DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54282--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: alex777 link ---
>
> Moor Legal can be reading all this and kind of figure out who
the notice was issued to.
>
--- End Quote ---
Realistically, they issue far too many of these claims to have
the time or effort to waste trawling forums for the small
minority of defendants who put up a good fight. But even if they
do, none of the information shared here is likely to be
prejudicial to your case.
#Post#: 54293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to take off the tin-foil hat. Whether the losers at
Moorside Legal are reading this or not... So what?
Assuming they had the time and intellectual capacity to trawl
through this and other forums, the advice you are getting is not
going to make any difference to how they act or respond.
This is never going to make it as far as a hearing, because I
can guarantee that the failed paralegal at Moorside Legal that
issues the claim is going to screw up the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) and the claim will be struck out unless they discontinue
before the case management judge gets hold of it.
There... they now know the strategy and assuming they can find
your case out of the thousands they have ongoing at any one
time, what difference do you think is it going to make?
#Post#: 56983--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: alex777
Date: February 6, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jXEuZVJR7VUspAdTY16mdu2ZHH3PnxLS/view?usp=drive_link
Instead of replying to email re proof of debt etc, MoorSide
Legal sent Proposed Payment Plan. Does this mean they are going
County Court direction or it means nothing?
Regards
#Post#: 56985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: b789
Date: February 6, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you send the response to the LoC as suggested? If so, have
they responded to that letter?
What you have shown us is irrelevant to the process. It is
simply an attempt to lure you into capitulating and paying up
when you do not own a debt unless a judge says you do.
If you did respond to their LoC and they have not responded to
it and they issue a claim, then you will have an added point to
have the claim struck out besides the usual one thanks to the
incompetence at Moorside Legal.
If you didn't respond to the LoC, then you are just waiting for
an N1SDT Claim Form to come from the CNBC issued by Moorside
Legal and we will deal with that as and when it arrives.
#Post#: 57098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: Dave65
Date: February 7, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The £100 charge is well hidden among the small print on the
sign.
#Post#: 100343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: alex777
Date: November 29, 2025, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have sent LOC response as suggested, they did not reply. They
are trying to start the whole satanic ritual again:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QSvustq-htT4pykzLkdZijpItGcDnfZR/view?usp=sharing
Do I wait for a second LOC letter? First one was sent to me in
JAN 2025.
Thank you
#Post#: 100370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: b789
Date: November 30, 2025, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Before you respond to that letter, you send the following
complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). I advise
you to send it by first class post and you get a free proof of
posting certificate from any post office. You include with it
copies of the first LoC (just the first two pages, not the
forms), the response you sent, their 27 January payment plan
response and the latest LoC.
I will deal with the response to the latest LoC separately.
--- Quote ---
> [Your full name]
> [Your address]
> [Postcode]
> [Email]
>
> [Date]
>
> Solicitors Regulation Authority
> The Cube
> 199 Wharfside Street
> Birmingham
> B1 1RN
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> Formal complaint about Moorside Legal Services Limited (SRA ID
8006077)
>
> I write to make a formal complaint about Moorside Legal
Services Limited (“Moorside Legal”), SRA ID 8006077. In my view
their conduct in a private parking matter shows a systemic
disregard for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the
Protocol”), the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, and
their professional obligations as solicitors. Their letters
appear to be used as pressure tools rather than genuine
pre-litigation steps. I ask the SRA to open a formal
investigation into both my case and Moorside Legal’s standard
practices in this area.
>
> 1. Parties
>
> Firm: Moorside Legal Services Limited, trading as Moorside
Legal, SRA ID 8006077, Company No. 15069347. Their
correspondence to me has given the following addresses:
>
> – January 2025: Ground Floor, Jade Building, Albion Mills,
Albion Road, Greengates, BD10 9TQ
> – November 2025: Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre, Albert
Street, Failsworth, Oldham, OL8 3QL
>
> Their client: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (a
private parking company).
>
> My status: I am the registered keeper of a vehicle in respect
of which their client alleges several unpaid private Parking
Charge Notices. I dispute liability in full.
>
> 2. Chronology
>
> On 9 January 2025 I received a document headed “Letter of
Claim” from Moorside Legal, demanding £170 said to be due in
respect of “one or more Parking Charge Notices” allegedly issued
by their client. The letter was generic and
under-particularised. It did not clearly state the cause of
action, the specific PCN number(s), date(s), or location(s), nor
did it explain whether the claim was said to be for contractual
damages, contractual consideration, or trespass. It threatened
that County Court proceedings would be issued if payment was not
made.
>
> Later in January 2025 I responded in writing as the registered
keeper, denying liability. I made it clear that I am not obliged
to identify the driver and that there is no legal presumption
that the registered keeper was the driver. I also raised
detailed issues about the absence of keeper liability under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
>
> Crucially, I identified that Moorside Legal’s Letter of Claim
did not comply with the Protocol and the Practice Direction –
Pre-Action Conduct. I therefore treated their letter as
non-compliant and made a detailed request for the information
and documents which the Protocol requires a creditor to supply
before issuing proceedings. Among other things, I requested:
>
> – A clear explanation of the cause of action
> – Confirmation of whether I was being pursued as driver or
keeper
> – Confirmation of whether their client was relying on Schedule
4 of PoFA 2012
> – Copies of any contract relied upon, together with the
relevant signage and landowner authority
> – A proper breakdown of the sum claimed and an explanation of
any “debt recovery” add-on
>
> I expressly stated that I would respond substantively within
30 days of receiving a Letter of Claim that satisfied the
Protocol and that I required Moorside Legal to comply with their
pre-action obligations before any claim was issued.
>
> On 27 January 2025, instead of providing any of the requested
documents or clarifying the basis of the alleged claim, Moorside
Legal sent me a letter headed “Proposed payment plan” (or words
to that effect) inviting me to pay around £510 by instalments,
said to be for “three unpaid invoices” or similar. This letter
completely ignored my dispute and my Protocol-based request for
information. It simply assumed that the alleged debt was valid
and sought to pressure me into a payment plan to “avoid court
action”. There was still no explanation of how the overall
figure was calculated, and no disclosure of any underlying
documents.
>
> After that, there was a period of around ten months where no
proceedings were issued and no proper response was provided to
my pre-action letter.
>
> On 12 November 2025 I then received a new “Letter Before
Claim” from Moorside Legal, this time on different headed paper
and from a different address. It stated that I supposedly owed
£680 for “multiple unpaid invoices” for Parking Control
Management (UK) Limited. Again, the letter itself did not list
the alleged PCNs (no dates, locations, or reference numbers, and
no explanation of the alleged breaches). Instead, the letter
asserted that “full details” of the case were available on
Moorside Legal’s “Customer Portal” (portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk),
and that if they received further instructions from their client
“before a claim is issued, these will be added to the
outstanding debt and updated on the portal”.
>
> 3. Refusal to use the “portal” and concerns about service and
transparency
>
> I wish to make it clear that I have refused, and continue to
refuse, to use Moorside Legal’s portal. I am entitled to receive
a properly particularised Letter of Claim and supporting
documents in writing, not to have to register with and navigate
a third-party website in order to find out what I am being
accused of.
>
> In my view it is presumptive and out of order for a regulated
firm to assume that pointing a consumer to an online portal
satisfies their obligations under the Protocol. A Letter Before
Claim is supposed to contain, or be accompanied by, the key
information and documents itself. It is not acceptable to send
an under-particularised letter and then attempt to shift the
burden onto the recipient to go fishing for details online,
particularly where the portal is controlled by the creditor’s
solicitors and the contents can be changed at will.
>
> The November 2025 Letter Before Claim is especially troubling
because it openly states that the alleged “outstanding debt” is
not fixed and may be increased before proceedings are issued,
with any such changes only reflected on the portal. In other
words, the “Letter Before Claim” itself is neither final nor
complete, and Moorside Legal appear to regard their portal as
the true locus of the alleged claim. This undermines the purpose
of the Protocol, which requires a clear, stable pre-action
summary of the claim and an up-to-date statement of account at
the time the Letter of Claim is sent.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> – I do not consent to using Moorside Legal’s portal.
> – I do not accept that a private portal is an appropriate or
sufficient method of serving the information and documents
required under the Protocol.
> – I consider their insistence on channelling “full details”
and “updates” through the portal, rather than disclosing them
transparently in writing, to be presumptive, unfair, and
contrary to good professional practice.
>
> 4. Why I say this breaches SRA Principles and Codes
>
> In my view, Moorside Legal’s conduct breaches several core
duties, including the obligation to uphold the rule of law and
proper administration of justice, to act with integrity, and to
act in a way that maintains public trust.
>
> A firm acting properly would, upon receiving my detailed
Protocol-based response in January 2025, either:
>
> – Provide the requested documents and information and produce
a compliant, particularised Letter of Claim; or
> – Explain why certain documents could not be provided and
narrow the issues to enable informed engagement.
>
> Instead, Moorside Legal ignored my requests, sent a
payment-plan demand as if the debt were admitted, then did
nothing for ten months before issuing an even more generic
Letter Before Claim for a higher sum, which again failed to
particularise the alleged claim and attempted to push everything
onto an online portal. This is not how a responsible firm
behaves when using the court process.
>
> Their communications are also misleading and oppressive. The
second Letter Before Claim presents itself as a formal pre-court
letter, while at the same time stating that the alleged debt is
subject to change and that “full details” exist only behind a
portal. The relentless emphasis on County Court judgments and
credit damage, without providing the basic information necessary
for me to understand and challenge the alleged claim, is
precisely the kind of behaviour which the Protocol and the
Practice Direction were designed to prevent.
>
> In addition, Moorside Legal’s model appears to misuse the
threat of litigation as a debt-collection tool. They wield their
status as solicitors and references to court proceedings to
exert pressure, but fail to comply with the safeguards and
duties that accompany that status. In my case, they have treated
the Protocol obligations as a tick-box formality while
prioritising payment plans and online portals over proper
written disclosure.
>
> 5. Why I believe this is systemic rather than a one-off
>
> The November 2025 Letter Before Claim is clearly a template,
not something drafted around the specifics of my case. Its
reliance on a “Customer Portal”, its statement that the debt
amount may be altered pre-issue, and its lack of in-letter
particulars all point to a systemic process. Given the volume
nature of private parking claims, I am concerned that many
consumers will simply be browbeaten into paying without ever
receiving a clear, written explanation of what is alleged
against them.
>
> I therefore ask the SRA not to treat this as an isolated
file-handling error but to examine Moorside Legal’s systems,
templates and supervision in relation to:
>
> – The content of their Letters Before Claim
> – Their use of portals in place of written disclosure
> – Their treatment of Protocol-compliant responses and document
requests
> – The escalation of claimed sums without explanation
>
> 6. What I am asking the SRA to do
>
> I respectfully request that the SRA:
>
> 1. Open a formal investigation into Moorside Legal’s conduct
in my matter, including their failure to respond properly to my
January 2025 letter, their issuing of a “Proposed payment plan”
instead of a substantive reply, and their November 2025 Letter
Before Claim which relies on a portal and an unstable debt
figure.
>
> 2. Examine Moorside Legal’s standard practices and templates
for private parking and other debt claims, particularly in
relation to compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
>
> 3. Consider whether regulatory or disciplinary action is
necessary to ensure that Moorside Legal’s future conduct upholds
the rule of law, treats consumers fairly, and does not misuse
threats of court proceedings as a substitute for proper
disclosure.
>
> I include copies of the January 2025 Letter of Claim, my
January 2025 response, the “Proposed payment plan” letter of 27
January 2025, and the 12 November 2025 Letter Before Claim in
support of this complaint. If you require any further
information or documents I will be happy to assist.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
Get that sent off ASAP.
#Post#: 100373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: b789
Date: November 30, 2025, 4:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You respond to the latest LoC by email to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim dated [insert
date]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I write as the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in
your recent Letter Before Claim.
>
> 1. Previous Letter Before Claim and my January 2025 response
>
> You previously sent me a Letter of Claim dated 9 January 2025
demanding £170 in respect of “one or more Parking Charge
Notices”. I responded in writing later that month, denying
liability in full. In that response I made it clear that:
>
> a) I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I make no
admission as to the identity of the driver.
> b) There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper
was the driver on any given occasion.
> c) Your client has failed to establish any right to pursue me
as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
> d) Your January 2025 Letter of Claim did not comply with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or the Practice Direction –
Pre-Action Conduct because it lacked basic particulars of the
alleged claim.
>
> In the same letter I made a clear and detailed request for the
information and documents that the Protocol requires you to
provide before issuing proceedings. You did not provide that
information.
>
> Instead, on 27 January 2025 you sent a “proposed payment plan”
letter inflating the alleged sum to around £510 and inviting me
to pay by instalments, while completely ignoring both my dispute
and my Protocol-based information request.
>
> No proceedings were issued. After about ten months of silence
you have now sent a fresh Letter Before Claim demanding £680.
>
> 2. Latest Letter Before Claim – non-compliance with the
Protocol
>
> Your latest Letter Before Claim is again defective and
non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and
the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
>
> It simply asserts that I owe £680 for “multiple unpaid
invoices” but does not, on the face of the letter, set out:
>
> a) The individual Parking Charge Notices relied upon.
> b) The dates, times and locations of each alleged
contravention.
> c) The alleged conduct said to give rise to liability.
> d) Whether the claim is said to be for contractual damages,
contractual consideration, trespass or something else.
>
> Instead, your letter attempts to discharge your pre-action
obligations by directing me to your “Customer Portal” at
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk for “full details” of the alleged
claim. You then add that if you receive further instructions
from your client before a claim is issued, those will be “added
to the outstanding debt and updated on the portal”.
>
> 3. Refusal to use your portal
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> a) I refuse to use your portal.
> b) I am entitled to receive a properly particularised Letter
of Claim and supporting documents in writing, not to be required
to register with or visit a private website controlled by you in
order to find out what I am being accused of.
> c) It is presumptive and out of order to assume that a
consumer must use your portal as a substitute for proper written
service of the information and documents required by the
Protocol.
>
> A Letter Before Claim is supposed to be a clear, stable,
written summary of the claim with a fixed and up to date balance
at the time it is sent. It is not acceptable to send an
under-particularised letter and then say that the “real”
information is on your portal, nor is it acceptable to reserve
the right to keep altering the alleged balance and only reflect
those changes on that portal. This approach is wholly
inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of the
Protocol.
>
> 4. Liability is denied – driver and keeper positions
>
> Liability is denied in full.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. There is no lawful
presumption that the keeper was the driver.
>
> On the information provided to date, your client has not
demonstrated compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, there can be no keeper
liability. You are put to strict proof of any lawful basis by
which your client contends that I am liable, whether as driver
or as keeper.
>
> 5. Information and documents required
>
> My detailed letter in January 2025 already set out what is
required from you and your client in order for me to understand
and respond properly to any alleged claim. You have never
provided that information.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, you must not issue proceedings
until you have complied in full with your pre-action obligations
and provided, in writing, all of the information and documents
previously requested, including but not limited to:
>
> 1. A clear explanation of the cause of action.
> 2. Confirmation of whether your client alleges liability as
driver or as keeper.
> 3. Confirmation of whether your client is relying on Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and, if so, an
explanation of how each statutory requirement is said to be
satisfied.
> 4. Full details of each alleged Parking Charge Notice,
including PCN number, date, time, location, alleged
contravention and any alleged period of parking.
> 5. A copy of the alleged contract relied upon, together with
the terms and conditions said to form part of it.
> 6. Contemporaneous photographs said to show the vehicle in
breach of any contractual term.
> 7. Details of the landowner authority under which your client
says it can issue Parking Charge Notices and bring legal
proceedings in its own name, together with a copy of the
contract or agreement relied upon.
> 8. A plan showing the location of all signage at the material
time.
> 9. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage at the material
time, showing wording, font size and position or height.
> 10. A full breakdown of the sums claimed, including the
original PCN amounts, any alleged interest, and each additional
fee or charge added, together with an explanation of the legal
basis for each element, particularly any so called “debt
recovery” add-ons.
>
> Unless and until this information has been supplied in writing
in a Protocol-compliant manner (and not buried on a portal), it
is premature and unreasonable to issue proceedings.
>
> 6. SRA complaint
>
> In view of your conduct to date – including:
>
> a) The defective January 2025 Letter of Claim.
> b) Your failure to engage properly with my detailed response
and information request.
> c) Your “proposed payment plan” letter which treated the
alleged debt as admitted.
> d) Your latest Letter Before Claim which again relies on a
portal and an unstable claimed balance.
>
> I have submitted a formal complaint to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority about your firm’s conduct in this matter.
>
> You are on notice that any further misuse of the pre-action
process, or any attempt to issue a claim without first providing
the information and documents set out above, will be relied upon
as further evidence of unreasonable behaviour.
>
> 7. Future conduct
>
> If you or your client nevertheless proceed to issue a County
Court claim without first complying with the Protocol and
providing the requested documents, I will:
>
> a) Apply for an immediate stay of proceedings pending proper
compliance.
> b) Seek my full costs, including under CPR 27.14 for
unreasonable conduct.
>
> No admissions are made and all of my rights are reserved.
>
> I expect your next communication to be either:
>
> A Protocol-compliant response enclosing the information and
documents requested.
> or
>
> Written confirmation that no further action will be taken and
that your file is closed.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Keeper’s full name]
> [Keeper’s postal address]
> [Keeper’s email address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 107208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: alex777
Date: January 24, 2026, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for that, you are a legend, I have done all
of that. Moorside Legal keep robotically sending letters, the
machine that cannot be stopped. Just added second LOC here of 13
Jan 2026:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xchORRVo-7SPYsKpils4y0zbr6OVVAmn/view
Thank you again,
Alex
#Post#: 112426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge, obscure sign
DIR By: alex777
Date: March 8, 2026, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SRA reply re Moorside Legal:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_NdyUEtS3j3JCXkk1lJ-NOQemVWEXTk/view?usp=drive_link
Business as usual from 'SRA'
Regards,
Alex
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page