I have just sent a test email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and it has not bounced. I received their usual auto-response rubbish.
Can you please show us the content of the message/reason in the bounced emails.
They’re not entitled to force you onto a portal. The PAPDC requires proper engagement and disclosure. If you expressly asked for non-postal correspondence and supplied alternative contact details, they should use those details for the Letter of Claim, and if documents are requested they must provide them (or explain why not) within 30 days. Blocking your email address instead of engaging points to non-compliance.
Bocking emails is not, by itself, “unlawful”, and email is not a valid method of service unless consented to under PD 6A. But this is pre-action correspondence, not service. Using a published email address then deliberately blocking you frustrates the objectives of pre-action conduct and can attract sanctions (stay, costs adjustments) if they issue the claim without first engaging.
From a regulatory angle, an SRA-regulated firm must have effective systems and controls and act fairly; publishing contact routes and then obstructing communications may raise issues under the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms (e.g., maintaining trust, not misleading, and keeping effective systems).
What this gives you if they sue anyway, is that in the Defence (or early application), you can plead PAPDC non-compliance: (i) failure to use the non-postal contact route expressly specified, (ii) failure to provide requested documents within 30 days, and (iii) obstructing pre-action engagement by blocking the your email. Seek a stay and costs for unreasonable conduct under PDPAC paras 13–16.
Do not rely on “deemed service” by email; PD 6A requires prior written agreement for electronic service. Keep the point strictly as pre-action non-compliance, not service.
When the time comes, you can use something like this in your defence:QuoteThe Claimant’s solicitors failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant requested documents and clarification. Contrary to PAPDC paras 5.1–5.2, the Claimant failed to provide the requested documents within 30 days and then obstructed communication by blocking the Defendant’s emails to all published contact addresses, despite the Defendant’s express preference for non-postal contact per PAPDC para 3.3. Any proceedings should be stayed under PDPAC paras 13–16 pending full compliance, with the Claimant bearing the costs of this non-compliance.
Other options open to you are to send anything to them by post with a free certificate of posting from any post office and require them to only communicate by post. Whilst they are not required to use proof of posting, you can rebut any presumption of delivery should you not receive it.
Finally, you could just get yourself a new, free email address, such as a gmail one, that you use only for communication with the firm of incompetents. If the subsequently block that, you can add to your SRA complaint, especially if this happens after a claim has been issued.
The Claimant’s solicitors failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant requested documents and clarification. Contrary to PAPDC paras 5.1–5.2, the Claimant failed to provide the requested documents within 30 days and then obstructed communication by blocking the Defendant’s emails to all published contact addresses, despite the Defendant’s express preference for non-postal contact per PAPDC para 3.3. Any proceedings should be stayed under PDPAC paras 13–16 pending full compliance, with the Claimant bearing the costs of this non-compliance.
Subject: Complaint: Moorside Legal – Breach of PAPDC and SRA Principles 1, 2 and 5
To: report@sra.org.uk
Cc: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
Dear Sirs,
I wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding the conduct of Moorside Legal in relation to their handling of a purported private parking claim. Moorside are copied into this email for transparency.
Background
Moorside Legal issued a Letter of Claim dated [insert date].
On [insert date], I sent a PAPDC-compliant request for disclosure of key documents.
On [insert date], Moorside replied by directing me to their own portal and imposing a seven-day payment deadline.
On [insert date], I replied (copy attached), pointing out that disclosure via their portal is not compliance, that their deadline was improper, and that they had still failed to provide key documents.
Despite repeated opportunities, Moorside have still not provided the following:
No signage photographs. Not a single contemporaneous photograph of the signage allegedly forming the basis of their client’s contractual claim has been provided. A CCTV still of a vehicle proves nothing.
No clause(s) identified. They have failed to identify the specific clause(s) of the supposed terms and conditions allegedly breached.
No landowner authority. They have refused to disclose the landowner agreement — an astonishing position given that their client’s very standing to bring a claim hinges on it.
£70 add-on. Their justification for the additional £70 is lifted wholesale from trade association boilerplate and does not explain whether it reflects actual incurred costs, damages, or consideration. They have also dodged the VAT question, again.
Conduct concerns
Non-compliance with PAPDC – Disclosure via Moorside’s own portal is not compliant with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 6(a)–(c). The Protocol requires provision of key documents by ordinary service, not hidden behind a login system. The portal appears designed to discourage recipients from scrutinising the evidence.
Improper deadlines – Moorside imposed a seven-day payment demand contrary to the Protocol’s mandatory 30-day period.
Abuse of process – The £70 “debt recovery” add-on is widely recognised as irrecoverable and improper.
Regulatory issues – These failings appear inconsistent with SRA Principles 1, 2 and 5, namely:• Upholding the rule of law and proper administration of justice.
• Acting with integrity.
• Acting in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the profession.
Impact
Moorside’s persistent refusal to serve key documents frustrates the Protocol’s very purpose, prejudices my ability to obtain advice, and risks unnecessary proceedings. It represents incompetence at best and sharp practice at worst. Their conduct appears to be a deliberate attempt to obstruct pre-litigation resolution and to pressurise payment without scrutiny of the claim.
Request
I ask the SRA to investigate and confirm what regulatory action will be taken against Moorside Legal. Their refusal to provide basic, mandatory disclosure (signage, clauses, landowner contract, quantum breakdown) is incompatible with the standards expected of solicitors and undermines public confidence.
Attachments:• Moorside’s Letter of Claim [date].
• My PAPDC-compliant request [date].
• Moorside’s portal-only response [date].
• My reply dated [insert date], warning that their conduct would be reported to the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Address]
[Email / Phone]
Has the OP revealed the identity of "the driver" on the date of the alleged "offence"?
Subject: Your email dated [insert date] – non-compliant response to Letter of Claim ([your ref])
Dear Sirs,
Your email of [insert date] is not a compliant response under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAPDC”). Directing me to a third-party “customer portal” does not discharge your obligations. You must provide the requested documents by ordinary means (email attachment or post). I will not register with, or accept service via, your portal.
For the avoidance of doubt:1. Portal-only is improper. PAPDC para 5.1 requires you to provide documents and information upon request. Relegating disclosure to a gated portal is not compliance and is not good service. Please send the documents by return, attached to email or by post.
2. Your seven-day payment demand is untenable. The PAPDC prescribes 30 days for considered engagement, running from receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the provision of the documents reasonably requested. Your truncated deadline is ignored.
3. Outstanding documents (first requested 4 August 2025) – still not received by email/post:• Signage evidence: contemporaneous photographs as displayed on the material date, including wording, placement, illumination, and driver-eye legibility.
• Exact clause(s) allegedly breached on the signs/terms relied upon.
• Landowner authority: the written agreement conferring authority to operate, issue PCNs, and litigate in your client’s name.
• Full quantum breakdown identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages and the basis (if any) for the £70 add-on, including whether VAT is applicable.
• PoFA 2012 compliance: the Notice to Keeper and all documents relied upon, including the specified period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a).
4. The £70 “debt recovery” add-on. You are already on notice that such uplifts are routinely found irrecoverable and an abuse of process in parking claims. Any attempt to rely on it will be opposed and may attract costs consequences.
5. Next steps. Until you comply fully with PAPDC paras 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 6(a)–(c) by serving the above documents by email or post, pre-action engagement is not complete. If you issue prematurely, I will seek an immediate stay and invite the court to impose sanctions under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, including paragraphs 13, 15(b) and 16. I also reserve the right to refer your conduct to the SRA under Principles 1, 2 and 5.
Please provide the documents within 7 days by email attachment (PDF) or post. I will not access your portal.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Dear Sirs,
Your latest response is a classic example of procedural ineptitude. Despite being put on notice under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, you have once again failed to comply with even the most basic requirements of the Practice Direction.
Let me spell it out for you:• You have not provided a single photograph of the signage allegedly forming the basis of your client’s contractual claim. A CCTV still of a vehicle proves nothing.
• You have failed to identify the specific clause(s) allegedly breached.
• You have refused to disclose the landowner agreement — an astonishing position given that your client’s standing to bring any claim hinges entirely on it.
• Your justification for the £70 charge is lifted wholesale from trade association boilerplate and fails to address whether it reflects actual incurred costs, damages, or consideration. You have also dodged the VAT question, again.
Your attempt to pass off this shambolic response as compliant is not merely laughable — it demonstrates a fundamental disregard for your duties under the Protocol and the Practice Direction. If this is the standard of legal work Moorside Legal considers acceptable, then I will have no hesitation in referring your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for investigation under Principles 1, 2, and 5 of the SRA Standards and Regulations.
For the avoidance of doubt, the outstanding documents are listed in the annex to this letter. Until your client complies fully with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, and 6(a)–(c) of the Protocol, I will not engage further. Should you issue proceedings prematurely, I will seek an immediate stay and invite the court to impose costs sanctions under paragraphs 13, 15(b), and 16 of the Practice Direction. I will also submit a formal complaint to the SRA, enclosing your correspondence as evidence of your firm’s disregard for professional obligations and procedural fairness.
You have seven days to remedy these failings. After that, I will consider your silence or continued non-compliance as wilful misconduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Annex – Outstanding Documents Requested 4 August 20251. Photographs of the signage as it was displayed on the site on the material date, showing wording, placement, lighting, and legibility from a driver’s perspective.
2. The exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached.
3. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to operate, issue PCNs, and conduct litigation in their own name.
4. A complete breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 add-on includes VAT.
5. Evidence of PoFA 2012 compliance, including the specified “period of parking” under Paragraph 9(2)(a).
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. A copy of the original Notice To Keeper (NtK) as it was never received
5. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
6. 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]