Respond with the following by email to info@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:
Subject: Formal Response to Defective Letter of Claim – Your Ref: 4066166
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 22 April 2025. Your Ref: 4066166
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I require you to erase any outdated or incorrect address information from your records to ensure compliance with your obligations under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018:
[Insert Correct Address]
Please note that the alleged debt is entirely disputed, and any proceedings issued will be robustly defended.
Your Letter of Claim is defective and fails to comply with several fundamental requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”), as follows:
• It does not clearly explain the legal basis for the alleged debt, nor does it distinguish whether the principal sum is being claimed as damages for breach of contract or as consideration for a purported parking contract, contrary to paragraph 3.1(a) of the PAPDC.
• It fails to enclose copies of key documents which the Claimant intends to rely upon, including the alleged contract (signage), the Notice to Driver or Notice to Keeper, and a proper statement of account setting out any payments, adjustments, or the composition of the debt, as required by paragraph 5.1 of the PAPDC.
• It includes a grossly inflated sum (£170) with no proper explanation or justification for the additional £70 added to the original parking charge. This is in breach of the requirement under paragraph 3.1(b) to set out how any such sums have been calculated. Furthermore, such practices have been condemned by Government as "extorting money from motorists."
• It makes misleading and premature threats of additional costs and fees before a claim has even been issued, which is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the PAPDC.
In addition, 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, please 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 pleaded as consideration for a purported contract? Kindly state this clearly and unequivocally.
I caution you against responding with vague or boilerplate language. I am fully aware of the serious implications. It appears that by simultaneously claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while inflating the "debt recovery" element, your client — with your assistance — may be facilitating evasion of VAT properly due to HMRC. Such conduct raises significant concerns regarding the legality and ethics of your client's practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to litigation, you can be assured that these issues will be robustly raised before the court, along with appropriate submissions concerning unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]