DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69829--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: rizlagunner
Date: May 3, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
An update for this case, I received one further reminder letter
from Trace Recovery and I have now received the attached letter
from their solicitor. Do I need to reply to this and if so, how?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/uP8nnm9.jpeg
#Post#: 69832--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: b789
Date: May 3, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rizlagunner link ---
>
> An update for this case, I received one further reminder
letter from Trace Recovery and I have now received the attached
letter from their solicitor. Do I need to reply to this and if
so, how?
>
--- End Quote ---
No. It is not a Letter of Claim (LoC). It is simply another debt
recovery attempt from the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal.
When they send an actual LoC, come back and show us.
#Post#: 74886--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: rizlagunner
Date: June 5, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=rizlagunner link=topic=4705.msg69829#msg69829
date=1746265313]
> An update for this case, I received one further reminder
letter from Trace Recovery and I have now received the attached
letter from their solicitor. Do I need to reply to this and if
so, how?
>
--- End Quote ---
No. It is not a Letter of Claim (LoC). It is simply another debt
recovery attempt from the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal.
When they send an actual LoC, come back and show us.
[/quote]
Hi, I have now received the Letter of Claim from these people.
Should I respond to this? Attached below for reference:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wHRHkcx.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/w5bLZMV.jpeg
#Post#: 74896--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: b789
Date: June 5, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You respond to Moorside with the following by email to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and you CC in dataprotection@ncp.co.uk
and also yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
>
> If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. No initial Notice to
Keeper was received. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served
within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act.
Additionally, the location of the alleged contravention is
airport land that is under statutory control and therefore there
can be no Keeper liability. Your client is therefore only able
to hold the driver liable and I am under no legal obligation to
identify that person to an unregulated private firm.
>
> A formal complaint was sent to your client and they never had
the courtesy to respond except to say that they do not handle
Parking Charge complaints. For this reason, I have copied in
your client in this response to your Letter of Claim and I put
them on notice that their failure to comply wth section 11 of
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
will be used against them in a formal complaint to the DVLA as
this constitutes a breach of their KADOE agreement and they now
risk sanctions that could affect their access to DVLA data.
>
> As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a
claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and
seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and
vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As supposed solicitors, you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
section 14.
> 9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed.
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added.
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84798--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: rizlagunner
Date: August 8, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
An update to this case. The response given above was
communicated to Moorside Legal on June 9, 2025. Nothing was
heard back from them until receiving the following email today:
--- Quote ---
> Dear XXX
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> To enable us to process your email, we need to confirm that we
are corresponding with the correct individual. To pass our
security checks, we ask that you confirm the following:
>
> Address and post code
> Vehicle registration
>
> Please reply to this email to continue the email thread.
>
> Yours sincerely
> Moorside Legal
--- End Quote ---
Should I respond with the required information? The letter of
claim was referenced in the original email so they should have
this information already.
#Post#: 84858--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: b789
Date: August 9, 2025, 1:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are not obliged to respond to Moorside’s request for
information, as they already possess the necessary identifiers
from your June 9 correspondence. Their failure to engage for
over two months, followed by this generic gatekeeping email, is
procedurally unacceptable and indicative of the firm’s habitual
incompetence.
However, to eliminate any excuse for further delay—and to
document their procedural failure—you may choose to respond
once, under protest. The following draft asserts control while
exposing their conduct:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Your Email Dated [Insert Date]
>
> Dear Moorside Legal,
>
> Your email of [insert date] is a textbook example of the
procedural incompetence that has characterised your handling of
this matter from the outset.
>
> The response sent to you on June 9, 2025, directly referenced
your Letter of Claim and included all necessary identifiers,
including the vehicle registration and claim reference. You have
had more than sufficient information to verify the recipient and
respond substantively. Your failure to do so for over two
months, followed by this generic gatekeeping email, is not only
procedurally defective—it reeks of deliberate obfuscation.
>
> If this is your attempt to reset the clock or sidestep the
obligations triggered by the June 9 response, be advised: it
will be treated as a breach of the Pre-Action Protocol. Your
delay, evasiveness, and inability to process basic
correspondence will be documented and relied upon in any costs
application or procedural challenge.
>
> Nonetheless, to eliminate further excuses, I confirm the
following under protest:
>
> [indent]Address: [Insert address]
> Postcode: [Insert postcode]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert registration][/indent]
>
> You are now expected to respond substantively to the June 9
correspondence without further delay. Any further incompetence
will be met with appropriate procedural escalation.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84864--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Gatwick Final Notice - No PCN received!
DIR By: rizlagunner
Date: August 9, 2025, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's a great response. Will send this to them and report back
if they respond.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page