Typical rubbish from the incompetents. They claim that the terms and conditions were displayed on signage at the car park and that the vehicle was observed during restricted hours, from 22:01 to 22:25. They state that a £70 debt recovery fee is allowed under the BPA and IPC Codes of Practice and is considered fair because it is supposedly approved by the ATA. They assert that by entering the private land, a contract was formed and breached by staying during prohibited hours. They note that the matter has been placed on hold for 30 days due to an indication that debt advice is being sought but warn that a County Court claim may follow if payment is not made.
However, their response fails to address the key issues raised in your earlier reply. They have not provided the information and documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Specifically, they have not supplied a copy of the Notice to Keeper, photographs of the signage from the date of the incident, a copy of the contract terms they rely on, evidence of the landowner’s authority to issue charges, or a proper breakdown of the charges. All of this is required under paragraphs 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 6(a) to (c) of the Protocol and Practice Direction.
Their justification for the £70 fee relies on the ATA, which is not a regulator. Its guidance is not binding, and it does not have the authority to declare fees fair in law. Courts have repeatedly rejected this add-on, particularly in the case of Excel v Wilkinson (2020), where the judge ruled that the £70 was a false fee and not recoverable as part of the debt.
Their conduct still does not meet the expectations of pre-action engagement. They have avoided answering the points raised and continue to withhold basic documents that are necessary to assess the claim. Without these, there can be no meaningful discussion or opportunity to resolve the matter before court. This fails the requirement under paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for both sides to exchange relevant information and try to settle the matter without proceedings.
Their letter refers to an "online portal" where documents have supposedly been uploaded for your review. It would be sensible to check exactly what has been provided, as this may reveal whether they've partially complied with the Pre-Action Protocol or are relying on generic or inadequate evidence.
Please log in to their portal and download everything they’ve uploaded, including:
• The alleged Notice to Keeper (NtK)
• Signage images (check whether they are dated or generic)
• Any landowner authority agreement
• The purported contract terms
• Any payment breakdown
• Any correspondence history
Once downloaded, please redact any personal information (name, address, VRM, reference numbers), then upload the files here or preferably, host them on Google Drive and share a view-only link.
Once We’ve seen what they’re relying on, we can provide a detailed breakdown of:
• What’s missing
• Whether the documents comply with PoFA and the Pre-Action Protocol
• What to say in response (if anything)
Respond by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:
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.
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
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]
Yes, but that was sent in June 2021. Although the Protocol doesn’t state a hard expiry date, courts expect fair notice before a claim is made. A 2021 LoC followed by years of silence is no longer “pre-action” communication – it's stale and unfair. A creditor must give fresh notice before suing, especially if the delay is measured in years.
This is supported by commentary in:
• The White Book (CPR commentary used by judges),
• Court judgments on procedural fairness (Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 WLR 640),
• The Overriding Objective in CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly and fairly.
The need for a new LoC after a long gap is well established in civil procedure practice and would be enforced by a court as part of fair conduct.