DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: Snowynight
Date: December 7, 2025, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given the auto response, I think it’s unlikely for them to reply
to my email. What should I do? Do I have to use the portal?
#Post#: 101411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT use their portal. Your email response to their LoC has
been served on them. 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#: 101562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: Maximum Bob
Date: December 8, 2025, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Being in a similar position to the OP (having an LBC from
Moorside regarding a PCN resurrected from over 3 years ago) I
have been following this thread with interest.
It occurred to me that the email to help@moorsidelegal with the
subject "Formal Notice – Breach of Transparency Obligations and
Imminent Escalation to ICO, SRA and CMA" might have a different
result if the subject header was instead "Subject data rights -
name" as set out in their privacy notice.
Moorside could claim that any emails to help@moorsidelegal that
do not have the correct "data rights" subject line automatically
receive a standard "not monitored" response?
#Post#: 101572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They can try that line, but it does not get them off the hook,
for a few reasons.
First, their own privacy notice does not say “we will only treat
emails with this subject line as valid”. It just says you should
email the DPO at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk with the subject “Data
Subject Rights – Your Name”. That is a suggested format, not a
lawful pre-condition for them to recognise that an email to that
address contains personal data and is about data rights.
Second, what they are sending back is not a subject-based
immediate auto-response. A human has opened the email and chosen
to send the boilerplate “this mailbox is not monitored, use the
portal” text. That is completely inconsistent with any claim
that “messages without the magic subject line are auto-routed
elsewhere”. If someone has actually read the message, they are
on notice that it contains personal data and objections, and
Articles 5 and 12 UK GDPR still apply. They can’t pretend it
never reached the DPO just because the subject didn’t follow
their preferred wording.
Third, even if they had a rule that flags “Data Subject Rights –
[Name]” for special handling, that does not entitle them to
treat everything else sent to the only published contact/DPO
address as junk and fob it off to a portal. Once their Barracuda
server returns 250 OK, the email is in their system. Their
privacy notice says that address is how you contact them and the
DPO. Using a template to tell people “this mailbox is not
monitored” is still a lie, regardless of subject line.
If you want to slam that particular escape route shut, the
practical workaround is simple: resend (or forward) the original
LoC response to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk using the exact subject
format from their notice, e.g.:
[indent]Data Subject Rights – [Your Name] – Response to Letter
of Claim [Ref][/indent]
Then, in the body, say explicitly “this email repeats and
incorporates my previous response dated [date], and you are
required to treat both as a valid data subject communication and
as formal pre-action correspondence”. That way they cannot
credibly argue that the “wrong” subject heading is why they sent
the “not monitored” fob-off; if they keep doing it after that,
it just makes the ICO/SRA complaint stronger because it looks
plainly deliberate rather than a routing quirk.
#Post#: 101584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: Maximum Bob
Date: December 8, 2025, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just after my post I sent an email to help@moorsidelegal with
the requested subject line "data subject rights - my name" to
see what the response would be. I subsequently received a reply
of
"Thank you for contacting Moorside Legal.
"Please be advised that this mailbox is not monitored".
In a quandary...I want to send a response to their Letter before
claim but don't want to use the portal.
Is a postal reply not recommended at all?
#Post#: 101585--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 8, 2025, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are seeking advice on your own case, please start your
own thread.
#Post#: 101643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can reply by post but don't use recorded delivery. Simply
post it first class and get a free Proof of Posting receipt from
any post office.
In the mean time you need to report Moorside to the ICO as their
DPO contact email address is "not monitored" (it is but they are
corrupt, lying, bar-stewards.
#Post#: 101648--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the following complaint to he SRA at report@sra.org.uk and
CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd –
Obstructive email practices and sham DPO contact
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I wish to raise a formal complaint about the conduct of
Moorside Legal Services Limited in relation to their handling of
pre-action correspondence and email contact.
>
> Moorside Legal act for private parking operators and issue
Letters of Claim to consumers. Their Privacy Notice states that
anyone wishing to exercise data subject rights or contact their
Data Protection Officer should email help@moorsidelegal.co.uk,
using the subject line “Data Subject Rights – [Your Name]”.
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only published email address for
contact.
>
> I sent a reasoned response to a Letter of Claim to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. I then sent a further email to the
same address using the exact subject line format “Data Subject
Rights – [my name]”, exactly as instructed in their Privacy
Notice.
>
> In each case, instead of engaging with the substance, Moorside
Legal replied with a boilerplate email stating that the mailbox
is “not monitored” and directing me to use their online portal.
These replies were not automated server bounces. They were
standard template emails that clearly had to be sent by a member
of staff after accessing my original messages.
> Technical checks on the moorsidelegal.co.uk domain show that:
>
> [indent]- Emails addressed to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted by their
Barracuda-hosted mail server with a normal 250 OK SMTP response.
> - The domain appears to be configured as a catch-all, meaning
their server accepts mail for any address at that domain.
> - No bounce messages were generated.[/indent]
>
> In practice, this means that:
> [indent]- Moorside Legal publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as
their contact and DPO address.
> - Emails to that address are received into their system and
read by staff.
> - Staff then send a “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
template instead of dealing with the content.[/indent]
>
> Either help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is monitored, in which case
the statement that it is “not monitored” is untrue and used to
deter consumers from using email, or it is not properly
monitored, in which case their Privacy Notice is materially
misleading because it advertises a non-functional route for
contact and data rights.
>
> This behaviour has real consequences in the context of debt
claims. Consumers who attempt to respond in writing to a Letter
of Claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims, or who try to exercise their data protection rights, are
diverted into a payment-oriented portal and told that the only
published email address is “not monitored”. In my view this:
> [indent]- Frustrates proper pre-action engagement under the
Civil Procedure Rules.
> - Undermines confidence that a regulated firm will deal
honestly with written correspondence.
> - Uses a sham contact route in a way that risks unfair
pressure on consumers to pay rather than dispute.[/indent]
>
> I believe this conduct is inconsistent with the SRA Principles
and Codes of Conduct, in particular the duties to:
> [indent]- Act in a way that upholds public trust and
confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
> - Act with honesty and integrity.
> - Behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places
in you and in the provision of legal services.[/indent]
>
> I ask the SRA to investigate whether Moorside Legal’s
intentional use of a “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
template on emails sent to their only published contact/DPO
address is compatible with their professional obligations,
particularly when used in the context of consumer debt claims.
>
> I can provide:
> [indent]- A copy of the relevant extract from Moorside Legal’s
Privacy Notice.
> - The Letter of Claim I received.
> - My emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk, including one with
the exact “Data Subject Rights – [Name]” subject line.
> - Moorside Legal’s “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
reply.[/indent]
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Moorside reference]
--- End Quote ---
And send the following complaint to the CMA at
general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Unfair
commercial practice in handling consumer contact
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I wish to report a business practice by Moorside Legal
Services Limited which I believe amounts to an unfair commercial
practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024.
>
> Moorside Legal act for private parking companies and send
Letters of Claim to individual motorists. Their Privacy Notice
and website information state that consumers and data subjects
should contact them, and their Data Protection Officer, at
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk, using the subject “Data Subject Rights
– [Your Name]”. help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only published
email address.
>
> I sent a detailed written response to a Letter of Claim to
that address, disputing the claim. I also sent a further email
with the exact subject line format “Data Subject Rights – [my
name]” as specified in their Privacy Notice.
>
> In each case, the only reply I received was a boilerplate
message stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and
instructing me to use an online portal instead. This response
was not an automatic bounce. It was a template email clearly
sent by a member of staff after reading my message.
>
> Technical checks indicate that their Barracuda-hosted mail
server accepts emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and
litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk with a standard 250 OK SMTP
response and no bounce. The domain appears to be configured as a
catch-all, so messages to these addresses are being delivered
into their system.
>
> The practical effect is that:
> [indent]- Moorside Legal advertise an email address as the
route to contact them and their DPO.
> - Consumers who use that address are told, after the fact,
that it is “not monitored” and are pushed into using a portal
that is clearly designed around payment and “account
management”, not dispute resolution.
> - Consumers attempting to respond in writing to a Letter of
Claim, or to exercise data protection rights, meet a dead end
and are funnelled towards a payment-focused channel.[/indent]
>
> In my view this behaviour:
> [indent]- Is likely to mislead the average consumer as to the
availability and effectiveness of email contact with the trader.
> - Creates an artificial barrier to raising disputes and
exercising statutory rights.
> - s capable of causing the average consumer to make a
transactional decision they would not otherwise have made,
including using the portal in the mistaken belief it is the only
valid channel, or giving up on contesting the claim.[/indent]
>
> I believe this falls within the unfair commercial practices
regime under Part 4, Chapter 1 of the DMCC 2024 as a failure to
act with the required standard of professional diligence and as
a misleading practice relating to consumer rights and redress.
>
> I ask the CMA to consider:
> [indent]- Requiring Moorside Legal to provide functional,
monitored contact details which match their privacy notices and
letters.
> - Preventing Moorside Legal from using a “mailbox not
monitored, use the portal” script in response to legitimate
written dispute correspondence.
> - Considering enforcement measures or penalties if a pattern
of unfair practice is established.[/indent]
>
> I can provide:
> [indent]- Screenshots or extracts from Moorside Legal’s
Privacy Notice showing help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the contact
and DPO email.
> - A copy of their Letter of Claim.
> - My emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk, including one with
the exact “Data Subject Rights – [Name]” subject.
> - Moorside Legal’s “mailbox not monitored, use the portal”
reply.[/indent]
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Moorside reference]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101653--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 9, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just tested their system with an SAR request to the
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk address. It generated the "not
monitored, use portal" response. However, I then replied to that
email with he following:
--- Quote ---
> “On [9 December 2025] 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 ---
and then repeated the SAR request. Interestingly, that did not
generate the "not monitored" response, at least immediately and
so far, which means that they send the canned reply only once
per sender, or only trigger on the first inbound message in a
“new” thread".
So, suggest you try and "reply" to the supposedly bounced email
response and just add the text suggested above and see if that
bounces back.
#Post#: 101671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal (on behalf of
Parking Control Management UK)
DIR By: Snowynight
Date: December 9, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for all replies!
Ok, I'll try to send emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk with the
subject you suggested and see what comes back.
And should I still send other complaint emails also?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page