DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84023--------------------------------------------------
Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 4, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have an LBC from Moorside Legal for a PCN from April 24.
Originally I was working away for some time so didn't pick up
the letters and was unable to respond and opted to not respond
to anything once I was back, including threats of bailiffs etc.
It went quiet for a while and I thought it was done.
I have now received the LBC and seen and read various
suggestions that I should reply with a very specific response as
they are nothing more than "wannabe" legal terms.
I'd like to be sure I'm sending the right thing to the right
place, is anyone able to assist and confirm what I should be
sending please? I've read a lot of threads and comments and
whilst it's overwhelming, I'd like to be sure I'm following the
right lines.
I have seen this elsewhere - is this the right response to send?
(attached)
Appreciate any assistance.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 84027--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 4, 2025, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
LBC from April 24 but only received 28/7/25?
Can you be more precise, are there two separate letters? OK, I
think you mean PCN from April 24. Can you post here? Can you
un-redact dates from everything?
#Post#: 84028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 4, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, sorry.
The LBC was received recently, as dated.
The original "offence" and Parking Charge Notice is from April
24. I received many letters of intent prior to the Letter Before
Claim but I was away for around 3 months and then opted to
ignored them as I missed any suggested appeal timeframes.
#Post#: 84032--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: Dave65
Date: August 4, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you still have the original PPN?
If so, as stated post up a copy with personal details redacted
but leave dates.
#Post#: 84035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 4, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I don't have the original, but the first follow up.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 84071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 4, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just email the following too the dipsticks at Moorside at
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC 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.
>
> As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be
capable of crafting a letter that aligns 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 do not exist
for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and
proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint
yourselves with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties
should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each
other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes
disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to
provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation
upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult
to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side
declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
>
> 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. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
> 2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists
between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual
photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the
material date, not a generic stock image
> 3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon
that you allege to have been breached
> 4. A copy of the original Notice To Keeper (NtK) as it was
never received
> 5. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner, establishing authority to enforce
> 6. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the
principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and
whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT[/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#: 84194--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 5, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, have done that. Will sit and wait for a response...
#Post#: 85460--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 13, 2025, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning folks, I got a response...wondering what to do next?
"We write in relation to the above matter, please see the
attatched as requested.
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 is a member of the International Parking
Community which is a government approved Accredited Trade
Association (ATA) for Private Parking. 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.
It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement
between our client and the landowner as you are not party to
that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential
defence.
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days
of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday-
Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
HTML https://pay.moorside.legal
- Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by
our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will
incur further costs and fees that will be added to the
outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal
advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal"
I'm not sure what I expected to hear back, but I don't think it
was this. They supplied a bunch of attachments as well, as
requested.
#Post#: 85467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: August 13, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their response is beyond a joke and reflects the utter
incompetence within this bottom-dwelling firm of wannabe
litigators.
I suggest you respond with the following email (remember to CC
in yourself in all email correspondence):
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your latest response is a classic example of procedural
ineptitude. Despite being put on notice under the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims, you have once again failed to comply
with even the most basic requirements of the Practice Direction.
>
> Let me spell it out for you:
>
> [indent]• You have not provided a single photograph of the
signage allegedly forming the basis of your client’s contractual
claim. A CCTV still of a vehicle proves nothing.
> • You have failed to identify the specific clause(s) allegedly
breached.
> • You have refused to disclose the landowner agreement — an
astonishing position given that your client’s standing to bring
any claim hinges entirely on it.
> • Your justification for the £70 charge is lifted wholesale
from trade association boilerplate and fails to address whether
it reflects actual incurred costs, damages, or consideration.
You have also dodged the VAT question, again.[/indent]
>
> Your attempt to pass off this shambolic response as compliant
is not merely laughable — it demonstrates a fundamental
disregard for your duties under the Protocol and the Practice
Direction. If this is the standard of legal work Moorside Legal
considers acceptable, then I will have no hesitation in
referring your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority
(SRA) for investigation under Principles 1, 2, and 5 of the SRA
Standards and Regulations.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding documents are
listed in the annex to this letter. Until your client complies
fully with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 6(a)–(c) of the
Protocol, I will not engage further. Should you issue
proceedings prematurely, I will seek an immediate stay and
invite the court to impose costs sanctions under paragraphs 13,
15(b), and 16 of the Practice Direction. I will also submit a
formal complaint to the SRA, enclosing your correspondence as
evidence of your firm’s disregard for professional obligations
and procedural fairness.
>
> You have seven days to remedy these failings. After that, I
will consider your silence or continued non-compliance as wilful
misconduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
>
> Annex – Outstanding Documents Requested 4 August 2025
>
> [indent]1. Photographs of the signage as it was displayed on
the site on the material date, showing wording, placement,
lighting, and legibility from a driver’s perspective.
> 2. The exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
> 3. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner, establishing authority to operate, issue PCNs, and
conduct litigation in their own name.
> 4. A complete breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying
whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or
damages, and whether the £70 add-on includes VAT.
> 5. Evidence of PoFA 2012 compliance, including the specified
“period of parking” under Paragraph 9(2)(a).[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 86066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: August 18, 2025, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help so far.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page