DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86895--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: sue11
Date: August 23, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you B789 for your reply. Apologies I forgot to add the NTK
& parking sign pic, which I have now attached. So should I edit
the message to remove the first three points and include point
4& 5 & send it ?
#Post#: 86918--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: b789
Date: August 23, 2025, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nah... just send it as is. I'm sure there are more than one type
of sign at the location.
#Post#: 86967--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: sue11
Date: August 24, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ok sure. Thank you.
#Post#: 99425--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: sue11
Date: November 23, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Here it is the Court claim form (attached)
Although the date on the letter states 19th Nov, I only recieved
it yesterday(22nd) , I don't know if that makes any difference.
I would appreciate any advice on the next steps . What are my
options and chances going forward & how such cases have panned
out lately.
Many thanks.
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/7d8hZB44[/img]
#Post#: 99464--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: b789
Date: November 23, 2025, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Attached” where??? We need to see the Particulars of Claim
(PoC).
Is this a Moorside Legal issued claim?
#Post#: 99484--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 24, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Guide: Posting Images
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/msg99016/#new
#Post#: 99617--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: sue11
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, this is the link to the image
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/cLdkRrmJ/PHOTO-2025-11-23-17-14-17.jpg
#Post#: 99621--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 19th November, you have until 4pm on
Monday 8th December to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 22nd December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a).
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive
appellate cases:
>
> - Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ
Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
>
> - CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ
Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
>
> In both cases, the claim was struck out due to materially
similar failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
>
> 5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of
its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial
reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County
Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply
with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that,
given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management
steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set
out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99869--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: sue11
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for b789 for the detailed draft.
Just wondering what happens next once this is submitted. Do I
need to appear in the court , etc which I'm a bit apprehensive
about. Apologies as I have never dealt with such things before,
so completely unsure.
Also should I send this draft straight away or should it be sent
on a certain date ?
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 99880--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from UKCPS limited
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You submit that "draft" by copying and pasting it into the
defence section of the MCOL webform.
You will receive an acknowledgement of your defence. At some
point you will receive an N180 Directions Questionnaire and a
mediation phone call. The odds of you ever having to appear in
court to defend this are slim to none. Even if you did, you have
nothing to fear. This is not a criminal matter. It is a civil
dispute over an alleged debt because the driver allegedly
breacghed a contract.
You have the utterly incompetent Moorside Legal representing the
claimant which is an additional bonus for you. Just in case your
imagination is running wild about "court", here is a short video
that explains what would happen on the day, if this ever reached
that stage (unlikely):
HTML https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page