DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: September 11, 2025, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it, thank you.
#Post#: 94531--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: October 17, 2025, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I have just sent a test email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
it has not bounced. I received their usual auto-response
rubbish.
>
> Can you please show us the content of the message/reason in
the bounced emails.
>
> They’re not entitled to force you onto a portal. The PAPDC
requires proper engagement and disclosure. If you expressly
asked for non-postal correspondence and supplied alternative
contact details, they should use those details for the Letter of
Claim, and if documents are requested they must provide them (or
explain why not) within 30 days. Blocking your email address
instead of engaging points to non-compliance.
>
> Bocking emails is not, by itself, “unlawful”, and email is not
a valid method of service unless consented to under PD 6A. But
this is pre-action correspondence, not service. Using a
published email address then deliberately blocking you
frustrates the objectives of pre-action conduct and can attract
sanctions (stay, costs adjustments) if they issue the claim
without first engaging.
>
> From a regulatory angle, an SRA-regulated firm must have
effective systems and controls and act fairly; publishing
contact routes and then obstructing communications may raise
issues under the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms (e.g.,
maintaining trust, not misleading, and keeping effective
systems).
>
> What this gives you if they sue anyway, is that in the Defence
(or early application), you can plead PAPDC non-compliance: (i)
failure to use the non-postal contact route expressly specified,
(ii) failure to provide requested documents within 30 days, and
(iii) obstructing pre-action engagement by blocking the your
email. Seek a stay and costs for unreasonable conduct under
PDPAC paras 13–16.
>
> Do not rely on “deemed service” by email; PD 6A requires prior
written agreement for electronic service. Keep the point
strictly as pre-action non-compliance, not service.
>
> When the time comes, you can use something like this in your
defence:
>
> [quote]The Claimant’s solicitors failed to comply with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant requested
documents and clarification. Contrary to PAPDC paras 5.1–5.2,
the Claimant failed to provide the requested documents within 30
days and then obstructed communication by blocking the
Defendant’s emails to all published contact addresses, despite
the Defendant’s express preference for non-postal contact per
PAPDC para 3.3. Any proceedings should be stayed under PDPAC
paras 13–16 pending full compliance, with the Claimant bearing
the costs of this non-compliance.
--- End Quote ---
Other options open to you are to send anything to them by post
with a free certificate of posting from any post office and
require them to only communicate by post. Whilst they are not
required to use proof of posting, you can rebut any presumption
of delivery should you not receive it.
Finally, you could just get yourself a new, free email address,
such as a gmail one, that you use only for communication with
the firm of incompetents. If the subsequently block that, you
can add to your SRA complaint, especially if this happens after
a claim has been issued.
[/quote]
Apologies, I didn't see this response in full - I can't seem to
add attachments now? But I have a screenshot of the email saying
my email was blocked by them.
I've had a response from Moorside Legal, but not the SRA...
"We write in relation to the above matter.
Please be advised info@moorsidelegal.co.uk is not an email we
use. Future corespondance will need to done via the below link.
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."
Do I tell them I won't respond until the SRA responds?
#Post#: 94535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No. Just wait for the claim to arrive and let us know.
#Post#: 96216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: October 30, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also now have a reply from SRA - was surprised (perhaps you're
not) to find that they see no issues with the procedures,
processes and steps Moorside Legal have taken to this point?
Was this step just a delay tactic or should the outcome have
been more positive?
This was the crux of their email:
Our decision concerning the report you made to us
Thank you for your report regarding Moorside Legal Services
Limited (the firm)
and its involvement in a parking charge dispute between you and
the firm’s client.
You allege that:
1) The firm has not provided any signage photographs to support
its clients
claim against you.
2) The firm has failed to identify the specific clause(s) of the
parking terms
and conditions you have alleged to have breached.
3) The firm has refused to disclose the landowner agreement.
4) The firm have abused process in a £70 add-on charge for debt
recovery.
5) The firm are in non-compliance with PAPDC and protocol for
payment
demands.
After considering your report, we have decided we will not be
taking any further
action.
Reasons for our decision
When we look into reports made to us, we make a decision on
whether to
investigate based on our assessment threshold test. We look at:
• Whether there has been a potential breach of our rules.
• If there has been a breach of our rules, and if so, the nature
of the
breach or whether the conduct forms part of a pattern of
behaviour.
However, we typically only investigate the most serious
allegations.
• Whether there is enough evidence to prove the breach.
In this case, your report did not pass the assessment threshold
test because:
• We found there had not been a breach of our rules.
• We will not be able to prove the allegation(s) to the
necessary
standard of evidence.
Please note that:
• The firm has acted on behalf of its client (and following
their
instructions) in a legal matter for a parking charge notice
dispute.
• It is not in breach of our rules or standards for a legal firm
to charge
for debts it feels are owed to it. Whether those charges are
reasonable
is a matter for a court to determine.
• We cannot tell a solicitor to take specific steps in your
legal case or to
stop taking steps in your case.
• We do not have the power to make a solicitor or firm say sorry
to you,
pay compensation to you for a mistake or to put things right in
other
ways.
• We cannot intervene in legal disagreements, and the concerns
you
raised with us is legal and/or procedural in nature, regarding a
parking
charge notice dispute. This means it is ultimately for a court
or a
Tribunal to determine the outcome. This is not something we, as
a
regulator, can assist with and independent legal advice may need
to
be sought.
Appreciate your assistance as ever.
NB: Haven't heard further from Moorside Legal since their last 7
day threat.
Thanks,
#Post#: 96221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising unfortunately. The SRA almost never intervenes in
individual parking-related complaints unless there’s clear
evidence of dishonesty, misuse of client money, or systemic
misconduct. Their “assessment threshold test” is a very high bar
— they focus on breaches of regulatory standards, not failures
to follow the Civil Procedure Rules or Pre-Action Protocols.
In practical terms:
[indent]1. Why the outcome was negative
[indent]• The SRA’s remit is narrow: They regulate professional
conduct, not procedural competence or pre-action behaviour. A
solicitor could be technically non-compliant with the PAPDC and
still fall short of “regulatory misconduct.”
• They defer to the courts: Anything procedural or evidential —
like failure to supply documents, misuse of templates, or the
£70 add-on — is seen as a civil matter for a judge to handle.
• Pattern threshold: The SRA typically acts only where multiple
complaints suggest a pattern of abuse. One or two instances
(even blatant) rarely trigger formal investigation.[/indent]
2. Whether this was a delay tactic
Possibly, but more likely bureaucratic triage. Their standard
wording is a template response used to close reports that they
deem “outside regulatory scope.” It effectively parks the matter
rather than examines it. They rely on the complainant not
challenging the outcome or not escalating to their Independent
Reviewer (who only reviews process, not substance).
3. What this means going forward
[indent]• The SRA won’t help, but the letter itself is useful.
You can now show a judge that you attempted proper regulatory
escalation and that Moorside’s conduct — though tolerated by the
SRA — remains contrary to the PAPDC and CPR.
• You’ve bought time. The seven-day threat has expired without
further action, so unless Moorside issue proceedings soon, their
silence suggests the matter may have been paused or abandoned.
• If they do issue a claim, their PAPDC non-compliance remains a
valid argument for a stay or strike-out request, and the SRA
closure can be exhibited to show you exhausted non-judicial
remedies.[/indent]
4. Strategic next step
File the SRA’s response for reference, but there’s no need to
reply. If you want to keep gentle pressure on Moorside, you
could write a short note:
[indent]“Further to your failure to issue a compliant Letter of
Claim and the SRA’s confirmation that your actions remain a
matter for judicial scrutiny, I now await either your compliant
disclosure or a claim form. Any proceedings will be defended in
full, and your pre-action failures will be raised before the
court.”[/indent]
That reinforces your position without inviting more pointless
correspondence.[/indent]
In short: the SRA outcome is normal, not a defeat — it simply
pushes the issue back into the judicial arena, where it carries
more weight anyway.
#Post#: 96226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim - Moorside Legal - PCN
DIR By: LuAl22
Date: October 30, 2025, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok,
Thanks.
Still heard nothing from Moorside since their last 7 day threat,
which I is nearly 14 days ago now.
Will sit tight.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page