No. Everything has to be done in the name of the person being chased. Who is the LoC addressed to? You or the person you are assisting?
Moorside Legal
Jade Building
Albion Mills
Albion Road
Greengates
BD10 9TQ
By email to: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 29th January 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
My understanding is that the OP is handling this on behalf of the keeper. If so, as long as everything is done in the keepers name and it is the keeper who will be signing any statements of truth, there’s nothing wrong. Even if it ever got as fast as court hearing, as long as the defendant attends, the OP can represent them as a lay rep.
I am neither the driver nor the keeper of the vehicle.
I asked GXS
Does it matter that in the reply from GXS to my "appeal"
I intend to send a reply to GXS
OP, can we stop dancing around this pl.
If you are neither the driver nor keeper then you have no liability and you have no standing to make 'appeals'.
Whoever is liable must be kept in the loop because it's their neck on the block.
This has now been "resolved" after asking about it.
What exactly does "this has been resolved after asking about it" mean?
Has the PCN been cancelled?
This has now been "resolved" after asking about it.
No, this has been the first time i've tried to log onto the IAS.You should be checking the GXS website!
No, this has been the first time i've tried to log onto the IAS.You should be checking the GXS website!
If the PCN number, VRM combination is not working, there is a possibility that it has been cancelled. Did it work previously?
For now, please clarify whether a windscreen NtD was affixed to the car. If it was, is there evidence of it in any of the photos? If it wasn’t and there is no evidence of one, they have used the wrong reference to PoFA in the NtK. They have not evidenced a “period” of parking, only a single point in time.
There is no evidence that the signs at the location can form a contract. The single sign that can be seen in the photos provided does not adequately bring to the attention of the motorist the charge for breaching any term.
It is up to you (or whoever you are acting for) to decide whether you want to fight this. In the worst case scenario, if a judge agreed that a debt was owed to GSX, there is no risk of a CCJ and it would likely be for less than the original claim. PCN amount £100, claimants court fee £35 and fixed legal costs of £50. All that is assuming they even went as far as filing a claim and following it up and the defendant lost.
What was there to indicate that were the driver parked was or was not a designated parking bay? The person who you were visiting… does their lease allow visitors? Does their lease state that vehicles of visitors must have a permit?
There are plenty of arguments that need exploring. These are just a few.
There is no danger of a CCJ on your record. In the worst case scenario, if the claim was lost, as long as the amount in the judgment is paid within 30 days, there is no record of it in your credit history. It is completely expunged.
Again, worst case scenario and you lost in court, you would likely pay less than the original claim amount as most judges will not allow the fake add on "damages" or "debt recovery fees" that are added. The PPCs are relying on the majority of their victims being low-hanging fruit own the gullible tree who will capitulate a soon as a few legal threats are thrown their way.
These parasitic, unregulated private parking companies, issue over 35,000 PCNs a day! Of those that aren't paid immediately or after appeal, most will end up being chased by useless debt collectors. However, hundreds of thousands of them will end up as county court claims with over 95% of those going unchallenged and ending up as default CCJs. Of those that are properly defended by members of this ro the MSE forum under advisement, around 99% or more end up as either discontinuations or are won at hearing.
As the PCN has been issued as a postal NtK, the keeper should be referring to PoFA paragraph 9, not 7 unless the driver received a windscreen NtD. As this is from an IPC AOS member company, any appeal and subsequent secondary appeal is unlikely to succeed. It is up to you if you feel you want to put much effort into it at this stage. You already know that appeals to the IAS are highly likely to be rejected.
If this ever got as far as a court hearing, you could act on behalf of the defendant as a lay representative. However, the defendant would have to attend and could still be questioned by the judge.
I say "if this ever got as far as a court hearing" because there is every chance that this operator will not actually bother to go "all the way" Most of these operators are hoping that the keeper is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay them once a bit of so called "legal threat" is tried against them. They could even go as far as filing a claim in the hope that an actual N1SDT claim form triggers the flight reflex.
If it ever got as far as a hearing and was not discontinued before a hearing fee had to be paid by the claimant, it is not difficult to defend. As you already know, there is a very useful template defence that is used with minimal input required by the defendant.
For now, what was the purpose of the driver parking at the location on that date? Was it just to visit or was it to load or unload something or to simply pick up or drop off someone?
There is a technical flaw in the NtK in that it mentions a "period of parking" but provides no evidence of this "period", only a fixed point in time. This should invalidate the NtK as being fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and therefore only the driver can be liable. For now, the known keeper should not identify the unknown driver.