You can respond to that with the following:
Subject: Alliance Parking UK Ltd – Your email of 20 August 2025 – Non-compliant pre-action conduct
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your email of 20 August 2025.
I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the original Notice to Keeper and ANPR timestamped entry/exit photographs. Those items do not cure the non-compliance identified in my previous letter. Your response still does not engage with (still less comply with) the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”) and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (“PD-PAC”). Instead of providing the remaining key documents I requested, you have offered bare assertions about signage and compliance, refused to disclose your client’s authority, and purported to shut down further correspondence. That is not how the Protocol works.
For the avoidance of doubt:
Protocol & PD-PAC duties.
Paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) PD-PAC, require you to provide “sufficient information” and disclose key documents so that the parties can understand each other’s position and try to resolve matters without proceedings. A generic statement that signs exist is not a substitute for contemporaneous photographs, site plans, and the terms allegedly agreed.
Landowner authority.
Your assertion that I am “not party” to the landowner agreement is misconceived. You rely on the agreement to found your client’s standing. It is therefore a key document for disclosure at the pre-action stage (PD-PAC 6(a)). Please provide either the agreement itself (with pricing redacted if you insist) or a properly executed letter/statement of authority identifying the land, the contracting entities, the scope and duration of authority, and the right (if any) to litigate in your client’s name.
Keeper liability / PoFA and relevant land.
You have now provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper and ANPR photographs. Please confirm whether you rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and, if so, provide evidence that the location is “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA (i.e. not subject to statutory control/byelaws).
Signage and contractual terms.
Provide contemporaneous, dated photographs of the entrance signage and the nearest terms sign to the bay/area used on the material date, plus a site plan showing sign locations and font sizes. Identify the exact clause(s) allegedly breached.
Quantum and the £70 add-on.
Your contention that an additional £70 is “set” by an Accredited Trade Association and is recoverable regardless is wrong in law. Trade association codes do not override statute or the consumer protection regime. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis did not endorse bolt-on recovery fees in addition to the core parking charge, and numerous County Court decisions have disallowed such add-ons as unrecoverable double recovery/administration (and/or unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015). If you maintain the add-on is claimed, please:
(a) identify the legal basis (consideration or damages),
(b) state whether VAT is accounted for and why, and
(c) provide documentary proof of any actual third-party cost said to be passed on.
Absent that, treat this as notice that any sum beyond the principal parking charge will be opposed.
Mischaracterisation of ATA status.
Your reference to a “government approved” Accredited Trade Association is misleading. ATA accreditation is for DVLA data-access purposes; it does not confer regulatory or legislative status and cannot expand your client’s substantive rights.
Next steps under the Protocol.
For clarity, I acknowledge receipt of: (i) the Notice to Keeper; and (ii) ANPR entry/exit images. The following key documents remain outstanding (PD-PAC 6(a), 6(c)):
• Photographs of the actual signs in situ on the material date and a site plan.
• The exact contractual term(s) you say were breached.
• The landowner contract/authority as above.
• A breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the legal basis of each element and the VAT position of the £70, with documentary proof of any actual third-party cost.
On receipt of a Protocol-compliant Letter of Claim and the above documents, I will seek advice and provide a substantive response within 30 days, as envisaged by the Protocol. Until then, issuing proceedings would be premature and contrary to both the Protocol and PD-PAC. If you proceed regardless, I will apply for a stay pursuant to PD-PAC paragraph 15(b), invite the court to impose sanctions for non-compliance (PD-PAC paragraphs 13 and 16; Protocol paragraph 7.2), and seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
Please confirm the matter is placed on hold and provide the requested documents within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
could the reason you never received the original paperwork be because you failed to update your V5C logbook after a move at some point before the date oof the alleged contravention? If so, it means that the operator holds two possible addresses for you and you will need to send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN)to the DPO of both the claimant and the incompetents at Moorside Legal.
The DRN must instruct the DPO to update their records with your current address for service and to erase any other address they hold for you. The highlighted words are there for a reason so use them.
You should respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) 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]