-
Regarding your request for a site plan or the landowner contract, we are unclear as to why you would need to review any agreement between our client and the landowner, as you are not a party to that agreement and it would not assist with your dispute or any potential defence.
Errr… because it proves standing to bring a claim in the first place!
It’s exactly the same as me sticking a sign up on some waste ground saying that anyone who steps on this ground will be charged £50. If someone refuses to pay and I try to take them to court over it, I first have to prove my “standing” to be able to sue that person in the first place.
I wouldn’t bother responding again. It is clear you are dealing with a firm of intellectually malnourished wannabe legals that operate at the very edge of lawfulness. Bottom-dwellers, equivalent to the brown smelly stuff you don’t want to tread in.
Just wait for the claim to arrive.
-
Once again, many thanks for all the great support and information you have provided, b789.
So the text you supplied was immediately emailed as per usual, and although they’ve been quiet for a while, just today another ‘begging’ email was received from Moorside.
You did say to send that ‘final response’; should we now ignore these types of emails, going forward?:
We write in relation to the above matter.
Regarding your request for a site plan or the landowner contract, we are unclear as to why you would need to review any agreement between our client and the landowner, as you are not a party to that agreement and it would not assist with your dispute or any potential defence.
As previously mentioned, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal
-
That's boxed Moorside into a corner: they’ve now expressly admitted (a) they can’t supply a site plan, (b) they won’t supply landowner authority, and (c) they intend to stop corresponding—each point being fatal under the PAPDC.
The breakdown of the contractual elements and the prohibitive-sign issue is exactly what will unravel any claim. A “no stopping” or “park only within marked bays” notice doesn’t convey any offer or consideration; it’s a prohibition, so the only conceivable cause of action would be trespass (and only the landowner could bring that). Once you add that the claim would arise on land likely not “relevant land” for PoFA, they’re left with no lawful basis to pursue the keeper at all.
I suggest you send a final response to the utter incompetents at Moorside as follows:
Dear Sirs,
Your latest message confirms that your firm cannot produce the site plan or the landowner contract—both being core documents under the PAPDC and PD-PACP. You have therefore failed to comply with pre-action requirements.
For the avoidance of doubt, the signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive. A sign that forbids stopping or parking outside marked bays cannot constitute an offer, provides no consideration, and cannot create a binding contract. Your client’s only conceivable cause of action would be in trespass, which they are not entitled to pursue.
If you issue proceedings before curing your non-compliance, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b) and seek costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct. Any such claim will also be opposed on the merits: the signage is forbidding and incapable of contractual effect.
Do not contact me again unless you are serving a compliant Letter of Claim accompanied by the required documents. Further repetitive or non-compliant correspondence will be placed before the court and the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
This closes the loop as it shows you’ve allowed every opportunity for compliance, demonstrates understanding of the legal deficiencies, and leaves a clear paper trail of their failures for later use in court or an SRA complaint.
-
Thank you for the detailed reply b789.
So, the email was sent on Tuesday, and Moorside have just responded today (hopefully they are getting sick of us), with the below:
We write in relation to the above matter.
The PCN was issued for Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay High Point Village.
We are unable to provide the site map you require we have already provided all evidence and information from our client.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in prominent places. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN.
Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.
It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.
below is a breakdown:
Why is there an additional £70 added to the PCN amount?
Because the Parking Charge remained unpaid after it was due. Our Client made you aware that additional charges could be applied to the Parking Charge if it was not paid on time. They informed you of this on the parking signs and on any notices either placed on the vehicle or sent to you by post.
How is the £70 made up?
£70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Association Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of ipc which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 is a charge levied by our Client (the Parking Operator) to protect their legitimate interests. (Our Client’s legitimate interests for charging and additional fee is to encourage payment when the Parking Charge becomes due and to avoid the need for debt recovery.)
Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided you with a response. However, should you wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter further and respond accordingly.
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal
-
The location is a very well known entrapment area. The invoice has been issued because the driver is alleged to have breached a contractual sign. Keep in mind that any contract requires three elements:
1. An offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
On what planet is a sign that says: "NO STOPPING"; "£100 charge if you stop on this road" a contract capable of offering anything capable of being considered?
1. Offer
That is not an offer. It prohibits stopping entirely; there is no permission being granted on any terms. You cannot "accept" a prohibition — the only logical meaning is “do not stop”. If a driver does stop, they have breached a prohibition, not accepted an offer. The only possible legal basis would be trespass, not contract.
2. Acceptance
Even if one were to argue that the act of stopping constitutes acceptance, it would be a perverse interpretation: a motorist cannot accept terms they are forbidden from engaging with. The moment the sign tells you “No stopping”, any alleged contract collapses because there is nothing to accept — only a warning not to act.
3. Consideration
For consideration to exist, the parking company must confer some benefit (e.g. permission to park or stop). Here, they confer none — they expressly withhold permission. The driver gains nothing they are permitted to do, and the operator provides no benefit or licence in exchange. Without consideration, the supposed contract is void.
Legal analysis
Courts have repeatedly found that prohibitive signs cannot create contracts. Relevant reasoning can be seen in:
• PCM (UK) Ltd v Bull et al (2016, unreported, Oxford County Court) — HHJ Harris QC held that a “No parking” sign was forbidding and therefore incapable of forming a contract.
• Vehicle Control Services v Ward (2018, Sheff. CC, appeal) — though it concerned stopping on airport land, the same principle was raised: where signage is prohibitive, it cannot form a contract.
Conclusion
This sign is purely prohibitive, not contractual.
Do you need any more convincing that they are on very shaky ground and they know it because they have hired the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal to act for them. I can guarantee that any claim they eventually issue will not even comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and can be easily argued on technicality failures alone.
-
Thank you for the clarification; will get that sent. I wasn't able to modify the earlier posts to update image links, so I've relinked the (missing) images from posts #1 and #8 here.
(https://i.ibb.co/60Dn88st/IMG-8827.png) (https://ibb.co/1GRvMM2X)
(https://i.ibb.co/r2XjYzGg/IMG-8828.png) (https://ibb.co/VYk1RzWd)
(https://i.ibb.co/pv3KKcvh/IMG-8814.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z6hgg562)
(https://i.ibb.co/0yJFP4xw/IMG-8813.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s936LxZB)
(https://i.ibb.co/Df2b2H8W/IMG-8844.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3mZsZ9Md)
-
So just edit that one point. I am flying more or less blind here. Use common sense to edit it if necessary.
-
Thanks b789!
Just one question: in the last email they did actually provide this linked higher resolution image (higher than the one I previously posted in post #8) showing the car in relation to the sign and the bay markings. Does this change anything in the text you provided for us to send?
Just want to understand why that doesn’t cure one of the ‘deficiencies’.
Thanks!
(https://i.ibb.co/SXYzpZDt/Get-Image-88.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mCZ37Pr9)
-
Respond with the following:
Re: Your continuing PAPDC/PD-PACP non-compliance – High Point Village
For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your email of 27/10/2025 attaching (again) the postal parking charge, a signage image and photographs of the vehicle. Your message still does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) or the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PACP).
What remains missing (despite repeated requests)
[indent[1. The precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached (for “parked outside the confines of a marked bay”) as displayed on the material date.
2. Contemporaneous, time-stamped, wide-angle photographs showing the vehicle in situ relative to the bay boundaries/markings and the nearest terms signs (not cropped close-ups).
3. A site plan identifying bay layout and the location of all terms signs visible from the relevant area on the material date.
4. Landowner contract/authority conferring standing to operate and to litigate.
5. A clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum and the pleaded legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN.[/indent]
Your latest attachments do not cure those deficiencies. If the images you rely upon are contemporaneous, provide their capture dates/times and originals with embedded metadata together with the site plan.
Landowner authority (locus standi)
Your assertion that authority is “unclear” or irrelevant is wrong in law. Locus standi is a threshold issue. Produce the landowner agreement.
Portal refusal
Pre-action obligations are not discharged by pointing to a portal. Provide the documents by email or post.
£70 add-on
Trade-association codes do not expand recoverable damages. The £70 “debt recovery” add-on is denied and will be opposed as an abuse. Please confirm now whether you intend to plead any amount above the face value of the PCN and the legal basis for doing so.
Next steps / SRA
Upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the above documents, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days as contemplated by the PAPDC. If you issue without first complying, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order compelling disclosure, and invite the court to impose sanctions and costs (including by reference to the authorities previously cited).
If your firm persists in (i) refusing to comply with PAPDC/PD-PACP, (ii) attempting to force portal use in place of disclosure, and/or (iii) presenting inflated/irrecoverable sums as if recoverable, I will refer this pre-action conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (misleading communications; failure to act with integrity and in a way that upholds public trust).
What you must provide within 14 days
• The exact contractual clause(s) relied upon;
• Contemporaneous photographs (with dates/times/metadata) of the vehicle relative to bay markings and nearby terms signs;
• A site plan of the area and sign locations as at the material date;
• The landowner authority/contract to operate and to litigate; and
• A lawful breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the legal basis for any amount above the PCN face value.
Absent compliance, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance.
Yours faithfully,
-
Thanks once again b789.
So your response (post #26) was sent out to Moorside yesterday, and they have already replied, today.
What they've done is to again attach a PDF of the original postal parking charge letter, along with images of the sign and the car (as I linked in post #8). Problem is that with Imgur not serving UK now those image links don't work (I just used a VPN to check the post numbers), so I have reupped the sign image here.
Of course they wrote in the email too, and as usual I have copied and pasted below. Next steps when you have time please, and eternal thanks as usual!
We write in relation to the above matter.
The PCN was issued for Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay High Point Village.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in prominent places. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN.
Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.
It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.
below is a breakdown:
Why is there an additional £70 added to the PCN amount?
Because the Parking Charge remained unpaid after it was due. Our Client made you aware that additional charges could be applied to the Parking Charge if it was not paid on time. They informed you of this on the parking signs and on any notices either placed on the vehicle or sent to you by post.
How is the £70 made up?
£70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Association Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of ipc which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 is a charge levied by our Client (the Parking Operator) to protect their legitimate interests. (Our Client’s legitimate interests for charging and additional fee is to encourage payment when the Parking Charge becomes due and to avoid the need for debt recovery.)
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal
(https://i.ibb.co/G37mwwp0/Get-Image-87.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0Vq5NN2c)
-
Respond with the following (CC yourself):
Re: Your defective pre-action conduct – demand for proper PAPDC compliance
For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter
Dear Sirs,
Your latest email repeats assertions and still fails to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”) and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (“PD-PACP”). You have not provided the documents expressly requested to enable informed discussion and proportionate resolution.
Allegation: “Parked outside the confines of a marked bay”
If this is your pleaded breach, provide:
1. Contemporaneous, time-stamped photographs from the material date clearly showing the vehicle and the bay boundaries/markings (wide and close-up).
2. The exact contractual clause relied upon, as displayed on the signage on the material date.
3. A site plan showing bay layout and the locations of all relevant signs visible from the area in question.
Protocol/PD breaches and core documents still missing
You have not complied with PAPDC ¶¶3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2 and PD-PACP ¶¶6(a), 6(c). In particular, you have failed to provide:
• Contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date (not generic artwork).
• The precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
• The landowner contract/authority establishing your client’s standing to operate and to litigate.
• A clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum and the pleaded legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN (which is denied).
Web portals
I will not use a portal. Pre-action obligations are not satisfied by pointing to one. Provide documents by email or post.
Inflated add-on
Trade-association codes do not expand recoverable sums. The £70 “debt recovery” add-on (or any iteration of it) is not recoverable and will be opposed as abusive (see Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (County Court appeal, 2020)).
Next steps
On receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the above documents, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days as contemplated by the PAPDC. If you issue without first complying, I will apply for an immediate stay under PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order for disclosure, and invite the court to impose sanctions and costs (see Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd [2007] EWHC 855).
SRA referral
If your firm persists in (i) refusing to comply with the PAPDC/PD-PACP, (ii) attempting to force portal use in place of disclosure, and/or (iii) presenting inflated or contradictory sums and mischaracterising add-ons as recoverable, I will refer this pre-action conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation under the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct (misleading communications and failure to act with integrity and in a way that upholds public trust).
What you must now provide (within 14 days)
1. The NtK relied upon (showing strict PoFA compliance, if alleged) – accepted if already complete.
2. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage and the actual bay/area as it was on the material date.
3. The exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The landowner contract/authority to operate and to litigate.
5. A clear breakdown of the principal sum and the legal basis for any sum above the PCN face value.
Absent compliance, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance.
Yours faithfully,
-
Hi again!
So, Moorside have replied to the email we sent, as per post #23. They have attached the same three PDFs, as I posted in this thread - post #22, and have written the (I have copied and pasted) below response, which appears to be just an edited version of their last email text.
Please advise on what our next move should be.
Many thanks, as always:
We write in relation to the above matter.
The PCN was issued for Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in prominent places. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN.
Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.
It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal
-
That’s brilliant b789, thanks again. Yes they certainly are morons.
Will get that email sent as instructed, and update here as necessary
-
You can email back to the morons at Moorside at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and cc yourself with the following:
For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter
Re: Your defective reply to your own Letter of Claim – demand for proper PAPDC compliance
Dear Sirs,
Your latest missive is an object lesson in how not to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PACP). It neither addresses the requests set out in my response to your Letter of Claim, nor provides the documents you are obliged to disclose. Instead, you point me to a third-party web portal (which I have already stated I will not use), recite trade-association boilerplate about add-on charges, and then compound matters by demanding two different totals in the same letter (£170 and £340). This is not competent pre-action conduct.
Identify the author and person with conduct
Who wrote that response? Kindly have the individual who authored it identify themselves in full, state their role, and provide their SRA number (if any). If the author is unauthorised to conduct litigation, confirm the supervising solicitor who is responsible, with their SRA number. Put another way: who at your firm is willing to put their name to that letter and take responsibility for it?
Protocol and Practice Direction breaches
You have still failed to comply with PAPDC ¶¶3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2, and PD-PACP ¶¶6(a) & 6(c). I asked—expressly and properly—for the core documents and information that any litigant must supply so the parties can understand each other’s position and attempt proportionate resolution. Instead of providing:
1. the NtK relied upon for any alleged PoFA liability,
2. the actual signage in place on the material date (not a stock image),
3. the precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,
4. the landowner authority/contract, and
5. a coherent breakdown of the principal sum and the basis in law for any add-ons,
—you offered none of it. You even asserted it is “unclear” why I would need to inspect your client’s standing to operate. It isn’t unclear; it is elementary. Locus standi is a threshold issue. If you cannot grasp why authority to contract and to sue matters, please pass this letter to a responsible adult at your firm who does.
Web portals
I will not engage with any web portal. That position has been stated and is entirely reasonable. Your pre-action obligations are not satisfied by outsourcing disclosure to an “evidence” portal. Send the documents by email or post.
Incoherent and inflated sums
Your letter simultaneously asserts an “outstanding balance” of £170 and demands payment of £340 within 7 days. Which is it? If you intend to place contradictory figures before the court, that is your prerogative, but do not expect the court to be impressed by arithmetic this poor.
Your reliance on ATA codes to justify a £70 “debt recovery” add-on is legally irrelevant. Trade-association codes are not law and cannot expand recoverable damages under contract or statute. Courts have repeatedly disallowed such add-ons as an abuse (see, e.g., Excel v Wilkinson [2020], and numerous small-claims decisions following it). Any attempt to plead the extra £70 (or to double it, as your £340 demand suggests) will be challenged and treated as unreasonable conduct.
Next steps
You were already told that, upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the documents requested, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days, as the PAPDC contemplates. Instead of complying, you sent marketing copy and payment links. If you issue proceedings without first complying with PAPDC and PD-PACP, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order compelling the missing documents, and invite the court to impose appropriate sanctions and costs (see Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club (2003) EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations [2007] EWHC 855).
Separately, your persistent refusal to comply with pre-action obligations, your attempt to force a portal, your presentation of contradictory balances, and your pursuit of unrecoverable add-ons will be the subject of a report to the SRA. This correspondence and your original Letter of Claim will be produced in support if you proceed to issue.
What you must now do (14 days)
Within 14 days, provide by email or post:
• the NtK relied upon (showing strict PoFA compliance, if alleged),
• contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date,
• the exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,
• the landowner contract/authority to operate and to litigate, and
• a clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum (with the legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN, which is denied).
Failing that, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance. If you remain unable to understand how litigation works, escalate this file to someone at your firm who does.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your contact details]
-
Hi again,
So, as advised, the email was sent to Moorside, and they have now got back with the below email (I copied and pasted), and they also attached a few PDFs. I screen-grabbed the PDFs (linked images in this post) so I can edit sensitive info - sorry for low quality, but it looks like it's just stuff they already sent previously (and not what was asked of them).
Advice on next steps would be most appreciated.
Thanks, as always.
From: noreply@moorsidelegal.co.uk
Date: 16 October 2025 at 11:45:12 BST
To: (redacted)
Subject: Reference: (redacted)
We write in relation to the above matter.
Please see attached.
Our client has instructed us to collect the outstanding balance of £170.00 in relation to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.
Please be advised that the original amount of the PCN was £100.00. As outlined in the notice, a reduced amount of £60.00 would have been accepted as full and final settlement if payment had been received within 14 days from the date of issue.
Unfortunately, as no payment was received within that time frame, the opportunity to pay the reduced amount has now expired. As a result of continued non-payment and additional charges, the balance has increased and now stands at £170.00.
The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of the International Parking Community which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.
It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.
You have already made representation to our client, who have responded accordingly. We cannot overturn their decision.
In our client’s letter rejecting your appeal you were offered the opportunity to refer your appeal to an Independent Adjudication Service provided by our clients Accredited Trade Association. You did not take this step and we must advise that all appeal avenues have now expired. Considering the evidence we hold we have to advise that the PCN and its associated processes are in line with industry standards and are compliant with our clients Accredited Trade Association’s code of practice.
Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided you with a response.
We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.
You can make payment in the following ways:
Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal
(https://i.ibb.co/Xr0qrv40/IMG-1134.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cSfjS7vf)
(https://i.ibb.co/ymdFSM93/IMG-1135.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PsFGQbLS)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRPQS8qd/IMG-1136.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wN1s287L)
(https://i.ibb.co/LzG1CkMR/IMG-1137.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Kj1W90Yh)
(https://i.ibb.co/zVKJBXYy/IMG-1139.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Ld45cxWL)
-
Of course - I wasn’t thinking; that makes sense!
Thanks again
-
You respond in the name of the registered keeper, to whom the Letter of Claim has been addressed.
-
This is fantastic - thank you b789.
Quick question though: the car is registered in my partner’s name, but I handle all household admin (including this) - should I use their name, or it doesn’t matter at this point?
Thanks again, as always
-
Respond by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself as follows:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept being required to use your web portal; all communication must be conducted exclusively by email or post, at your election.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
-
Hi again, I'm back!
So, this just arrived today, from Moorside Legal. It's titled 'Letter Before Claim', and states 30 days etc, so I thought I'd check in on what the next steps should be.
Thanks again.
(https://i.imgur.com/J5KXDX4.jpeg)
-
Thank you b789, for the swift, but very detailed and informative response. I shall update as necessary!
-
Ignore all further correspondence except a Letter of Claim (LoC) or N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC). These can come months later, if at all.
Once a Letter of Claim arrives (usually titled as such and giving 30 days to respond), come back here and we’ll assist with the pre-action response and defence. Debt collector letters (e.g. from DRP, Trace, or CST Law) are toothless and do not require any response.
In relation to your question:
“If a person is employed in a position where they must annually declare they are not involved in court matters or prosecutions…”
Here is the position in relation to a private parking claim:
• Civil Claims Only: A parking claim from PCM is a civil matter, not a criminal prosecution.
• County Court Small Claim: If a claim is issued, it’s a low-value money claim in the County Court, under the small claims track – it does not create a criminal record.
• No Admission of Wrongdoing: Even if judgment were entered against the defendant, it is simply a civil debt – not an admission of illegal conduct or wrongdoing.
• No Impact if Defended: If the claim is defended, and especially if it is discontinued or struck out, there is nothing adverse to declare.
• CCJ Risk Only If Ignored: The only time it might be reportable is if the defendant ignores a claim and a County Court Judgment (CCJ) is entered by default and left unpaid for more than a calendar month.
Conclusion: So long as you do not ignore a real court claim, this would not trigger any disclosure requirement in most employment declarations – which are typically concerned with criminal matters or actual civil judgments, not pending or threatened civil claims.
If you're dealing with a particularly sensitive or high-security employment contract, it's always best to check the precise wording of the declaration clause, but in most cases, this kind of parking dispute does not meet the threshold of ‘involvement in court proceedings’ unless and until a formal hearing or judgment occurs.
-
UPDATE!!
This arrived in the post today and, as expected, the 'appeal' was rejected. So what is the next step now? Ignore all but a letter before claim, then come back here for guidance once that arrives?
As a side note/question: if a person (going through this process) is employed in a position where they need to make an annual declaration, to confirm they are not involved in court matters or prosecutions - would this matter be, at any point (or outcome) a concern for them?
Many thanks again, for your time.
(https://i.imgur.com/KOCccxD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3iCw9mz.jpeg)
-
Yes, always complain if you can!
Not sure how useful it will be in these specific circumstances (since the driver wasn't a customer etc.) but it's always worth a try.
-
You’re confusing “grace period” with “consideration period”. If there’s contractual terms and conditions, there must be a minimum “consideration” period for the driver to be able to “consider” those terms and conditions before deciding to accept them or not.
A “grace period” only applies where parking is permitted.
The sign (image provided by PCM) featured in post #8 does apparently allow 20 minutes parking in marked bays, but still there should be some kind of period, even if one is unable to stop in a bay (as was the case here)?
I see there are a number of similar (somewhat older) threads on MSE regarding this location, which no doubt FTLA/PePiPoo (RIP) members had advised on, and they have also mentioned complaining to the client landowner (something mentioned in the - now lodged - template appeal provided here). Should the driver follow through with this?
-
You’re confusing “grace period” with “consideration period”. If there’s contractual terms and conditions, there must be a minimum “consideration” period for the driver to be able to “consider” those terms and conditions before deciding to accept them or not.
A “grace period” only applies where parking is permitted.
-
Perfect - thank you!
-
Wild that they're saying no grace period applies while being signed up to follow the PPSSCoP. Alas, just one way in which they and others are non-compliant. Nevertheless it's a requirement, as is a consideration period.
Per the PPSSCoP:
As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to
understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they
choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of time needed varies according
to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open to the public includes the
time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should the
driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration period before the contract
between the driver and the parking operator is made. It is also a requirement to allow a
grace period in addition to the parking period where parking is permitted, and all terms and
conditions have been complied with.
Borderline hilarious that their pictures only show a 6 second window. How could a driver consider the terms of parking, or be considered to have parked in 6 seconds.
RE the form, yes you can fill all that, they have all but your email address anyway, and they'll need that to send your rejection.
The only watch out on the form is if they ask you to provide your relationship with the vehicle. Remember you are appealing as the keeper.
-
No contract was formed. To form a contract by conduct, three key elements must be present:
1. Offer – A clear promise of terms made by one party.
2. Acceptance – Clear agreement to those terms by the other party.
3. Consideration – Something of value exchanged (e.g. money for a service).
In a contract by conduct, these elements must be clear from actions alone — not just from signs or warnings — and the terms must be communicated before the conduct occurs.
The sign says "No Stopping – £100 charge," which is a prohibition, not an offer. You can’t accept something you’re told not to do. Since there’s no offer, no contract can be formed, even by conduct. Stopping briefly to let someone out isn’t accepting terms—it’s ignoring a warning. Without offer, acceptance, and consideration, there’s no contract.
As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) states the reason as "parked outside the confines of a marked bay," then there must be signs clearly displaying that specific term and any associated charge. However, you have not shown us evidence of any such sign. I suspect that there are other terms and conditions of parking signs and you would need to show us what those actually say and where they were in relation to the route you took through the private land.
In any case though the vehicle was not parked. The driver simply stopped briefly to let a passenger out. As confirmed in Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&st=95btqrcy&dl=0), a short stop for dropping off passengers is not “parking”, and does not breach parking terms.
Additionally, as already mentioned, the NtK fails to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify a period of parking—only a single timestamp (16:53) and a vague reference to a period "immediately following" that time.
As confirmed in Brennan v ParkingEye (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=zh5amd3d&dl=0), PoFA requires a clearly stated period, not just an instant or assumption. Without a valid period of parking, the Keeper cannot be held liable under PoFA.
So, this is the most likely scenario if you follow our advice... You can submit the initial appeal to PCM, but it will be rejected, regardless of the merits. Since this operator is with the IPC, a secondary appeal to the IAS is pointless—it lacks independence and rarely upholds appeals.
Next, you, as the Keeper, will receive a series of threatening but powerless debt recovery letters, which can be safely ignored. Eventually, PCM will likely instruct an incompetent bulk litigator to send a Letter of Claim (LoC), followed by an N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
If defended using our recommended template, the claim has a greater than 99% chance of being struck out or discontinued, based on extensive experience dealing with these rogue, unregulated private parking companies.
Thank you for your reply b789 - most informative.
Regarding the stopping (not parked) period, (having just looked online) PCM have provided 5 images in the evidence section of the (paymypcn-uk) website, timestamped from 16:53:25 (passenger alighting) to 16:53:31 (front wheels turned to leave), so yes, the briefest of stops.
They have also provided a poor quality (small print unintelligible) image of the 'other sign' (which seems to appear in the upper right area of timestamped images) you mentioned, which states 'no grace period' - ridiculous!
(https://i.imgur.com/SM53Kdv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DcDa6Xe.jpeg)
But for the moment the driver shall concentrate on that initial appeal provided by yourself/G6PRK. Would it be correct to fill out all these details on the paymypcn-uk website, as the registered keeper? This needs to be done before one can 'appeal'. Or is 'snail mail' preferable, in these instances?
(https://i.imgur.com/sJRXelm.jpeg)
Thanking you all again!
-
No contract was formed. To form a contract by conduct, three key elements must be present:
1. Offer – A clear promise of terms made by one party.
2. Acceptance – Clear agreement to those terms by the other party.
3. Consideration – Something of value exchanged (e.g. money for a service).
In a contract by conduct, these elements must be clear from actions alone — not just from signs or warnings — and the terms must be communicated before the conduct occurs.
The sign says "No Stopping – £100 charge," which is a prohibition, not an offer. You can’t accept something you’re told not to do. Since there’s no offer, no contract can be formed, even by conduct. Stopping briefly to let someone out isn’t accepting terms—it’s ignoring a warning. Without offer, acceptance, and consideration, there’s no contract.
As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) states the reason as "parked outside the confines of a marked bay," then there must be signs clearly displaying that specific term and any associated charge. However, you have not shown us evidence of any such sign. I suspect that there are other terms and conditions of parking signs and you would need to show us what those actually say and where they were in relation to the route you took through the private land.
In any case though the vehicle was not parked. The driver simply stopped briefly to let a passenger out. As confirmed in Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&st=95btqrcy&dl=0), a short stop for dropping off passengers is not “parking”, and does not breach parking terms.
Additionally, as already mentioned, the NtK fails to comply with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify a period of parking—only a single timestamp (16:53) and a vague reference to a period "immediately following" that time.
As confirmed in Brennan v ParkingEye (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=zh5amd3d&dl=0), PoFA requires a clearly stated period, not just an instant or assumption. Without a valid period of parking, the Keeper cannot be held liable under PoFA.
So, this is the most likely scenario if you follow our advice... You can submit the initial appeal to PCM, but it will be rejected, regardless of the merits. Since this operator is with the IPC, a secondary appeal to the IAS is pointless—it lacks independence and rarely upholds appeals.
Next, you, as the Keeper, will receive a series of threatening but powerless debt recovery letters, which can be safely ignored. Eventually, PCM will likely instruct an incompetent bulk litigator to send a Letter of Claim (LoC), followed by an N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
If defended using our recommended template, the claim has a greater than 99% chance of being struck out or discontinued, based on extensive experience dealing with these rogue, unregulated private parking companies.
-
Yes, the driver should be hoping for a cancellation - but as I say, an IPC company is very unlikely to do so. They will most likely reject and refer to the second stage "Independent Appeals Service" which is not independent at all and to most people a waste of time.
The most obvious PoFA failing is non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a): The notice fails to specify the actual period of parking. It only shows a single timestamp of 16:53. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a period of parking, not just a moment in time. There was a court case where this was successfully argued but for the life of me I can't remember which one, someone else might pipe up.
You should also look up the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and what it says about consideration/grace periods and signage.
The driver saw some parking bays and pulled in for less than one minute. Is one minute a reasonable amount of time to consider the parking contract if indeed there was even one available via adequate signage?
Furthermore, how could the driver enter a contract whereby parking is not permitted 'outside of a marked bay' if no parking were permitted at all? And if parking were not permitted at all, how could a parking contract even exist to be entered into?!
Thank you again; you’ve answered all my questions brilliantly.
I shall update this thread if/as it develops (hopefully it won’t get much further!)
-
Yes, the driver should be hoping for a cancellation - but as I say, an IPC company is very unlikely to do so. They will most likely reject and refer to the second stage "Independent Appeals Service" which is not independent at all and to most people a waste of time.
The most obvious PoFA failing is non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a): The notice fails to specify the actual period of parking. It only shows a single timestamp of 16:53. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a period of parking, not just a moment in time. There was a court case where this was successfully argued but for the life of me I can't remember which one, someone else might pipe up.
You should also look up the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and what it says about consideration/grace periods and signage.
The driver saw some parking bays and pulled in for less than one minute. Is one minute a reasonable amount of time to consider the parking contract if indeed there was even one available via adequate signage?
Furthermore, how could the driver enter a contract whereby parking is not permitted 'outside of a marked bay' if no parking were permitted at all? And if parking were not permitted at all, how could a parking contract even exist to be entered into?!
-
All credit to b789 for the appeal wording.
As I say though, chances of success at appeal are next to zero. You will need to be prepared to take this all the way if necessary - but I would offer you a higher than 99% chance of never paying a penny if you do.
Well the driver would like to thank b789 too! The driver definitely doesn’t want to pay, so will go all the way.
Quick question though, should the driver be expecting (hoping for) a reply from the PPC to say the notice has been cancelled?
And, if you don’t mind sharing, how does the NtK not comply with PoFA? The driver likes to know what they themselves are talking/writing about, when dealing with such matters.
Thanks again!
-
All credit to b789 for the appeal wording.
As I say though, chances of success at appeal are next to zero. You will need to be prepared to take this all the way if necessary - but I would offer you a higher than 99% chance of never paying a penny if you do.
-
This PPC is IPC affiliated and as such no appeal is likely to be successful. You would have a good chance of success if it ever made it to court which many don't. The forum will help you with your defence should it reach that point.
Is the signage really clear? Does it meet the standards set by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice? Is the signage relevant and applicable to alleged contravention?
--
For now, appeal only as the Keeper. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
PCN No: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
This is fantastic stuff G6PRK - so thank you so much for your time and attention!
-
This PPC is IPC affiliated and as such no appeal is likely to be successful. You would have a good chance of success if it ever made it to court which many don't. The forum will help you with your defence should it reach that point.
Is the signage really clear? Does it meet the standards set by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice? Is the signage relevant and applicable to alleged contravention?
--
For now, appeal only as the Keeper. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
PCN No: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
-
Hi peeps, any advice for get-outs with this parking charge notice would be greatly appreciated:
The driver stopped for passengers to alight, taking less than a minute, before moving off out of the area. The letter arrived today, March 29th.
I appreciate this is a 'no stopping' area, and the signage is clear (Google Maps images are old, but driver thinks signage is current), but the reason given on the letter doesn't match up, at least?
Many thanks for your attention!
(https://i.imgur.com/6a2QMyr.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Abxei6n.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2goq9CA.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CBSeT2n.png)