DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 21, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Do I need to start a new thread for this?
--- End Quote ---
Yes please, we operate a "One case, one thread" policy, as
trying to offer advice on different cases in one thread causes
confusion.
#Post#: 99185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: Feline007
Date: November 21, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Will do.
#Post#: 101114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: Feline007
Date: December 5, 2025, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I have just been sent another notice of claim. This has a
different reference number but says I now owe £340 so preumably
they are joining the two things together. As this has a
diferent reference number, should I just send the letter you
supplied for the first one to this one with the same details?
It still just says 'unpaid invoices'.
I have scanned the doc here:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/rq6Um0h
Thank you for your help.
#Post#: 101154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: b789
Date: December 5, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If that is the entire content of the LoC you received, you must
sent the following email to the Solicitors Regulation Authority
(SRA) at report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal complaint – Moorside Legal’s non-compliant and
misleading Letters Before Claim
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am submitting a formal complaint regarding Moorside Legal
and the Letters Before Claim they are issuing. I have attached a
copy of the Letter Before Claim I received for your
consideration.
>
> The letter provides almost no information about the matter it
relates to. It does not identify the creditor, does not specify
what the alleged claim concerns, and does not set out any dates,
events, references, or details that would allow me to understand
why Moorside Legal believes I owe anything. The letter merely
states that I should access an online portal to find out more,
rather than supplying the information that the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims requires to be provided within the
Letter Before Claim itself.
>
> The letter does not enclose the mandatory Information Sheet,
Reply Form, or financial statement form required by the
Protocol. Instead, it directs me to Moorside Legal’s own website
to obtain a reply form. This is not compliant with the Protocol
and I am not obliged to use their "portal" and decline to do so.
>
> The letter does not enclose or offer copies of any documents
said to support the alleged claim. As a result, I cannot verify
what the matter relates to, whether it concerns me, or whether
any liability is denied or disputed. Without this information, I
cannot engage meaningfully with the pre-action process.
>
> Despite withholding the required information, the letter
threatens possible court proceedings and refers to the risk of
negative consequences, yet it does not provide the details
necessary for me to understand or respond to the matter. This
renders the Letter Before Claim unclear, incomplete, and
misleading. It undermines the purpose of the pre-action process.
>
> I am aware that this appears to be a standardised template
used by Moorside Legal, not an isolated error. Many recipients
report receiving an identical letter with the same omissions.
This suggests a systemic failure to comply with the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> In my view, this raises concerns under the SRA Principles and
the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, including the duties to act
with integrity, to uphold public trust and confidence, to
communicate clearly and not misleadingly with third parties, and
to comply with legal and regulatory obligations such as the
PAPDC.
>
> I request that the SRA investigate Moorside Legal’s practices
and ensure appropriate regulatory action is taken where
necessary.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
Also, respond to the LoC to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC
yourself as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference
number]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client
places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to
comply 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 exist to facilitate informed discussion and
proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves
with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient
information to understand each other’s position. Part 6
clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents
relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none.
That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your
client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in
meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish
the very document you purport to enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please
provide:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and
any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012
liability.

> 2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your
client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s)
in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with
a site plan showing the sign locations.

> 3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
> 
4. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to
litigate.

> 5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the
principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and
whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes
VAT.
[/indent]
>
> I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own
obligation under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as
non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and have
already raised a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your
conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before
the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs
(including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case
management orders).
>
> Until your client complies and provides the requested
material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim
or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of
costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I
will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling
provision of the above.
>
> Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will
only respond by email or post.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: Feline007
Date: December 10, 2025, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect thank you.
#Post#: 101855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: masif1
Date: December 10, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I recently received a Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal and
responded to it by emailing help@moorsidelegal.co.uk with the
information noted above. However, I then received an automated
reply stating that the mailbox is not monitored. I had CC’d
myself on the original email, so I know it was sent
successfully.
Should I submit my response through their online portal instead,
or is it safe to disregard the automated message?
#Post#: 101856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: Maximum Bob
Date: December 10, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP.....Did you contact the Development company responsible for
the property to have the PCN cancelled?
I have heard of a similar case where the development company
cancelled the PCN.
#Post#: 101907--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: masif1 link ---
>
> Should I submit my response through their online portal
instead, or is it safe to disregard the automated message?
>
--- End Quote ---
You simply respond to that email (reply) and add the following
paragraph before the response to their LoC:
--- Quote ---
> On [date] I sent an Article 15 subject access request to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk using the exact subject line specified
in Moorside Legal’s own privacy notice, ‘Data Subject Rights –
[My Name]’. Within minutes I received a stock email stating
‘this mailbox is not monitored’ and directing me to their
portal. This shows that the only published DPO/contact email is
configured to auto-reply that it is ‘not monitored’, and that
consumers attempting to use the route specified in the privacy
notice are immediately told it is not available.
--- End Quote ---
In addition to that, send the following email:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Notice – Breach of Transparency Obligations
and Imminent Escalation to ICO, SRA and CMA
>
> To: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk; dpo@apn.co.uk
> Cc: enquiries@apn.co.uk; [your own email address]
>
> Dear Data Protection Officer,
>
> This notice is issued to you in your statutory capacity under
the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, in relation to
Moorside Legal Services Limited and the wider APN Group.
>
> Moorside Legal’s own Privacy Notice states that any data
subject wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO
should email help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (subject heading: “Data
Subject Rights – Your Name”) or write to the postal DPO address.
Help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only email address Moorside
Legal publishes for contact and it is expressly described as the
DPO contact route.
>
> Relying on that representation, a substantive response to a
Moorside Legal Letter of Claim was sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. That email contained personal data and
clearly engaged data subject rights and pre-action obligations.
>
> In reply, instead of engaging with the substance of the
correspondence, Moorside Legal sent a boilerplate “fob-off”
email stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and attempting
to force use of an online portal. This was not an automated
server bounce: it was a standard template that an individual
chose to send after accessing the original message. In other
words, a member of your staff is monitoring incoming messages to
the very address advertised as the DPO contact, reading those
messages, and then sending a stock response asserting that the
mailbox is “not monitored” and that the only acceptable
communication route is your portal.
>
> That is not a technical quirk; it is a deliberate policy
choice designed to frustrate both data subject rights and
responses to Letters of Claim.
>
> From a technical standpoint, the position is clear. I have
checked the configuration of your domain moorsidelegal.co.uk and
obtained the following information:
>
> Summary of findings
> [indent]- Email addresses tested: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk;
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk
> - Status: both accepted; domain reported as catch-all
> - SMTP provider: Barracuda Networks
> - MX record: d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com
> - Domain age: more than 800 days (a stable corporate domain,
not newly registered)[/indent]
>
> A catch-all configuration on a Barracuda-hosted system means
your server is set to accept mail for any address at
moorsidelegal.co.uk and return a standard “250 OK” SMTP
response, even if the individual mailbox name is not
specifically configured, in order to mask mailbox validity. The
tests show that both help@ and litigation@ are accepted in this
way.
>
> That behaviour may frustrate external probing of which
individual mailboxes exist, but it does not alter the core legal
and technical fact that once your server has accepted an email
at SMTP level with a 2xx OK success code and no bounce is
generated, delivery (service) into your system is complete.
>
> What you choose to do internally with that message – including
routing it to staff who then send a boilerplate “this mailbox is
not monitored, use the portal” reply – does not change the
reality that:
>
> [indent]– You are in possession of the personal data.
> – You are the controller responsible for handling it lawfully,
fairly and transparently.
> – You must not hold out help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO
and data subject contact address in your Privacy Notice while
instructing staff to fob people off with a knowingly misleading
“not monitored” line and forcing them into a payment
portal.[/indent]
>
> When you put that together:
>
> [indent]1. Your Privacy Notice explicitly designates
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO contact for exercising
rights and as your contact email generally.
> 2. Emails sent to that address are in fact accepted by your
server, read by staff, and then met with a mendacious template
claiming the mailbox is “not monitored” and that all
communication must be via your portal.[/indent]
>
> Both positions cannot simultaneously be true in a way that
complies with your legal obligations. Either:
>
> [indent]– The mailbox is monitored and the “not monitored”
claim is knowingly false, used to deter and obstruct data
subjects and defendants from asserting their rights by email; or
> – It is not monitored for DPO purposes, in which case your
Privacy Notice is materially inaccurate and misleading because
it advertises a non-functional route for exercising rights and
contacting you.[/indent]
>
> In both scenarios, your current practice appears incompatible
with:
>
> [indent]– Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR (lawfulness, fairness and
transparency).
> – Article 12 UK GDPR (duty to facilitate the exercise of data
subject rights and avoid undue obstacles).
> – Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR (duty to provide accurate,
functional contact details for the controller and, where
appointed, the DPO, and to enable data subjects to contact the
DPO easily and directly).[/indent]
>
> It is particularly serious that you are using this “mailbox
not monitored, use the portal” template specifically in response
to reasoned pre-action correspondence, where the Civil Procedure
Rules and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims require
meaningful engagement. Attempting to channel defendants into a
payment portal while pretending that your published DPO/contact
address is effectively dead is plainly calculated to frustrate
both procedural fairness and statutory data protection rights.
>
> Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that Moorside Legal
Services Limited “is part of the APN Group”. APN Group’s own
privacy policy designates dpo@apn.co.uk as the group DPO
contact. The APN Group DPO is therefore now expressly on notice
that a group entity is operating a sham DPO/contact email route
and using a stock “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” script
in circumstances where the underlying mailbox is clearly active
and handled by staff.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]– Emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk are being
accepted by your Barracuda-hosted server and are not bouncing.
> – At least one such email has been opened and acted upon by
staff, who chose to send the “mailbox not monitored, use the
portal” template rather than deal with the content as a
DPO/contact request and as pre-action correspondence.
> – In those circumstances, any denial of receipt or attempt to
treat emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as “not valid”
communications will be treated as bad-faith conduct.[/indent]
>
> You are therefore put on formal notice that:
>
> [indent]– The burden of delivery is satisfied once your server
has accepted an email at SMTP level with a 2xx “OK” status and
no bounce. You cannot evade receipt by labelling the mailbox
“not monitored” after staff have already accessed the message
and responded with a template.
> – Continuing to publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the
DPO/contact address while staff send “not monitored, use the
portal” replies is inherently misleading and obstructive of data
subject rights and defendants’ rights.
>
> In addition to the data protection issues, these practices
will be drawn to the attention of the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) under the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), specifically the unfair commercial
practices regime in Part 4, Chapter 1 and the banned practices
set out in Schedule 20. In outline:
>
> [indent]– You are engaging in misleading actions and omissions
in relation to published contact channels and access to redress.
> – You are failing to meet the requirements of professional
diligence within the meaning of section 229 DMCC by maintaining
a non-functional or deliberately frustrated DPO/contact route
and channelling consumers exclusively into a payment-focused
portal when they dispute liability.[/indent]
>
> If the CMA finds against you, consequences can include:
>
> [indent]– Compliance directions and enforcement orders
requiring changes to your practices.
> – Monetary penalties of up to the higher of £300,000 or 10% of
global turnover.
> – Further regulatory action if systemic bad-faith conduct is
identified.[/indent]
>
> I am simultaneously lodging formal complaints to:
>
> [indent]– The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), for
failure to meet the transparency and facilitation requirements
of UK GDPR in relation to data subject communications and
objections to processing; and
> – The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in relation to
Moorside Legal Services Limited, for operating sham contact
routes and frustrating written engagement in the context of
pre-action debt claims, in a way that undermines access to
redress and public confidence in the profession.[/indent]
>
> I therefore require the following, in writing, within one
calendar month:
>
> [indent]1. A clear statement whether help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
is monitored for DPO and data subject communications. If it is
monitored, you must confirm that the “mailbox not monitored, use
the portal” template will be withdrawn immediately and that all
future emails sent in reliance on your Privacy Notice will be
treated as valid data subject and pre-action communications. If
it is not monitored, you must confirm that your Privacy Notice
will be corrected immediately and that a functional DPO email
address will be published and properly monitored.
>
> 2. Confirmation that the specific email sent in response to
your Letter of Claim (to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk) has been
retrieved, placed on the relevant file, and is being treated
both as a valid data subject communication (including an
objection to processing and request for restriction) and as
formal pre-action correspondence under the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims.
>
> 3. Details of the concrete steps you will take, and deadlines
for implementation, to ensure that all published DPO and contact
addresses (including those in Moorside and APN privacy notices)
are truthful, functional, properly monitored, and not undermined
by staff being instructed to send “not monitored, use the
portal” responses.
>
> You are fully responsible for the configuration and operation
of your email systems and for ensuring that your published
privacy information is accurate and not misleading. This letter
puts both Moorside Legal and APN Group on explicit notice that
the current arrangements are being treated as deliberate
obstruction and misrepresentation and that the regulators are
being asked to investigate and, where appropriate, sanction that
conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your address]
> [Relevant references: PCN/Moorside ref]
--- End Quote ---
Here are the three complaint templates you can use in parallel
(ICO, SRA, CMA).
ICO complaint template (email/text to paste into ICO form).
You’ll usually use the ICO’s online form, but this is the
narrative you can paste in:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint against Moorside Legal Services Ltd –
Non-functional DPO email and obstruction of data subject rights
>
> I wish to complain about the handling of personal data and
data subject communications by:
>
> [indent]Moorside Legal Services Limited
> Part of the APN Group
> Email as published in their privacy notice:
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that any data subject
wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO should email
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (with the subject “Data Subject Rights
– Your Name”) or write to a given postal address.
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only published email address.
>
> Relying on that notice, I have sent a detailed response to a
Letter of Claim to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. Those emails
contain personal data and clearly engage data subject rights
(objection to processing, restriction, rectification) and
pre-action obligations.
>
> The firm replied not with a substantive answer, but with a
boilerplate “fob-off” email stating that the mailbox is “not
monitored” and that all contact must instead go through their
online portal, which is presented as a payment/“customer”
portal. This reply was not an automated bounce. It was a
standard template that a staff member chose to send after
accessing the original email.
>
> I have also tested the technical configuration of their
domain, moorsidelegal.co.uk. Both help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted by their
Barracuda-hosted catch-all mail server (MX:
d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com). The server returns a
normal "250 OK" SMTP response and no bounce is generated. That
means the emails are being delivered into Moorside Legal’s
system, and at least a subset of them is being read by staff.
>
> In practice, this means:
>
> [indent]• Moorside publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the
DPO/contact email in their privacy notice.
> • Emails sent to that address are accepted and read.
> • Staff then send a template claiming the mailbox is “not
monitored” and instructing individuals to use a payment portal
instead.[/indent]
>
> Either the mailbox is monitored, in which case the “not
monitored” wording is knowingly false and deters people from
using their rights by email, or it is not properly monitored, in
which case the privacy notice is materially inaccurate and
misleading.
>
> In my view this breaches:
>
> [indent]• Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR – lack of fairness and
transparency.
> • Article 12 UK GDPR – failure to facilitate the exercise of
data subject rights and placing undue obstacles in the way.
> • Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR – inaccurate and
non-functional DPO/contact details, and failure to ensure the
DPO can be contacted easily and directly.[/indent]
>
> It is particularly concerning that this behaviour occurs in
the context of debt collection and pre-action letters before
claim, where individuals are already under pressure and need a
clear route to assert their rights and correct their data.
>
> What I am asking the ICO to do:
>
> [indent]• Investigate whether Moorside Legal and APN Group are
complying with Articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 37–39 UK GDPR in
relation to the help@moorsidelegal.co.uk address and their
handling of data subject communications.
> • Require them to either:
> [indent]– make help@moorsidelegal.co.uk a genuinely monitored
DPO/contact address and stop sending “not monitored, use the
portal” replies; or
> – amend their privacy notice and publish a functional DPO
email address that is properly monitored.[/indent]
> • Require them to treat emails already sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as valid data subject communications
and pre-action correspondence and to confirm this to affected
individuals.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
> [indent]• A copy of their privacy notice extract showing
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
> • A copy of my original email to that address.
> • The boilerplate “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
response.
--- End Quote ---
SRA complaint template (Moorside’s conduct as a firm). Email to
report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd –
Obstructive contact practices and misuse of “not monitored”
email in debt claims
>
> I wish to complain about the conduct of:
>
> [indent]Moorside Legal Services Limited
> SRA number: 8006077[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal act as solicitors in bulk debt recovery/parking
charge litigation. Their Privacy Notice states that data
subjects and clients should contact their Data Protection
Officer via help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. This is also the only
email address they publish for contact.
>
> When a consumer/defendant replies by email to a Letter Before
Claim (e.g. to set out a defence, raise issues under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, or exercise data rights),
Moorside Legal do not engage with the contents. Instead, after a
delay, they send a boilerplate response stating that the mailbox
is “not monitored” and instructing the individual to use their
online portal or telephone number. This is not an automatic
server reply; it is a template a member of staff sends after
reading the email.
>
> Technical checks show that their Barracuda mail server accepts
emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk with a normal "250 OK" response
and no bounce. At least some emails are clearly being read,
because staff then send the “not monitored, use the portal”
template in response.
>
> The effect is that:
>
> [indent]• A published email route for serious pre-action
correspondence is, in practice, converted into a dead-end.
> • Defendants who try to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol in
writing are fobbed off and pushed into a payment portal instead.
> • The public-facing privacy notice and “contact us”
information are inconsistent with the reality of how the firm
actually handles incoming emails.[/indent]
>
> In my view, this undermines:
>
> [indent]• The proper administration of justice and compliance
with the Civil Procedure Rules and Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
> • Public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession,
because a regulated firm is using a sham contact route and a
standard script to frustrate written engagement.
> • Basic standards of honesty and integrity – either the email
address is monitored and the “not monitored” claim is untrue, or
the privacy notice is materially misleading.[/indent]
>
> I ask the SRA to consider whether Moorside Legal’s conduct is
compatible with the SRA Principles and Codes of Conduct, in
particular the duties:
>
> [indent]• To act in a way that upholds public trust and
confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
> • To act with honesty and integrity.
> • To behave in a way that maintains the trust the public
places in solicitors when handling disputes and pre-action
correspondence.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
>
> [indent]• Moorside’s privacy notice extract showing
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
> • A copy of a reasoned email response to a Letter Before Claim
sent to that address.
> • Moorside’s “this mailbox is not monitored, use the portal”
reply.
--- End Quote ---
CMA/Trading Standards complaint template (DMCC 2024) which you
email to general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Unfair
commercial practice under DMCC 2024 (obstructed contact channels
and sham DPO email)
>
> I wish to report a business-to-consumer practice which I
believe breaches the unfair commercial practices provisions in
Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
>
> [indent]Trader: Moorside Legal Services Limited (part of APN
Group)
> Sector: Legal services / debt recovery / private parking
claims[/indent]
>
> Moorside Legal pursue private individuals for alleged parking
charges and send Letters Before Claim. Their Privacy Notice
tells consumers and data subjects to contact their Data
Protection Officer at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk – this is also
their only published email address.
>
> When a consumer replies to a Letter Before Claim by email to
that address (for example, to dispute the debt, challenge the
claim or correct their data), Moorside Legal do not deal with
the contents. Instead they send a standard “this mailbox is not
monitored – please use our portal” response and attempt to
divert the consumer into a payment-oriented online portal.
>
> This response is not an automated server bounce. It is a
boilerplate email sent by staff after reading the original
message. Technical checks on their Barracuda-hosted mail server
show that emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted with a "250 OK" SMTP
status and no bounce, so messages are reaching their system and
being processed.
>
> In practice, this means:
>
> [indent]• Moorside Legal advertise an email address as the
route to contact them and their DPO, but then treat written
correspondence sent to that address as if it were invalid.
> • They use a template to claim the mailbox is “not monitored”
and funnel consumers into a portal that is clearly designed
around payment rather than dispute resolution.
> • Consumers trying to exercise statutory rights or respond
properly to a Letter Before Claim are obstructed and channelled
towards paying instead of being allowed to use a clear written
route.[/indent]
>
> I believe this behaviour falls within the unfair commercial
practices regime because:
>
> [indent]• It is at least a contravention of the requirements
of professional diligence under section 229 DMCC – falling short
of the standard of skill and care reasonably expected of a
trader dealing with consumers in a debt-claim context, and not
commensurate with honest market practice or the general
principle of good faith.
> • It may also amount to misleading actions or omissions,
because the published contact details suggest consumers can use
email to exercise their rights and engage with the trader,
whereas in reality those emails are dismissed and they are
pushed into a portal.
> • It is likely to cause the average consumer to make a
transactional decision they would not otherwise have made – in
particular, to use the portal in the belief that it is the only
valid channel, to prioritise payment over dispute, or to abandon
attempts to challenge the claim because the advertised contact
route proves to be a sham.[/indent]
>
> I ask that this practice be investigated as a potential unfair
commercial practice under the DMCC 2024, with a view to:
>
> [indent]• Requiring Moorside Legal to provide functional,
monitored contact details that match their privacy notices and
letters.
> • Preventing them from using a “mailbox not monitored, use the
portal” script in response to legitimate dispute correspondence.
> • Considering enforcement measures and penalties if systemic
unfair practices are established.[/indent]
>
> I attach:
>
> [indent]• Screenshots/extracts from Moorside Legal’s privacy
notice (help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as DPO/contact email).
> • Copy of a Letter Before Claim.
> • Copy of an email response sent to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk.
> • Moorside’s “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” reply.
--- End Quote ---
Use this image as the evidence of their Data Protection email
address from their Privacy Notice:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/R47zCqC4/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-10-38-34.png
#Post#: 102139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: Feline007
Date: December 12, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just got an email from Moorside legal that says:
Thank you for your email.
To enable us to respond to your email in full, we require
authorisation from the account holder for you to act on their
behalf and correspond with us.
They can provide us with this authority by calling us on 0330
822 9950, or by writing to us confirming their full name,
address, reference number, your full name, and that they consent
to us sharing their personal data with you.
Do they mean me? I don't have an account with Moorside Legal or
anyone else.
#Post#: 102160--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moorside Legal - Private Parking Charge
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the "from" email address they have used?
Respond to it with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: [Moorside reference] – Non-compliance with PAPDC and
confirmation of my response
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the person named in your Letter Before Claim, reference
[insert ref]. I have no “account” with Moorside Legal or your
client; I am simply the individual you have chosen to pursue.
>
> I have already provided a full written response to your Letter
Before Claim by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. That email
was sent by me personally and is my formal response under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). You are on notice
of its contents and you are required to treat it as such.
>
> Instead of complying with the PAPDC, you have:
>
> [indent]1. Sent a stock “this mailbox is not monitored, use
the portal” message, despite publishing that address in your own
Privacy Notice as the DPO/contact route.
> 2. Sent a further email demanding “authorisation from the
account holder” when the correspondence already came from the
person named in your Letter Before Claim.[/indent]
>
> Both of these are plainly obstructive. They do nothing to
progress compliance with the PAPDC and appear designed to
frustrate proper written engagement and to pressure me towards
your payment portal.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]1. Your Letter Before Claim is defective and
non-compliant with the PAPDC. My earlier response sets out in
detail the documents and information you are required to supply
(including but not limited to copies of the PCN, photographs,
signage, landowner contract/authority, and the Information Sheet
and Reply Form).
> 2. Until you have complied with those requirements and allowed
a reasonable period for me to consider and respond, the matter
is not ready for proceedings and the claim should not be issued.
> 3. My previous email response stands as my formal reply to
your Letter Before Claim. I will not be using your portal and I
am under no obligation to telephone you.[/indent]
>
> If you now choose to issue a claim without first remedying
your non-compliance with the PAPDC, I will place your conduct
squarely before the court. I will invite the court to note:
>
> [indent]– Your failure to supply the documents and information
required by the PAPDC.
> – Your deliberate use of a supposed “not monitored” email and
“account holder authorisation” as procedural obstacles.
> – Your attempts to force portal-only communication in place of
a clear written route.[/indent]
>
> I will ask the court to take these matters into account in
case management and in costs against both your client and your
firm.
>
> Your communication practices, including the use of
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as a dead-end despite what your Privacy
Notice says, are already the subject of complaints to the
Information Commissioner’s Office, the Solicitors Regulation
Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. Your latest
emails will simply be added to that evidence.
>
> You have my substantive response. The ball is now in your
court to either (a) comply fully with the PAPDC and provide the
documents requested, or (b) issue proceedings, in which case
your pre-action conduct will be a live issue before the court.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
> [Postal address]
> [Email address]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page