Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: GoingMad on October 24, 2025, 01:26:22 pm

Title: Re: Letter Before Claim Received from Moorside Legal
Post by: b789 on October 24, 2025, 07:18:50 pm
Moorside are utterly incompetent as a firm of supposed legals. If their LoC is for only a single PCN, they may just issue a claim for that one and then later try and sue further claims, which could estopped.

Respond to the LoC with the following:

Quote
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 the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply 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 exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Title: Letter Before Claim Received from Moorside Legal
Post by: GoingMad on October 24, 2025, 01:26:22 pm
Good afternoon all,

This is in relation to a PCN I received in February.

After reviewing this forum extensively and following the standard guidance (appealing each PCN, not naming the driver, and ignoring debt collection letters), I’ve now received a Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal on behalf of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, dated 7th October, for £170. I expect to receive three further letters relating to the other PCNs.


The letter contains no stated deadline or specific instruction other than to pay the amount demanded.


Summary of my situation:
A total of four PCNs have been issued by PCM.
The driver has not been identified at any point.
I appealed each PCN both directly and via the IAS, using templates and guidance found on this forum – all appeals were rejected.
The Notices to Keeper are not POFA compliant: they fail to specify the period of parking and omit the instruction to “pass this notice to the driver.”
I complained to the landowner, who offered a “deal” but stated they were unable to intervene. I declined the offer.
I have retained all original PCNs, appeal submissions, and rejection responses, which I can upload if needed.
I’m prepared to defend these matters in court if necessary, but my immediate concern is to respond appropriately to this LBC, which is now 17 days old.

My questions are:



Thank you in advance for your advice.[/pre]