DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100267--------------------------------------------------
Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: November 28, 2025, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a Letter before claim from Moorside legal for PCN by
PCM for not displaying my Parking permit in my resident bay
which is specifically given to me by my Land lord. Someone
assisted me to write this to send to Moorside but I would like
your advise before I send it to them. Kindly please help.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim dated [insert
date], and I confirm that I dispute the alleged debt in full.
The matter must remain on hold pending full compliance with the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
Below is my formal response.
1. I Have Landlord-Granted Permission to Park in Bay 78 (Since
2012/2013)
Although parking is not included in my tenancy agreement, the
housing provider/landlord (L&Q) formally allocated Bay 78 to me
in 2012/2013. I have held continuous and uninterrupted
permission to use this bay for over a decade.
Please note:


principal.

L&Q/management, proving authorisation.
Therefore, no contract with PCM can override the landlord’s
explicit permission.
2. No Contract Was Formed: Illegible Signage (Consumer Rights
Act 2015)
The signage at the location is faded, unreadable, and incapable
of forming a contract. Under:

transparent and prominent.

enforceable where signage is clear and obvious.
Your signage demonstrably fails these requirements. A contract
cannot be formed from terms a motorist cannot read.
3. A Valid Permit Existed: Identification Issue, Not a Breach
The permit was valid for Bay 78 and present inside the vehicle.
It had fallen due to earlier vandalism of my car, which I
documented. This is a temporary failure to display, not a
failure to hold a permit.
Relevant case law:

Residential parking schemes cannot override rights granted by
the landowner, and technical permit-display issues do not create
liability.

A managing agent cannot derogate from a granted right to park.
Your client is attempting to penalise me for parking in the bay
I’m expressly authorised to use.
4. PCM Cannot Create a Contract with a Lawful Occupier
As a lawful occupier with landowner (L&Q) permission:

terms.


contract can exist.
A basic contract principle applies: One cannot contract with
someone who already holds the right being “offered.”
5. Your LBC Is Defective (PAPDC Non-Compliance)
Your Letter Before Claim fails to comply with the PAPDC. You
must supply:





the Protocol)
Until these are provided, the case must remain on hold. This is
not optional under the protocol.
6. Data Protection Warning (UK GDPR)
As I am a lawful occupier authorised to park, you have no lawful
basis to process my data or pursue this charge. Continued
processing may constitute breaches under:


If harassment continues, I reserve the right to file complaints
with:




In conclusion Charge Must Be Cancelled
Given:





circumstances

There is no legal basis for this charge. Please confirm
cancellation in writing. If you choose to proceed to litigation
despite the above, I will request strike-out and recover my
costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct
#Post#: 100314--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: November 29, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Overall, your draft is strong in substance but it can be
tightened up and made more precise legally, with the emphasis
placed in slightly different places. Before finalising your
position, it is sensible for you to check your tenancy agreement
(and any related estate rules from L&Q) for any references to
parking, use of communal areas, or “regulations” imposed by the
landlord or its agents.
If the tenancy or accompanying documents confirm a right to park
or reflect the allocation of Bay 78, that reinforces your
primacy of rights. Even if there is wording about complying with
estate regulations, you can still argue that PCM cannot use that
to derogate from or monetise an existing right to park in your
own bay, but it is useful to know what the documents actually
say so you are not surprised later.
You do not want to assert that the tenancy is silent on parking
if they later produce a clause that mentions it. Better to use
neutral wording that does not depend on what the tenancy does or
does not say.
Your strongest argument remains the primacy of your rights
granted by L&Q: your right to use Bay 78 comes directly from the
landlord and has existed since 2012/2013, long before PCM became
involved. PCM are merely agents and cannot interfere with, vary
or override rights already granted by the landlord, so that
point needs to be front and centre.
The signage argument is worth keeping but should be treated as
secondary. You should stress that even if PCM were in a position
to offer you a contract (which you deny), the terms are not
prominent or legible, so no contract can be formed on the basis
of those signs.
The fact that you held a valid permit for Bay 78, which had
simply fallen from view, is important context and should be
framed as, at most, a trivial or de minimis issue rather than
any genuine breach. "My right to use Bay 78 arises from my
landlord, not from PCM’s signage, and any display of a permit
has been done purely as a courtesy to assist identification of
authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any power to impose
conditions on my existing right.[/I]" That approach is
consistent with the reasoning in [i]Jopson v Homeguard, where
the court recognised that residential schemes should not be
applied rigidly to punish minor, transient matters where the
occupier is otherwise entitled to be there.
Your standing and contract point is conceptually sound and
should be retained. Because you already have the right to park
in Bay 78, PCM has nothing to offer you, there is no
consideration from them to you, and they have no proper basis to
charge you for using your own allocated bay. In the letter you
can also invite them to disclose any part of your tenancy,
headlease or estate regulations they say supports PCM’s
position, which helps flush out their arguments early.
The PAPDC angle is also good. You should clearly require the
full set of documents (PCN, photos, signage, contract) and
explicitly insist that they provide the Reply Form and
Information Sheet if these were not enclosed, and state that the
matter must be put on hold until they comply with the Protocol.
On the data protection side, it is better not to claim they have
no lawful basis at all, because they do have a general
legitimate interest in managing parking. Instead, now that they
are on clear notice that you have prior rights and there is no
genuine contractual breach, you can say that continued pursuit
and data processing may be unfair or excessive and will lead to
complaints to the ICO, DVLA, your MP and the landlord.
Finally, it is sensible to keep a short costs warning referring
to CPR 27.14(2)(g). You can simply state that if they proceed
unreasonably against a residential occupier parked in their own
allocated bay, you will defend the claim and seek your costs for
unreasonable conduct. There is no need to go into great detail
about costs at the Letter Before Claim stage.
Before you send anything, it would be sensible for you to review
your tenancy and any L&Q documents for anything at all that
mentions parking, even if it is only general wording about use
of car parks, communal areas, “regulations”, or “parking
schemes”, rather than Bay 78 specifically.
In your Letter Before Claim response, you can suggest that if
Moorside or PCM contend that any part of your tenancy,
headlease, or estate rules supports their position, they must
disclose the full wording of every clause that refers to parking
or parking conditions and clearly identify which provisions they
say authorise PCM to interfere with your use of Bay 78. That
both underlines that your rights arise from L&Q, not PCM, and
forces them to show you any lease-based argument they think they
have.
No reason to delay responding but it would be worthwhile if you
can clarify with us any mention at all about parking in your
tenancy agreement, even if only relating to common areas etc.
Here is a revised response based the above observations you can
use which should be emailed to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and you
also CC yourself:
[quote]Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date] – PCM UK
PCN [reference] – Bay 78
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim and confirm
that I dispute the alleged debt in full. The matter must remain
on hold pending full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for
Debt Claims (PAPDC).
1. Landlord-granted right to Bay 78 (primacy of contract)
My housing provider and landlord, L&Q, formally allocated Bay 78
to me in or around 2012/2013 and I have had continuous and
uninterrupted permission to use this bay for over a decade.
PCM acts only as an agent or contractor of the landowner or
management company. An agent cannot override rights previously
granted by the principal. I hold a valid resident’s permit for
Bay 78 issued via the landlord or management, which evidences
that allocation and permission.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my tenancy with L&Q and their
allocation of that bay to me. No later-introduced parking scheme
or permit system operated by PCM can unilaterally vary or
extinguish those rights without my informed agreement.
Accordingly, there is no enforceable contract between PCM and me
in respect of my use of Bay 78.
For the avoidance of doubt, if you contend that any term of my
tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or “parking
regulations” support your client’s position or authorise PCM to
interfere with my use of Bay 78, you must disclose the full
wording of every clause that refers to parking or parking
conditions and clearly identify which provisions you say confer
such authority. My rights arise from L&Q, not from PCM’s
signage, and you are therefore required to show any lease-based
argument you intend to rely on.
2. No contract formed due to inadequate and illegible signage
Even if PCM could in principle contract with me (which is
denied), the signage at the location is faded, difficult to
read, and incapable of fairly communicating any contractual
terms.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly Schedule 2, any
terms relied upon must be transparent and prominent. In
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld a
charge in circumstances where the signage was clear, prominent
and legible. That is not the case here.
Where terms are not adequately brought to the attention of the
consumer, no contract can be formed on those terms. Any attempt
to enforce a penalty in such circumstances is unfair and
unenforceable.
3. Valid permit held – at most a trivial failure to display and
display only as a courtesy
At the material time, I held a valid permit for Bay 78 and it
was in the vehicle. It had fallen from its usual position due to
previous vandalism of my car, which I had documented. This was a
temporary display issue, not a situation where I lacked a permit
or was parking without authorisation.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my landlord, not from PCM’s
signage, and any display of a permit has been done purely as a
courtesy to assist identification of authorised vehicles, not
because PCM has any power to impose conditions on my existing
right. The most that can be said is that there was a trivial or
de minimis failure of display, not any genuine breach.
This approach is consistent with the reasoning in Jopson v
Homeguard (2016, HHJ Harris QC, Oxford County Court), where the
court recognised that residential parking schemes should not be
applied rigidly to punish minor or transient matters when the
occupier is otherwise entitled to be there. Similarly, in Saeed
v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, the Court of Appeal held
that a landlord or its agent cannot derogate from a granted
right to park.
Your client is therefore attempting to penalise me for using my
own allocated bay, with a valid permit, in circumstances where
any alleged issue is at most a minor failure to display caused
by factors beyond my control.
4. PCM has no standing to contract with a lawful occupier
As a lawful occupier with landlord-granted rights to Bay 78:
[indent]• PCM has no standing to offer me a contract for parking
in the bay already allocated to me.
• PCM provides me with no consideration in respect of that bay.
• PCM has no cause to claim damages from me for using land I am
already expressly authorised to use.[/indent]
One cannot lawfully charge a person for doing what they are
already contractually entitled to do. Your client is attempting
to interfere with and monetise rights granted by my landlord
many years before PCM’s involvement. That is not a legitimate
basis for a civil claim.
5. Non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your Letter Before Claim is defective and does not comply with
the PAPDC. To remedy this, please supply all of the following:
[indent]1. A copy of the original PCN and any subsequent
notices.
2. All photographs and evidence relied upon, including close-ups
and wider-angle images of the vehicle and of the signage in situ
at the material time.
3. Clear copies of all site signage and a site plan showing
where signs were located at the material time.
4. A full, unredacted copy of the contract or landowner
authority on which PCM relies, showing the contracting parties,
the land covered, the dates and duration of any agreement, and
the specific rights (if any) to issue PCNs and to litigate in
their own name.[/indent]
In addition, as set out above, if you claim that any term in my
tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or regulations
supports your client’s position, you must provide full copies of
those documents and highlight every clause that refers to
parking or parking conditions, together with an explanation of
how you say those clauses authorise PCM to interfere with my use
of my allocated bay.
Until you have provided the above and allowed a reasonable time
for me to consider and respond, the case must remain on hold
under the Protocol.
6. Data protection concerns
You are now on clear notice that:
[indent]• I am a lawful occupier of the property.
• Bay 78 was allocated to me by my landlord.
• I held a valid permit at the material time and was parking
exclusively in my allocated bay.[/indent]
In those circumstances there is no substantive basis for
alleging a parking contravention against me. If, despite this,
your client continues to process and share my personal data in
pursuit of this baseless claim, I will consider such processing
to be unfair and excessive and reserve my position as to
complaints to:
[indent]• The Information Commissioner’s Office.
• The DVLA regarding misuse of keeper data.
• My Member of Parliament.
• The landlord (L&Q) and any managing agent.[/indent]
7. Conclusion and costs warning
For the reasons above:
[indent]• I have long-standing landlord-granted rights to Bay
78.
• I held a valid resident’s permit and was parking only in my
allocated bay.
• Any display of a permit was a courtesy, not an obligation
imposed by PCM.
• The signage is inadequate to form a contract.
• PCM has no standing or consideration to create a contract with
me in respect of land I am already entitled to use.
• Your Letter Before Claim does not comply with the PAPDC and
you have yet to disclose any lease or estate clause that could
possibly assist your client.
• There is no legal basis for this claim. I invite your client
to cancel the PCN and to confirm in writing that the matter is
closed.[/indent]
If you nevertheless commence proceedings, I will defend the
claim in full and draw the court’s attention to this letter,
your client’s lack of standing, my primacy of contract, and your
non-compliance with the PAPDC. I will also seek my costs
pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis that it is unreasonable
to pursue a residential occupier for parking in their own
allocated bay in circumstances where the right to park pre-dates
your client’s involvement.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[PCN reference/Bay 78][/quote]
#Post#: 100352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: November 29, 2025, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Thank you ever so much for your help. Your guidance and advise
has made me to revisit my tenancy agreement and it does not
mention any parking contract. I applied for Parking permit
through my Landlord L&Q then they granted me. However in 6 Feb
2013 L&Q wrote to residents stating that " I am writing on
behalf of L&Q Housing Trust regarding your parking permit which
is due to expire. At present the parking is suspended on the
scheme until further notice, new parking permits will be issued
by PCM parking control management UK ltd. PCM will Contract you
with all the information needed". Then after they issued me
with the same Bay number 78.
I am not sure how to attach files or photos but PCM also put the
following in their defence with IAS as following
SITE BACKGROUND
Parking Control Management UK Ltd has been contracted by the
freeholder to manage the parking in this area by
enforcing the parking restrictions. Parking is very limited with
over ½ of the residences have no parking rights and the
remaining properties only able to park one vehicle in an
allocated bay. I can confirm that every bay is allocated to an
individual property.
This has been in operation since the May 2013 but only within a
section of the car parking areas. However, in early
January 2017, the freeholder made the decision to include the
remaining bays. All residents of Samuel Jones &
Rosemary Court were written to by the Housing Association and
invited to apply for a bay. The decisions to allocate
the bays was made by the HA and the operator informed to issue
permits to the successful applicants.
The contravention:
The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms
and conditions for the use of the private land on which
it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly
stipulated throughout the area and upon review, the
operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was
correctly issued, in line with these signs.
On this occasion, the vehicle was parked without fully
displaying a valid permit within the windscreen.
The advertised contractual terms require a valid permit be
displayed and that this permit is appropriate for the
bay/area in which the vehicle was parked. This is clearly
outlined by signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure
compliance with the terms. If a driver is unsure they should
seek further advice or refrain from parking.
Signage advises that retrospective evidence of authority to park
will not be accepted; therefore claims or copies of
permits provided at a later date cannot be considered.
Response to the appellant’s representation:
At the time of the contravention the vehicle was parked in a bay
numbered with 78 without displaying a valid parking
permit.
The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that the assessor is
only permitted to consider the law of contract and legal
challenges & not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. Only the
Operator can consider mitigation when adjudicating
upon an appeal. I can confirm that we have carefully considered
the Appellant’s circumstances both at the internal
appeal stage and when this appeal was received. Whilst the
Operator sympathises & understands the situation, we
have made the decision not to accept the mitigation in this
case.
As per the photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked without
the correct permit for the bay in which it was parked
therefore the Operator maintains that the PCN was correctly
issued
and they did attach the following ( I am sorry I tried to attach
but I was unable to so I am free typing the letter)
Parking Restriction
-Rosemary Court/Samuel Jones Court 30 January 2017
Dear Resident,
We are writing to inform you that as from 13th February
2017permits previously issued to you by PCMUK Ltd for the above
development will no longer be Valid.
As from the above date you will be required to display the
attached parking permit in the windscreen of your vehicle/s at
all times and be parked in the corresponding bay only. Please
find the enclosed a BLUE permit for your allocated parking
space. This permit is only valid on your allocated space.
SHOULD YOUR BAY BE UNAVAVILABLE FOR ANY REASON THEN PLEASE FIND
ALTERNATIVE PARKING.AT NO TIME PARK IN A BAY THAT DOES NOT
CORRESPONF TO THE PERMIT DISPLAYED.
The following parkin g regulations will apply and vehicles will
be subject to the issue of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100
reduced to £60 (if paid within 14 days of issue) if
- You park in a resident bay without clearly displaying a valid
corresponding resident parking permit (Issue Feb 2017)
- You park outside of marked bay i.e. access roads, paved areas
at any time regardless of permit display
PLEASE MOTE ALL BAYS NUMBERED 1 TO 78 WILL NOW BE MONITORED FOR
PERMIT DISPLAY
It will be YOUR responsibility to park correctly and to ensure
that a valid parking permit is on display when parking your
vehicle. Failure to do so will result in your vehicle being
subject to enforcement action. Any vehicle that are enforced
will be photographed beforehand to confirm permit or location
status.
PLEASE NOTE: Tampering with permits in any way will invalidate
the permit and your vehicle will liable to enforcement action.
Should your permit become worn/faded or unreadable you will need
to replace your permit immediately. As from this issue all
replacement permit or additional bay permits ( for your
allocated bay ONLY) will be chargeable at £15 each. These
permits are designed to be used as a transferable permit or can
be permanently fixed to the windscreen of your vehicle (See
instruction below).
Your Housing association have no jurisdiction over vehicles
enforced and under no circumstances will they act as mediators
in any cases concerning the enforcement of any vehicles.
So I kindly ask if I should consider my position based on the
above findings. Kindly please advise and your help is very much
appreciated.
#Post#: 100377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: November 30, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you have not yet responded to the LoC, here is a revised
Letter of Claim response incorporating the tenancy/lease point
and PCM’s own IAS evidence. You can paste this as-is and just
add the date, PCN number and your details.
[quote]Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date] – PCM UK
PCN [reference] – Bay 78
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim and confirm
that I dispute the alleged debt in full. The matter must remain
on hold pending full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for
Debt Claims (PAPDC).
1. Landlord-granted right to Bay 78 and PCM’s own admissions
I am a long-standing lawful occupier. Bay 78 was allocated to me
by my landlord and housing provider, L&Q, in or around 2012/2013
and I have had continuous permission to use this bay since then.
I have revisited my tenancy agreement. It contains no “parking
contract” with PCM and no term requiring me to enter into any
contractual relationship with PCM. My right to park arises from
my tenancy with L&Q and the landlord’s allocation of Bay 78, not
from PCM’s signage.
L&Q’s letter dated 6 February 2013 confirms that parking on the
scheme was suspended and that “new parking permits will be
issued by PCM Parking Control Management UK Ltd” and that PCM
would contact residents with the information needed. Thereafter,
PCM issued me with a permit for the same allocated Bay 78.
Further, your client’s own “site background” evidence in the IAS
appeal confirms that:
(a) PCM has been contracted by the freeholder to “manage”
parking and enforce restrictions.
(b) Over half of the residents have no parking rights, and the
remaining properties are each able to park one vehicle in an
allocated bay.
(c) Every bay is allocated to an individual property.
(d) Residents were written to by the Housing Association and
invited to apply for a bay, and the Housing Association decided
which bays to allocate, informing PCM to issue permits to
successful applicants.
This is entirely consistent with my position. The allocation of
Bay 78 and the underlying right to park comes from L&Q as
landlord. PCM’s role is limited to issuing permits and
attempting to enforce a scheme. PCM is therefore an agent or
contractor, not a principal, and cannot override, vary or
monetise rights previously granted by the landlord. My
landlord-granted rights have primacy over any later signage
imposed by your client.
2. 2017 letter and attempted unilateral terms
Your client also relies on or has previously exhibited a letter
dated 30 January 2017 headed “Parking Restriction – Rosemary
Court/Samuel Jones Court”. That letter states that:
(a) Existing PCM permits would no longer be valid from 13
February 2017.
(b) Residents would be “required” to display an attached permit
for their allocated space at all times.
(c) A list of “parking regulations” would apply, with a stated
“Parking Charge Notice” of £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days).
(d) Billed charges include not displaying a valid corresponding
resident permit and parking outside a marked bay.
(e) “All bays numbered 1 to 78 will now be monitored for permit
display.”
(f) The letter purports to say that the Housing Association has
“no jurisdiction over vehicles enforced” and “under no
circumstances will they act as mediators”.
This letter does not create any new proprietary rights for PCM.
It demonstrates that the bays (including Bay 78) were already
allocated to residents and that the Housing Association simply
instructed PCM to issue permits and monitor display. Any attempt
by PCM and the Housing Association to convert a pre-existing
right to park into a third-party penalty regime, or to oust the
landlord’s own jurisdiction completely, is a classic example of
derogation from grant and an unfair attempt to interfere with
rights already conferred.
Nothing in that letter grants PCM any title in the land or any
right to charge me for using my own allocated bay. At most it
evidences an administrative permit scheme intended to identify
authorised vehicles.
3. No contract formed and defective signage
Even if PCM could in principle offer a contract to a resident
who already has an allocated bay (which I deny), the signage at
the location is faded, difficult to read and incapable of fairly
communicating any alleged contractual terms.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent
and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the
Supreme Court upheld a charge in circumstances where signs were
clear and conspicuous. That is not the case here. Where terms
are not adequately brought to the attention of the consumer, no
contract is formed on those terms and any attempt to impose a
penalty is unfair and unenforceable.
4. Valid permit held – de minimis display issue and display only
as a courtesy
At the material time I held a valid permit for Bay 78 and it was
inside the vehicle. It had fallen from view due to earlier
vandalism of my car, which I had documented. This was a
temporary issue with display, not a situation where I lacked
authority to park.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from L&Q, not PCM’s signs. Any
display of a permit has been done purely as a courtesy to assist
identification of authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any
power to impose conditions on my existing right. At most there
was a trivial or de minimis failure of display, not a genuine
breach.
That approach is consistent with Jopson v Homeguard (2016, HHJ
Harris QC, Oxford County Court), where the court recognised that
residential schemes cannot be applied rigidly to penalise minor,
transient issues where the occupier is otherwise entitled to be
there. It is also consistent with Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001]
EWCA Civ 2011, where the Court of Appeal held that a landlord or
its agent cannot derogate from a granted right to park.
Your client’s own IAS “prima facie” case accepted that Bay 78 is
an allocated bay and that permits are allocated on that basis.
The only complaint made was that the permit was not “fully
displayed”. That is not a proper basis to penalise a resident
using their own bay with a valid permit.
5. PCM has no standing to contract with me or claim damages
As a lawful occupier with landlord-granted rights to Bay 78:
PCM has no standing to offer me a contract for parking in the
bay already allocated to me.
PCM provides me with no consideration in respect of that bay.
PCM has no lawful basis to claim damages from me for using land
I am expressly authorised to use.
Your own IAS evidence confirms that rights to bays flow from the
Housing Association’s allocation decisions, not from PCM. One
cannot charge a person for doing what they are already
contractually entitled to do. Your client is attempting to
monetise and interfere with my pre-existing right to park in Bay
78. That is not a legitimate cause of action.
6. PAPDC non-compliance and required documents
Your Letter Before Claim is defective and does not comply with
the PAPDC. To remedy this, please provide:
(a) A copy of the original PCN and all subsequent notices.
(b) All photographs and evidence relied upon, including
close-ups and wider-angle images of the vehicle and of the
signage in situ at the material time.
(c) Clear copies of all site signage and a site plan showing
where signs were located at the material time.
(d) A full, unredacted copy of the contract or landowner
authority under which PCM operates at this site, showing the
parties, the land covered, the dates and duration of any
agreement and the specific rights (if any) to issue PCNs and to
litigate in its own name.
(e) The Information Sheet and Reply Form required by the PAPDC,
if they have not already been supplied.
In addition, if you contend that any part of my tenancy, any
headlease, or any estate “parking regulations” support your
client’s position or authorise PCM to interfere with my use of
Bay 78, you must disclose the full wording of every clause that
refers to parking or parking conditions and clearly identify
which provisions you say confer such authority. My rights arise
from L&Q, not PCM, and you are required to show any lease-based
argument you intend to rely upon.
Until you have provided the above and allowed a reasonable time
for me to consider and respond, this matter must remain on hold
under the Protocol.
7. Data protection concerns
You are now on clear notice that:
I am a lawful occupier.
Bay 78 is my allocated bay, as confirmed by my landlord and by
PCM’s own earlier evidence.
I held a valid permit at the material time and was parked only
in my allocated bay.
In those circumstances, there is no substantive basis for
alleging a parking contravention. If, despite this, your client
continues to process and share my personal data in pursuit of
this baseless claim, I will regard such processing as unfair and
excessive and reserve my position as to complaints to:
The Information Commissioner’s Office.
The DVLA regarding any misuse of keeper data.
My Member of Parliament.
L&Q and any managing agent.
8. Conclusion and costs warning
In summary:
I have long-standing landlord-granted rights to Bay 78.
PCM’s own IAS evidence confirms that bays are allocated by the
Housing Association and that PCM merely issues permits and
enforces a scheme.
I held a valid permit and was using only my allocated bay.
Any requirement to display a permit is, at most, an
administrative courtesy and any lapse in display is trivial and
not a true breach.
The signage is inadequate to form a contract.
PCM has no standing or consideration to create a contract with
me in respect of land I am already entitled to use.
Your Letter Before Claim does not comply with the PAPDC and you
have yet to disclose any tenancy, headlease or estate provision
that could properly support your client’s position.
There is no legal basis for this claim. I invite your client to
cancel the PCN and confirm in writing that the matter is now
closed.
If you nevertheless commence proceedings, I will defend the
claim in full and draw the court’s attention to this letter, to
my primacy of contract, to your client’s own admissions in their
earlier IAS evidence, and to your ongoing non-compliance with
the PAPDC. I will also seek my costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g)
on the basis that it is unreasonable to pursue a residential
occupier for parking in their own allocated bay in circumstances
where the right to park pre-dates your client’s involvement.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[PCN reference / Bay 78][/quote]
#Post#: 100415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: November 30, 2025, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
No, I have not sent it yet, as I was awaiting for your guidance
and help which I am grateful for. I will email them today and
update you for any response from them. I thank you again for
your unconditional support.
#Post#: 101041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: December 4, 2025, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening
Just to update you and what shall I do next Moorside as
responded after 5 days as follows and I did not want to engage
via their portal as it only tells you to pay I think:
Thank you for contacting Moorside Legal.
Please be advised that this mailbox is not monitored. We request
that you access our online portal at portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
and follow the instructions provided to submit your enquiry.
Alternatively, you may contact us by telephone on 0330 822 9950
between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm, Monday to Friday.
Third Parties
If you are corresponding on behalf of another individual, we
must obtain their explicit authority before we can discuss their
matter with you. They may provide this authorisation by
contacting us on 0330 822 9950, or by writing to us to confirm
their full name, address, reference number, your full name, and
their consent for us to share their personal data with you.
Alternative Contact
For immediate payment, please visit portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk.
If a Claim Has Been Issued
Please note that if a County Court Claim has been issued against
you, sending an email or a portal request will not suspend or
delay the proceedings. You must comply with any instructions
issued by the Court to avoid a Judgment being entered against
you. You may also wish to obtain independent legal or debt
advice.
Yours Sincerely,
Moorside Legal
This email may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have
received this email in error) please notify the sender
immediately and delete this email, together with any copies from
your system. Any unauthorised use, copying, disclosure or
distribution of the material in this email is strictly forbidden
and may be unlawful. Please note that neither Moorside Legal nor
the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses, and it is
your responsibility to scan any attachments.
Moorside Legal Services Limited trading as Moorside Legal
Registered in England and Wales with Company Number 15069347
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
- SRA ID 8006077 Registered office address: Unit 1.01,
Hollinwood Business Centre Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham,
England, OL8 3QL © 2023 Moorside Legal Services Limited All
Rights Reserved
#Post#: 101094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: December 5, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Short answer: ignore the portal and phone; send your LoC
response by post and keep their email as evidence of
unreasonable conduct.
1. Do not use the portal or phone
You are not obliged under the PAPDC to communicate via a
“payment portal”. Their attempt to funnel everything through a
pay-or-else website is itself questionable. Keep that auto-reply
as evidence.
2. Re-send your response by post
Print the full Letter of Claim response I drafted (the long one)
and send it by first-class post to the postal address on the
Letter Before Claim, PO Box 82112, London, N17 1LG (or, if
that’s unclear, to the registered office shown in their email
footer).
At the Post Office, get a free Certificate of Posting and keep
it with a copy of your letter. That is your proof that you have
complied with the PAPDC.
3. Add a very short covering paragraph at the top
At the top of the letter (before “Dear Sir/Madam”), or in a
one-page cover letter stapled in front, add something like this:
[quote]I first sent this response to you by email on [date]. You
have replied with an automated message stating that the mailbox
is not monitored and directing me to a payment portal. For the
avoidance of doubt, the enclosed letter is my formal response
under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. You are required
to consider it in full and to place the matter on hold pending
compliance with the Protocol. I will not use your payment portal
for pre-action correspondence. I will only accept correspondence
by post or, preferably by email.[/quote]
4. Then wait and watch the post
After that, the ball is squarely in their court.
– If they send a proper reply and documents, we deal with that
next.
– If they ignore it and jump straight to a court claim, we use
your letter and their auto-response to show the judge they have
not engaged properly with the Protocol.
#Post#: 101117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: December 5, 2025, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having researched this a bit further, you should send the
following email that reflects what actually happened (manual
boilerplate reply after 5 days) and hits them on their own
privacy notice and legal duties:
[quote]Subject: Formal Data Protection Complaint –
Non-Functional DPO Contact, Obstruction of Rights, and
Intentional Misrepresentation
To: Data Protection Officer, Moorside Legal Services Limited
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
Cc: Data Protection Officer, APN Group dpo@apn.co.uk;
enquiries@apn.co.uk; [your own email address]
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am writing 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 (updated December 2023)
states in the “How to contact us” section that, if I wish to
exercise any of my data subject rights or have questions about
the notice, I should contact you by:
[indent]“Emailing our appointed Data Protection Officer at
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (subject heading: Data Subject Rights –
Your Name); or writing to us at Ground Floor Jade Building,
Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, BD10 9TQ (attention of:
Data Protection Officer).”[/indent]
Relying on that representation, I sent a detailed email to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk in response to a Letter Before Claim.
That email contained personal data and included objections and
restrictions to processing, making it plainly a data subject
communication within the meaning of Articles 12 and 21 UK GDPR.
Five days later, instead of any meaningful response, I received
a boilerplate email from Moorside Legal stating that the mailbox
is “not monitored” and instructing me to use an online portal.
This was not an automatic server rejection. It was a template
reply that somebody at Moorside Legal manually sent days after
the original email. In other words, a human has clearly accessed
my message, decided not to engage with its content, and then
sent a stock response asserting that the very address your
Privacy Notice designates for DPO contact is “not monitored”.
Those facts speak for themselves. Either:
[indent]1. The help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is in fact
monitored by staff who read and action messages, in which case
the claim that it is “not monitored” is knowingly false and is
being used to deter data subjects from exercising their rights;
or
2. The help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is genuinely not
monitored for DPO and data subject purposes, in which case your
Privacy Notice is materially inaccurate and misleading because
it holds out that address as the primary route for contacting
the DPO and exercising rights.[/indent]
In both scenarios your current conduct appears to be
incompatible with:
[indent]– Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR (lawfulness, fairness,
transparency).
– Article 12 UK GDPR (duty to facilitate the exercise of rights
and to avoid undue obstacles).
– Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR (duty to provide accurate
contact details and to enable data subjects to contact the DPO
easily).[/indent]
Your own Privacy Notice also states that you process emails as
part of “Records of your contact with us” and that you may share
information with “email service providers for the purpose of
responding to you once you have consented by email”. It is
therefore not open to you to pretend that emails sent to your
published DPO address somehow fall outside your
responsibilities, or that you can simply ignore them and direct
people to a payment portal instead.
From a technical standpoint, the position is straightforward. I
have independently checked your domain configuration. The
addresses help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are both reported as a catch-all
on a Barracuda hosted system, with MX record
d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com and a stable corporate
domain that has been in use for well over two years. A catch-all
configuration means your server will accept mail for any address
at moorsidelegal.co.uk and return a 250 OK SMTP status even if
no specific mailbox exists, in order to mask mailbox validity.
That behaviour may frustrate external verification, but it does
not alter the key fact that once your server has accepted a
message at SMTP level with a 250 OK success code, delivery into
your system is complete. What you choose to do internally with
that message, including routing it to staff who then take the
time to send a boilerplate “mailbox not monitored, use the
portal” reply, does not change the fact that you are in
possession of the personal data, you are the controller
responsible for handling it lawfully, fairly and transparently,
and you must not operate a dummy or dead-end address in your
privacy notice for the DPO while instructing staff to fob people
off with an untrue “not monitored” line.
Requiring individuals to use a payment-oriented portal as the
only practical route of communication, while simultaneously
publishing a DPO email address that generates a dead-end reply,
is not facilitating data subject rights. It is obstructing them.
In addition, Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice expressly 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 therefore has a clear
responsibility to ensure that group entities, including Moorside
Legal, provide functional, accurate and accessible DPO contact
details and do not operate sham contact channels that frustrate
the exercise of rights.
For the avoidance of doubt:
[indent]– My email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk was sent in
reliance on your Privacy Notice.
– It was accepted by your server, handled by your staff and
responded to (albeit with a boilerplate obstruction).
– It therefore constitutes personal data in your possession, and
you are obliged to treat it as a valid data subject
communication and as formal pre-action correspondence under the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.[/indent]
Accordingly, I now require, in writing:
[indent]1. A clear statement, without evasion, confirming
whether the mailbox help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is in fact
monitored for DPO and data subject communications. If it is
monitored, you must explain why your staff are sending
boilerplate messages claiming it is “not monitored”, and what
immediate steps you will take to stop that misrepresentation. If
it is not monitored, you must explain why you continue to
publish it as the DPO contact address in your Privacy Notice and
what immediate steps you will take to correct that and provide a
functional DPO contact route.
2. Confirmation that my previous email (sent on [date]) has been
retrieved, added to the relevant file and is being treated as a
valid data subject communication (including an objection to
processing and a request to restrict processing) and as formal
correspondence in response to the Letter Before Claim. You must
confirm the date on which this has been done.
3. Confirmation that you will, going forward, accept and process
information-rights correspondence (including objections,
restriction requests, erasure requests, rectification requests
and complaints) sent to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and to
dpo@apn.co.uk, without insisting that I use a payment or
“customer” portal.
4. Confirmation of the concrete changes you will make, and the
timescale for implementation, to ensure that:
[indent]– All DPO and contact email addresses published in your
privacy notices are accurate, functional and properly monitored;
and
– No further “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” replies are
sent in response to data subject communications sent in
accordance with those notices.[/indent][/indent]
Please treat this as a formal data protection complaint and as a
data subject communication under Articles 12 and 21 UK GDPR. I
require a full, substantive response within one calendar month.
If you fail to respond, or if you refuse to correct the
disconnect between your published DPO contact details and your
actual email handling practices, I will escalate this matter to:
[indent]– The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), with
copies of your Privacy Notice and the boilerplate “mailbox not
monitored – use the portal” reply, on the basis that your
practices breach the requirements of transparency, fairness and
facilitation of rights.
– The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in respect of
Moorside Legal Services Limited, on the basis that obstructing
written correspondence and data subject rights in favour of a
payment portal undermines access to redress and public
confidence in the profession.
– The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) under the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) and the
unfair commercial practices regime, on the basis that
maintaining a non-functional DPO contact channel while
funnelling all contact into a payment portal may amount to an
unfair commercial practice and obstruction of consumer
redress.[/indent]
You are fully responsible for the configuration and monitoring
of your email systems and for ensuring that all DPO and contact
details published in your privacy notices are truthful,
functional and compatible with your obligations under UK data
protection and consumer protection law. This letter puts you
expressly on notice of the issues and of my intention to
escalate if they are not addressed.
I look forward to your prompt and substantive reply.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Relevant reference numbers][/quote]
#Post#: 101214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: December 5, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you ever so much b789. This is really helpful and I am
very grateful for all the unconditional support, advice and
guidance.
#Post#: 102517--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
By: AsmaraBella Date: December 15, 2025, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening b789,
I hope all is well. As advised I sent the email to Data
protection officer and an auto reply has been received straight
as follows, Kindly please advise what to do next I have also
sent the response via post twice and I have a certificate of
postage (Receipt)
Thank you for contacting Moorside Legal.
Please be advised that this mailbox is not monitored. We request
that you access our online portal at
HTML https://portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
and follow the instructions
provided to submit your enquiry.
Alternatively, you may contact us by telephone on 0330 822 9950
between the hours of 9:00am and 5:30pm, Monday to Friday.
Third parties
If you are contacting us on behalf of someone else, we will need
their authority before we can speak with you. 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.
Alternative contact
For immediate payment, please visit
HTML https://portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
If a claim has been issued
Please note that if a County Court Claim has been issued against
you, sending an email or a portal request will not suspend or
delay the proceedings. You must comply with any instructions
issued by the Court to avoid a Judgment being entered against
you. You may also wish to obtain independent legal or debt
advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
0330 822 9950
moorsidelegal.co.uk
This email may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have
received this email in error) please notify the sender
immediately and delete this email, together with any copies from
your system. Any unauthorised use, copying, disclosure or
distribution of the material in this email is strictly forbidden
and may be unlawful. Please note that neither Moorside Legal nor
the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses, and it is
your responsibility to scan any attachments.
Moorside Legal Services Limited trading as Moorside Legal
Registered in England and Wales with Company Number 15069347
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
- SRA ID 8006077 Registered office address: Unit 1.01,
Hollinwood Business Centre Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham,
England, OL8 3QL © 2023 Moorside Legal Services Limited All
Rights Reserved
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page