
separate consideration by the SRA, but that for present purposes
you simply ask the court to mark it appropriately by exercising
its discretion under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and ordering the claimant
to pay your costs as set out in your schedule.
As for contacting Moorside beforehand, you are entitled to try.
You can send a “without prejudice save as to costs” email
offering to settle your costs application if they pay an agreed
sum. Keep it short and factual: refer to the fact the claim has
been struck out, that a costs hearing is listed, that you
consider their conduct unreasonable, and that you will be
seeking an order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for the amount in your
schedule. Then state the sum you would accept in full and final
settlement of your costs, on condition it is paid by a specific
date, and that if they do not agree you will proceed to the
hearing and may show the judge that you made a reasonable
settlement proposal. You can pitch the offer either at the full
figure in your schedule or slightly discounted; that is up to
you.
In short: the claim itself is finished, you have a discrete
hearing on your costs, you should turn up with a tidy bundle, a
sensible costs schedule, and a clear explanation of why their
conduct was unreasonable and why the judge should now exercise
the 27.14(2)(g) discretion in your favour.
Here is a draft email you can send to Moorside Legal at
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (or any other email address they may
have used to send you correspondence. You CC yourself also:
[quote]Subject: UKCPS Ltd v [Your Name] – Costs Application
Listed 16 January 2026
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
Dear Sirs,
I write regarding the above matter.
As you are aware, by order dated 5 November 2025 the court
struck out your client’s claim of its own initiative under CPR
3.3 and 3.4, expressly referring to repeated breaches of the CPR
and to Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC
2341 (KB). I am therefore the wholly successful party. The only
issue now outstanding is my application for costs, which has
been listed for hearing at 3:00 pm on 16 January 2026.
In my submission, the conduct of this litigation by a supposedly
professional, SRA-regulated firm of solicitors has gone well
beyond ordinary procedural mistakes. Issuing and pursuing a
vague and non-compliant claim, failing properly to comply with
the court’s October order, and using an unqualified “litigation
paralegal” to conduct litigation and sign statements of truth
after Mazur is not just unreasonable; it is embarrassing for a
firm in your position and falls materially below the standard
expected of competent solicitors. It should not be left to a
consumer defendant to absorb the time and cost of dealing with
that level of procedural incompetence.
At the costs hearing I will be inviting the court to find that
your and your client’s behaviour amounts to “unreasonable
behaviour” within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g) and to order
that you pay my costs of and occasioned by the proceedings, at
the litigant-in-person rate of £24 per hour together with my
out-of-pocket expenses, as set out in my schedule.
However, in order to avoid the need for a further hearing and
the associated time and expense for all concerned, I am prepared
to compromise. If you agree to pay the sum of £[insert figure
you are willing to accept] in full and final settlement of my
costs, such payment to be made within 14 days of acceptance, I
will notify the court that my costs application is withdrawn and
that no further order is required.
If you do not accept this proposal, or if I receive no response,
I will proceed with the application on 16 January 2026 and may
place this letter before the court on the issue of costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name][/quote]
#Post#: 105458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: January 11, 2026, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Trust you are keeping well.
I have written to Moorside and chased up further offering to
settle the matter at an agreed costs claim figure. They have
disregarded all emails and not responded at all.
In the circumstances, other than hat you provided previously is
there any other advice/guidance? it looks like I will need to
attend the hearing listed this coming week.
#Post#: 105467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: DWMB2 Date: January 12, 2026, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=IAN28221 link=topic=6568.msg105458#msg105458
date=1768173265]
In the circumstances, other than hat you provided previously is
there any other advice/guidance? it looks like I will need to
attend the hearing listed this coming week.
[/quote]
The above post is a pretty comprehensive summary of what to
expect at the upcoming hearing. The fact they have declined to
even respond to your contact is further evidence you can present
in the matter of costs.
#Post#: 106159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: January 16, 2026, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just received the following albeit somewhat last minute
from Moorside for a hearing today. I only propose to send the
statement to you as the entire document is some 54 pages. How
can I send the attachment to you?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page