DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: December 14, 2025, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [member=2379]Vivid23[/member], I see you’ve posted all about
this over on MSE today. Any response to the advice already given
here?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi
I received a letter of claim in Feb 2025 to which I replied
with:
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Letter of Claim
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
**Confirmed address
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe as a
“Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive
of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the
alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT
liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?
3. Please state clearly and unequivocally which specific term(s)
of the alleged parking contract the driver is alleged to have
breached, along with evidence of how these terms were
communicated to the driver. Failure to provide such information
will demonstrate that your claim is vague, baseless, and bound
to fail.
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your practices.
Further, it is embarrassing – legally speaking – that a
so-called firm of legal professionals cannot see that this claim
is fundamentally flawed and bound to fail. Your failure to
include any mention of the contractual term the defendant is
alleged to have breached demonstrates a lack of intelligence,
diligence, or both.
The fact that your Letter of Claim and prior correspondence rely
on vague and boilerplate assertions without clearly stating the
basis of liability is not only procedurally improper but
demonstrates disdain for the court process and the legal
profession. As legal representatives, you are officers of the
court and have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal
process, which includes ensuring that claims are founded on a
proper legal and factual basis. Your failure to identify the
specific contractual term allegedly breached is evidence of a
serious deficiency in process and reflects a disregard for your
obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly
CPR 1.3, which requires legal representatives to assist the
court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with
cases justly and proportionately.
The Letter of Claim itself serves as evidence of your failure to
act as officers of the court, as you ought to know that
presenting a claim without revealing the specific contractual
term allegedly breached is not only deficient but also an abuse
of process. This conduct undermines the principles of fair
litigation and brings the legal profession into disrepute. By
issuing vague and unsupported claims as part of a bulk
litigation model, you fail to discharge your responsibilities to
the court and instead demonstrate a willingness to pursue
meritless claims in the hope of coercing payment.
I will not hesitate to bring these deficiencies to the court’s
attention as part of a robust defence. Furthermore, I will
formally request that the court impose appropriate sanctions
against both the claimant and you as their legal
representatives. This may include cost penalties and/or
referrals to the relevant regulatory authorities for conduct
that fails to meet the standards expected of officers of the
court.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
If you, as the recipient of this letter, are not fully legally
trained, I suggest you escalate this correspondence to a senior
colleague or someone within your firm who is adequately
qualified to understand the serious consequences of failing to
address the deficiencies in your client’s claim and the
professional obligations imposed upon you as officers of the
court.
Yours faithfully,
**Name here
___________________________________
Their response was:
Our client: Parking Control Management UK Limited
We write further to your recent email.
Our answers to your questions are as follows:
The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking
Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking
Association and International Parking Community Codes of
Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge
when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery
is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice.
The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a
reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in
order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without
the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our
Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code
of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client
in relation to debt recovery services.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private
land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to
be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms
and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in
prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to
comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the
PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason
would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.
This Parking Charge Notice relates to a contravention at Royale
Leisure Park - W3 for "Parked outside of the confines of a
marked bay" ****date here
The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in and around
our client's private premises. When remaining on the premises,
all motorists must choose to abide by them. However, on this
occasion you failed to do so.
Please find attached your vehicle in clear breach of the terms
and conditions.
Please note that we will not be addressing any further
correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we
have already provided you with a response. However, should you
wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter
further and respond accordingly.
You can make payment in the following ways:
· Contact us on 0330 828 5850 (our opening times are Monday-
Friday 9:00- 17:00);
· Register online at www.moorsidelegal.co.uk;
· Customer Portal - Quick Pay (moorsidelegal.co.uk)
If you fail to make full payment or set up a payment plan, we
may be instructed to issue a County Court Claim against
you. 
You may wish to seek legal independent advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
________________________________________________________
Now I have received a letter before claim. Should I just use
another template you've kindly recommended to some on the forum?
#Post#: 102434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: December 14, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The letter before claim says "Our client has instructed us to
collect the outstanding balance on their behalf. We are a law
firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
You owe £170.00 for an unpaid invoice" Then goes on about "we're
here to help to avoid court action"
This is what I sent in response, thanks [member=26]b789[/member]
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference
number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client
intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with
the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a
supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with
paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and
paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These
provisions exist to facilitate informed, proportionate
resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient
information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies
that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the
issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract”
yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon
which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to
engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue
while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to
enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and
submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now
provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice
chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material
date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site
map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client
alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner
evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their
own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether
the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and
clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the £70
add‑on.
These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of
the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under
paragraph 6(b).
Your letter’s attempt at intimidation
I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to
a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive
device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition
is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s
position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.
To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only
arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the
facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar
month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit.
Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless
but improper.
Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported
to:
• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and
oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory
prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.
If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the
documents and information required under the PAPDC and
Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance
to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions,
including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to
paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable
conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of
an application for costs.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web
portal. I will respond only via email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
#Post#: 102465--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2025, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this another LoC from Moorside or a different bulk litigator?
Or, was it just a debt collection letter, which does not need
responding to?
#Post#: 102468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 15, 2025, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
why are all the images now not available??
#Post#: 102479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Is this another LoC from Moorside or a different bulk
litigator? Or, was it just a debt collection letter, which does
not need responding to?
>
--- End Quote ---
This is a second LoC from Moorside legal.
The first was letter of claim with a breakdown of "costs"
This was a short letter before claim with the short text I
stated above saying I owe 170 for an unpaid invoice..
Is this unusual?
I also got an autoreply from them saying the inbox is not
monitored from my email.
#Post#: 102482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> why are all the images now not available??
>
--- End Quote ---
Think they deleted them for some reason.
They show a vehicle parked in a bay with no marking being double
parked (it looks to be a really wide bay), building works over
lapping one of the white lines, and the driver in the vehicle in
one of the photos.
I also posted a photo the driver took of the rat taking photos
from inside his car, whilst they were sat in it (driver
suspected some illegal activity not knowing about parking
companies behaviour). The photo also shows an empty car park
with hundreds of spaces. They cannot claim any loss of income
should it go to court. Ill try to upload them when I get a
chance.
#Post#: 102483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you got the "not monitored" response, just send it again
until you don't receive the "not monitored" response:
DO NOT use their portal. Your email response to their LoC has
been served on them. Send the following email:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Notice – Breach of Transparency Obligations
and Imminent Escalation to ICO, SRA and CMA
>
> To: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk; dpo@apn.co.uk
> Cc: enquiries@apn.co.uk; [your own email address]
>
> Dear Data Protection Officer,
>
> This notice is issued to you in your statutory capacity under
the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, in relation to
Moorside Legal Services Limited and the wider APN Group.
>
> Moorside Legal’s own Privacy Notice states that any data
subject wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO
should email help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (subject heading: “Data
Subject Rights – Your Name”) or write to the postal DPO address.
Help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only email address Moorside
Legal publishes for contact and it is expressly described as the
DPO contact route.
>
> Relying on that representation, a substantive response to a
Moorside Legal Letter of Claim was sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. That email contained personal data and
clearly engaged data subject rights and pre-action obligations.
>
> In reply, instead of engaging with the substance of the
correspondence, Moorside Legal sent a boilerplate “fob-off”
email stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and attempting
to force use of an online portal. This was not an automated
server bounce: it was a standard template that an individual
chose to send after accessing the original message. In other
words, a member of your staff is monitoring incoming messages to
the very address advertised as the DPO contact, reading those
messages, and then sending a stock response asserting that the
mailbox is “not monitored” and that the only acceptable
communication route is your portal.
>
> That is not a technical quirk; it is a deliberate policy
choice designed to frustrate both data subject rights and
responses to Letters of Claim.
>
> From a technical standpoint, the position is clear. I have
checked the configuration of your domain moorsidelegal.co.uk and
obtained the following information:
>
> Summary of findings
> [indent]- Email addresses tested: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk;
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk
> - Status: both accepted; domain reported as catch-all
> - SMTP provider: Barracuda Networks
> - MX record: d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com
> - Domain age: more than 800 days (a stable corporate domain,
not newly registered)[/indent]
>
> A catch-all configuration on a Barracuda-hosted system means
your server is set to accept mail for any address at
moorsidelegal.co.uk and return a standard “250 OK” SMTP
response, even if the individual mailbox name is not
specifically configured, in order to mask mailbox validity. The
tests show that both help@ and litigation@ are accepted in this
way.
>
> That behaviour may frustrate external probing of which
individual mailboxes exist, but it does not alter the core legal
and technical fact that once your server has accepted an email
at SMTP level with a 2xx OK success code and no bounce is
generated, delivery (service) into your system is complete.
>
> What you choose to do internally with that message – including
routing it to staff who then send a boilerplate “this mailbox is
not monitored, use the portal” reply – does not change the
reality that:
>
> [indent]– You are in possession of the personal data.
> – You are the controller responsible for handling it lawfully,
fairly and transparently.
> – You must not hold out help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO
and data subject contact address in your Privacy Notice while
instructing staff to fob people off with a knowingly misleading
“not monitored” line and forcing them into a payment
portal.[/indent]
>
> When you put that together:
>
> [indent]1. Your Privacy Notice explicitly designates
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO contact for exercising
rights and as your contact email generally.
> 2. Emails sent to that address are in fact accepted by your
server, read by staff, and then met with a mendacious template
claiming the mailbox is “not monitored” and that all
communication must be via your portal.[/indent]
>
> Both positions cannot simultaneously be true in a way that
complies with your legal obligations. Either:
>
> [indent]– The mailbox is monitored and the “not monitored”
claim is knowingly false, used to deter and obstruct data
subjects and defendants from asserting their rights by email; or
> – It is not monitored for DPO purposes, in which case your
Privacy Notice is materially inaccurate and misleading because
it advertises a non-functional route for exercising rights and
contacting you.[/indent]
>
> In both scenarios, your current practice appears incompatible
with:
>
> [indent]– Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR (lawfulness, fairness and
transparency).
> – Article 12 UK GDPR (duty to facilitate the exercise of data
subject rights and avoid undue obstacles).
> – Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR (duty to provide accurate,
functional contact details for the controller and, where
appointed, the DPO, and to enable data subjects to contact the
DPO easily and directly).[/indent]
>
> It is particularly serious that you are using this “mailbox
not monitored, use the portal” template specifically in response
to reasoned pre-action correspondence, where the Civil Procedure
Rules and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims require
meaningful engagement. Attempting to channel defendants into a
payment portal while pretending that your published DPO/contact
address is effectively dead is plainly calculated to frustrate
both procedural fairness and statutory data protection rights.
>
> Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that Moorside Legal
Services Limited “is part of the APN Group”. APN Group’s own
privacy policy designates dpo@apn.co.uk as the group DPO
contact. The APN Group DPO is therefore now expressly on notice
that a group entity is operating a sham DPO/contact email route
and using a stock “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” script
in circumstances where the underlying mailbox is clearly active
and handled by staff.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]– Emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk are being
accepted by your Barracuda-hosted server and are not bouncing.
> – At least one such email has been opened and acted upon by
staff, who chose to send the “mailbox not monitored, use the
portal” template rather than deal with the content as a
DPO/contact request and as pre-action correspondence.
> – In those circumstances, any denial of receipt or attempt to
treat emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as “not valid”
communications will be treated as bad-faith conduct.[/indent]
>
> You are therefore put on formal notice that:
>
> [indent]– The burden of delivery is satisfied once your server
has accepted an email at SMTP level with a 2xx “OK” status and
no bounce. You cannot evade receipt by labelling the mailbox
“not monitored” after staff have already accessed the message
and responded with a template.
> – Continuing to publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the
DPO/contact address while staff send “not monitored, use the
portal” replies is inherently misleading and obstructive of data
subject rights and defendants’ rights.
>
> In addition to the data protection issues, these practices
will be drawn to the attention of the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) under the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), specifically the unfair commercial
practices regime in Part 4, Chapter 1 and the banned practices
set out in Schedule 20. In outline:
>
> [indent]– You are engaging in misleading actions and omissions
in relation to published contact channels and access to redress.
> – You are failing to meet the requirements of professional
diligence within the meaning of section 229 DMCC by maintaining
a non-functional or deliberately frustrated DPO/contact route
and channelling consumers exclusively into a payment-focused
portal when they dispute liability.[/indent]
>
> If the CMA finds against you, consequences can include:
>
> [indent]– Compliance directions and enforcement orders
requiring changes to your practices.
> – Monetary penalties of up to the higher of £300,000 or 10% of
global turnover.
> – Further regulatory action if systemic bad-faith conduct is
identified.[/indent]
>
> I am simultaneously lodging formal complaints to:
>
> [indent]– The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), for
failure to meet the transparency and facilitation requirements
of UK GDPR in relation to data subject communications and
objections to processing; and
> – The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in relation to
Moorside Legal Services Limited, for operating sham contact
routes and frustrating written engagement in the context of
pre-action debt claims, in a way that undermines access to
redress and public confidence in the profession.[/indent]
>
> I therefore require the following, in writing, within one
calendar month:
>
> [indent]1. A clear statement whether help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
is monitored for DPO and data subject communications. If it is
monitored, you must confirm that the “mailbox not monitored, use
the portal” template will be withdrawn immediately and that all
future emails sent in reliance on your Privacy Notice will be
treated as valid data subject and pre-action communications. If
it is not monitored, you must confirm that your Privacy Notice
will be corrected immediately and that a functional DPO email
address will be published and properly monitored.
>
> 2. Confirmation that the specific email sent in response to
your Letter of Claim (to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk) has been
retrieved, placed on the relevant file, and is being treated
both as a valid data subject communication (including an
objection to processing and request for restriction) and as
formal pre-action correspondence under the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims.
>
> 3. Details of the concrete steps you will take, and deadlines
for implementation, to ensure that all published DPO and contact
addresses (including those in Moorside and APN privacy notices)
are truthful, functional, properly monitored, and not undermined
by staff being instructed to send “not monitored, use the
portal” responses.
>
> You are fully responsible for the configuration and operation
of your email systems and for ensuring that your published
privacy information is accurate and not misleading. This letter
puts both Moorside Legal and APN Group on explicit notice that
the current arrangements are being treated as deliberate
obstruction and misrepresentation and that the regulators are
being asked to investigate and, where appropriate, sanction that
conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your address]
> [Relevant references: PCN/Moorside ref]
--- End Quote ---
Here are the three complaint templates you can use in parallel
(ICO, SRA, CMA).
ICO complaint template (email/text to paste into ICO form).
You’ll usually use the ICO’s online form, but this is the
narrative you can paste in:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint against Moorside Legal Services Ltd –
Non-functional DPO email and obstruction of data subject rights
>
> I wish to complain about the handling of personal data and
data subject communications by:
>
> [indent]Moorside Legal Services Limited
> Part of the APN Group
> Email as published in their privacy notice:
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that any data subject
wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO should email
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (with the subject “Data Subject Rights
– Your Name”) or write to a given postal address.
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only published email address.
>
> Relying on that notice, I have sent a detailed response to a
Letter of Claim to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. Those emails
contain personal data and clearly engage data subject rights
(objection to processing, restriction, rectification) and
pre-action obligations.
>
> The firm replied not with a substantive answer, but with a
boilerplate “fob-off” email stating that the mailbox is “not
monitored” and that all contact must instead go through their
online portal, which is presented as a payment/“customer”
portal. This reply was not an automated bounce. It was a
standard template that a staff member chose to send after
accessing the original email.
>
> I have also tested the technical configuration of their
domain, moorsidelegal.co.uk. Both help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted by their
Barracuda-hosted catch-all mail server (MX:
d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com). The server returns a
normal "250 OK" SMTP response and no bounce is generated. That
means the emails are being delivered into Moorside Legal’s
system, and at least a subset of them is being read by staff.
>
> In practice, this means:
>
> [indent]• Moorside publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the
DPO/contact email in their privacy notice.
> • Emails sent to that address are accepted and read.
> • Staff then send a template claiming the mailbox is “not
monitored” and instructing individuals to use a payment portal
instead.[/indent]
>
> Either the mailbox is monitored, in which case the “not
monitored” wording is knowingly false and deters people from
using their rights by email, or it is not properly monitored, in
which case the privacy notice is materially inaccurate and
misleading.
>
> In my view this breaches:
>
> [indent]• Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR – lack of fairness and
transparency.
> • Article 12 UK GDPR – failure to facilitate the exercise of
data subject rights and placing undue obstacles in the way.
> • Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR – inaccurate and
non-functional DPO/contact details, and failure to ensure the
DPO can be contacted easily and directly.[/indent]
>
> It is particularly concerning that this behaviour occurs in
the context of debt collection and pre-action letters before
claim, where individuals are already under pressure and need a
clear route to assert their rights and correct their data.
>
> What I am asking the ICO to do:
>
> [indent]• Investigate whether Moorside Legal and APN Group are
complying with Articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 37–39 UK GDPR in
relation to the help@moorsidelegal.co.uk address and their
handling of data subject communications.
> • Require them to either:
> [indent]– make help@moorsidelegal.co.uk a genuinely monitored
DPO/contact address and stop sending “not monitored, use the
portal” replies; or
> – amend their privacy notice and publish a functional DPO
email address that is properly monitored.[/indent]
> • Require them to treat emails already sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as valid data subject communications
and pre-action correspondence and to confirm this to affected
individuals.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
> [indent]• A copy of their privacy notice extract showing
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
> • A copy of my original email to that address.
> • The boilerplate “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
response.
--- End Quote ---
SRA complaint template (Moorside’s conduct as a firm). Email to
report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd –
Obstructive contact practices and misuse of “not monitored”
email in debt claims
>
> I wish to complain about the conduct of:
>
> [indent]Moorside Legal Services Limited
> SRA number: 8006077[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal act as solicitors in bulk debt recovery/parking
charge litigation. Their Privacy Notice states that data
subjects and clients should contact their Data Protection
Officer via help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. This is also the only
email address they publish for contact.
>
> When a consumer/defendant replies by email to a Letter Before
Claim (e.g. to set out a defence, raise issues under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, or exercise data rights),
Moorside Legal do not engage with the contents. Instead, after a
delay, they send a boilerplate response stating that the mailbox
is “not monitored” and instructing the individual to use their
online portal or telephone number. This is not an automatic
server reply; it is a template a member of staff sends after
reading the email.
>
> Technical checks show that their Barracuda mail server accepts
emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk with a normal "250 OK" response
and no bounce. At least some emails are clearly being read,
because staff then send the “not monitored, use the portal”
template in response.
>
> The effect is that:
>
> [indent]• A published email route for serious pre-action
correspondence is, in practice, converted into a dead-end.
> • Defendants who try to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol in
writing are fobbed off and pushed into a payment portal instead.
> • The public-facing privacy notice and “contact us”
information are inconsistent with the reality of how the firm
actually handles incoming emails.[/indent]
>
> In my view, this undermines:
>
> [indent]• The proper administration of justice and compliance
with the Civil Procedure Rules and Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
> • Public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession,
because a regulated firm is using a sham contact route and a
standard script to frustrate written engagement.
> • Basic standards of honesty and integrity – either the email
address is monitored and the “not monitored” claim is untrue, or
the privacy notice is materially misleading.[/indent]
>
> I ask the SRA to consider whether Moorside Legal’s conduct is
compatible with the SRA Principles and Codes of Conduct, in
particular the duties:
>
> [indent]• To act in a way that upholds public trust and
confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
> • To act with honesty and integrity.
> • To behave in a way that maintains the trust the public
places in solicitors when handling disputes and pre-action
correspondence.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
>
> [indent]• Moorside’s privacy notice extract showing
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
> • A copy of a reasoned email response to a Letter Before Claim
sent to that address.
> • Moorside’s “this mailbox is not monitored, use the portal”
reply.
--- End Quote ---
CMA/Trading Standards complaint template (DMCC 2024) which you
email to general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Unfair
commercial practice under DMCC 2024 (obstructed contact channels
and sham DPO email)
>
> I wish to report a business-to-consumer practice which I
believe breaches the unfair commercial practices provisions in
Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
>
> [indent]Trader: Moorside Legal Services Limited (part of APN
Group)
> Sector: Legal services / debt recovery / private parking
claims[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal pursue private individuals for alleged parking
charges and send Letters Before Claim. Their Privacy Notice
tells consumers and data subjects to contact their Data
Protection Officer at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk – this is also
their only published email address.
>
> When a consumer replies to a Letter Before Claim by email to
that address (for example, to dispute the debt, challenge the
claim or correct their data), Moorside Legal do not deal with
the contents. Instead they send a standard “this mailbox is not
monitored – please use our portal” response and attempt to
divert the consumer into a payment-oriented online portal.
>
> This response is not an automated server bounce. It is a
boilerplate email sent by staff after reading the original
message. Technical checks on their Barracuda-hosted mail server
show that emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted with a "250 OK" SMTP
status and no bounce, so messages are reaching their system and
being processed.
>
> In practice, this means:
>
> [indent]• Moorside Legal advertise an email address as the
route to contact them and their DPO, but then treat written
correspondence sent to that address as if it were invalid.
> • They use a template to claim the mailbox is “not monitored”
and funnel consumers into a portal that is clearly designed
around payment rather than dispute resolution.
> • Consumers trying to exercise statutory rights or respond
properly to a Letter Before Claim are obstructed and channelled
towards paying instead of being allowed to use a clear written
route.[/indent]
>
> I believe this behaviour falls within the unfair commercial
practices regime because:
>
> [indent]• It is at least a contravention of the requirements
of professional diligence under section 229 DMCC – falling short
of the standard of skill and care reasonably expected of a
trader dealing with consumers in a debt-claim context, and not
commensurate with honest market practice or the general
principle of good faith.
> • It may also amount to misleading actions or omissions,
because the published contact details suggest consumers can use
email to exercise their rights and engage with the trader,
whereas in reality those emails are dismissed and they are
pushed into a portal.
> • It is likely to cause the average consumer to make a
transactional decision they would not otherwise have made – in
particular, to use the portal in the belief that it is the only
valid channel, to prioritise payment over dispute, or to abandon
attempts to challenge the claim because the advertised contact
route proves to be a sham.[/indent]
>
> I ask that this practice be investigated as a potential unfair
commercial practice under the DMCC 2024, with a view to:
>
> [indent]• Requiring Moorside Legal to provide functional,
monitored contact details that match their privacy notices and
letters.
> • Preventing them from using a “mailbox not monitored, use the
portal” script in response to legitimate dispute correspondence.
> • Considering enforcement measures and penalties if systemic
unfair practices are established.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
>
> [indent]• Screenshots/extracts from Moorside Legal’s privacy
notice (help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as DPO/contact email).
> • Copy of a Letter Before Claim.
> • Copy of an email response sent to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk.
> • Moorside’s “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” reply.
--- End Quote ---
Use this image as the evidence of their Data Protection email
address from their Privacy Notice:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/R47zCqC4/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-10-38-34.png
#Post#: 103695--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: December 23, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If you got the "not monitored" response, just send it again
until you don't receive the "not monitored" response:
>
> DO NOT use their portal. Your email response to their LoC has
been served on them. Send the following email:
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks but how many times do I do this? Because I have been
doing it for a while and just got error 550: permanent failure
for one or more recipients (help@moorsidelegal.co.uk:blocked)
What if I just keep getting the not monitored response?
#Post#: 103698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: b789
Date: December 23, 2025, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send it to litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk.
Also, make complaint to the ICO with the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am submitting a complaint regarding Moorside Legal and their
failure to provide a functional Data Protection Officer contact
address as required under UK GDPR.
>
> Moorside Legal lists help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as their Data
Protection Officer contact address and as their primary contact
address on their website. Independent verification confirms that
this mailbox exists, is configured as a catch‑all address,
and is routed through Barracuda filtering. Despite this,
attempts to contact the organisation using this address result
in a 550 permanent failure error stating that the recipient is
blocked. This demonstrates that the mailbox is active but
configured to reject inbound messages.
>
> Because this address is the only DPO contact method published
by the organisation, the rejection of inbound messages prevents
me from exercising my data protection rights and prevents the
organisation from meeting its obligations under Article 38(4) UK
GDPR, which requires that the Data Protection Officer be easily
accessible.
>
> I request that the ICO investigate Moorside Legal’s failure to
maintain a functional and accessible DPO contact address and
require them to provide a working communication channel that
allows data subjects to contact them without obstruction.
>
> I can provide copies of the bounce message and verification
results if required.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 104613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking control management PCN- Confines of a marked bay
DIR By: Vivid23
Date: January 5, 2026, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Also got the blocked message for the above email.
<litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk>:
550: blocked
Should I just let it be? I'm sure they've read the auto reply
messages.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page