DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49217--------------------------------------------------
Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd (Eaton
House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: _wooky_
Date: December 10, 2024, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was sure I'd posted here previously about this PCN though it's
not coming up in any searches.
This morning I received a LoC for a PCN from UKPS Ltd issued
14/01/2023.
My wife is the lessee of our vehicle and (prior to checking
here, and stupidly I now know) sent back a form identifying me
as the driver of the vehicle.
The alleged contravention is for 'Permit Required Eaton House
Offices', near Coventry railway station. I'm sure I can dig out
all the communication I've received.
What do you need from me?
Sorry to have left it so late :(
#Post#: 49219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 10, 2024, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your only other thread appears to be this one: UKPC PCN - No
Payment - Lower Precinct Shopping Centre, Coventry
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ukpc-pcn-no-payment-lower-precinct-shopping-centre-coventry/msg20821/#msg20821
It would be useful to see the Letter of Claim you have received.
Additionally, any appeals submitted by either you or your wife,
or anything you have sent to them subsequently.
#Post#: 49230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: _wooky_
Date: December 10, 2024, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks DWMB2.
The LoC is at
HTML https://imgur.com/a/OrbxNHI.
I'll do my best to dig anything else out this evening.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 49243--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: _wooky_
Date: December 10, 2024, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the only thing we ever sent back...
HTML https://imgur.com/AxxqKwe
It was addressed to my wife and had a tear of slip at the bottom
which she filled in and named me as the driver.
She received the above a few days after she'd received
communication from VW Financial Services saying they'd
transferred the liability to her.
Let me know if you want anything else. Happy to scan whatever's
required.
Thanks.
P.
#Post#: 49259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 10, 2024, 4:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe Moorside Legal are a fairly new player in private
parking claims, so we've not got as detailed a sense of their
way of working as we have with DCB Legal and Gladstones. If you
have a search on the MoneySavingExpert you may be able to find
some example cases for some background reading.
In the meantime, you should respond to their letter of claim.
Here's an example of what you could send:
[indent]Dear Sirs,
Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: UKPS Ltd
I refer to your your letter of claim.
I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as
follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[Correct address here]
The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be
vigorously defended.
I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I
formally request that this matter be put on hold for an
additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').
I note that the amount being claimed has increased by an
exaggerated amount.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to
specific answers:
- Am I to understand that the additional £60 represents what
your client claims is a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this
net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain
why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
- With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages,
or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
Yours faithfully[/indent]
#Post#: 49285--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 11, 2024, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest you get all the docs you hold (them to you and
you to them) posted before you write because the answers might
already be in their previous notices.
#Post#: 49299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2024, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A classic example of how to, metaphorically speaking, blow both
feet off with a single shot, by identifying the driver. A
leased/hired vehicle PCN is what is known as a “golden ticket”
as long as the drivers identity is not revealed, inadvertently
or otherwise.
For future reference, never reveal the drivers identity if you
receive a PCN, especially if the vehicle is leased.
Now we have to review all the correspondence, for what it’s
worth. There is no doubt that Moorside Legal are going to issue
a claim. What you are hoping for is that they manage to screw up
the Particulars of Claim (PoC), as their recent record shows,
they do regularly.
When they respond to your response to the LoC, you can report
them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud. It takes minutes to do so
online and there is no comeback to you. It alerts HMRC to their
VAT evasion.
Come back and show us the PoC on the N1SDT claim form when it
arrives (it will). Also, make sure you leave ALL dates and times
on any correspondence showing. You’ve redacted the date of the
alleged contravention in what you’ve shown us so far.
#Post#: 50677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: _wooky_
Date: December 21, 2024, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Now we have to review all the correspondence, for what it’s
worth.
--- End Quote ---
All relevant correspondence from them has been uploaded to
HTML https://imgur.com/a/Vu5VJve.
Should I send the letter as drafted by DWMB2 on 10/12/24?
#Post#: 50707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 21, 2024, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We need to clarify a few points first.
The Notice to Hirer (NtH) sent to you say that they included
copies of the following documents:
[indent]• A statement signed by the vehicle hire firm that the
vehicle was on hire to you under a Hire Agreement.
• A copy of the Hire Agreement.
• A Statement of Liability (if not included in the Hire
Agreement).
• A copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent to the
lease company.[/indent]
Please confirm if all those documents were served to you with
the NtH. I would place money on the fact that they did not
include a copy of the Hire Agreement.
Also, I don't see any "Letter of Claim" from Moorside Legal. All
you have shown us is copies of two debt collection letters from
them dated 23rd October and 21st November. Please have a read
of the Pre Action Protocol (PAP) requirements for a Letter of
Claim (LoC) and note where they have not fulfilled the
requirements of section 3:
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf
So, until an actual LoC is received, you don't communicate with
Moorside Legal, especially in their capacity as a useless debt
collector.
What you ought to angered about is the moronic behaviour of
Volkswagen Financial Service. Considering they are members of
their BVRLA, you would expect them to understand the difference
between a Parking Charge Notice and a Penalty Notice issued for
an "offence".
The language they have used is unlawful and is a breach of the
CRA 2015. Using terminology such as "offence" and "fine" and
"authority" for what is only a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which
is nothing more than a speculative invoice from an unregulated
private parking company, is wrong.
All they had to do is transfer liability from themselves as the
Keeper to you as the Hirer following the requirements of PoFA
and that is the ned of the matter as far as they are concerned.
UKPS cannot later revert back to them if they have complied with
PoFA.
So, in their letter dated 31st January 2023 they incorrectly
state that they have received "a notification of a Driving
Offence". That is mendacious as nowhere in the NtK does it
mention the word "offence" and it legally cannot because it is a
civil matter and no "offence" has occurred.
They then go on to incorrectly state that they have given your
details to the "relevant authority". In no way, shape or form is
UKPS an "authority". They are an UNREGULATED "private" parking
company.
If they have transferred liability according to the requirements
of PoFA, they do not need to provide a Third Party Authorisation
Letter. Liability has been transferred to you, the Hirer, and
that is the end of the matter as fares VWFS is concerned.
I suggest you write to them highlighting their mistakes and to
contact the bVRLA for guidance on how to deal with PCNs and PNs
which are distinctly different matters.
Anyway, s pointed out, you have not yet received (or at least
shown us) an LoC. When you do, come back and show it to us.
There is another significant flaw in the NtK and the NtH issued
by UKPS The NtK/H states only that the vehicle was parked "in a
manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge",
without specifying how the terms and conditions were breached,
this renders the NtK/H non-compliant with PoFA. The wording is
too vague to meet the statutory requirement to describe the
grounds for the charge.
The NtK/H must specify what the breach was (e.g., overstaying a
free parking period, failing to display a valid permit, parking
in a restricted area, etc.). The vague wording does not
demonstrate any evidence of an actual breach of the parking
terms.
Under Paragraph 14(2), the Notice to Hirer must state the
details from the original NtK and a copy of the original NtK
must be included. It must comply with the requirements of
Paragraph 8(2) or Paragraph 9(2) (depending on whether a Notice
to Driver was issued or not).
It must state the circumstances of the parking charge. This
includes describing the parking charge due and the circumstances
in which the requirement to pay arose (e.g., overstaying, not
displaying a permit).
The NtH must clearly describe the breach, such as "overstaying a
2-hour limit" or "parking without a valid permit." It must also
include a copy of the Hire/Lease Agreement and a statement from
the hire/lease company confirming the hirer's details, must also
be provided.
In this case, from what you have shown us, the NtH and the
attached NtK fail to state the specific breach and instead use
vague language like "...[i]the vehicle was parked in a manner
whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge[/I]..."
this breaches Paragraph 14(2)(a) and the underlying requirements
of Paragraph 8(2)(c) or Paragraph 9(2)(c), as outlined above.
This is because the documents fail to specify what the driver
allegedly did to breach the terms or clearly explain the
circumstances in which liability arose.
So, when the LoC arrives, you can respond and tell them that as
the Hirer, you are under no legal obligation to identify the
driver and as the Hirer, you are not liable for the charge
because off their failures to fully comply with all the
requirements of PoFA.
#Post#: 50714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for PCN from UKPS Ltd
(Eaton House Offices nr Coventry railway station)
DIR By: _wooky_
Date: December 21, 2024, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your detailed reply which I'll digest when I'm not
about to fall into bed.
One thing to say though is that it was receipt of a LoC that
prompted this thread. I posted a link to
HTML https://imgur.com/a/OrbxNHI
in one of my earlier messages.
Thanks again. I'll go through your generous response line by
line tomorrow 🙏❤️
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page