Just keep resending it until you don't receive a "mailbox not monitored" response. At the same time do the following:
DO NOT use their portal. Your email response to their LoC has been served on them. Send the following email:
Subject: Formal Notice – Breach of Transparency Obligations and Imminent Escalation to ICO, SRA and CMA
To: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk; dpo@apn.co.uk
Cc: enquiries@apn.co.uk; [your own email address]
Dear Data Protection Officer,
This notice is issued to you in your statutory capacity under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, in relation to Moorside Legal Services Limited and the wider APN Group.
Moorside Legal’s own Privacy Notice states that any data subject wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO should email help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (subject heading: “Data Subject Rights – Your Name”) or write to the postal DPO address. Help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only email address Moorside Legal publishes for contact and it is expressly described as the DPO contact route.
Relying on that representation, a substantive response to a Moorside Legal Letter of Claim was sent to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. That email contained personal data and clearly engaged data subject rights and pre-action obligations.
In reply, instead of engaging with the substance of the correspondence, Moorside Legal sent a boilerplate “fob-off” email stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and attempting to force use of an online portal. This was not an automated server bounce: it was a standard template that an individual chose to send after accessing the original message. In other words, a member of your staff is monitoring incoming messages to the very address advertised as the DPO contact, reading those messages, and then sending a stock response asserting that the mailbox is “not monitored” and that the only acceptable communication route is your portal.
That is not a technical quirk; it is a deliberate policy choice designed to frustrate both data subject rights and responses to Letters of Claim.
From a technical standpoint, the position is clear. I have checked the configuration of your domain moorsidelegal.co.uk and obtained the following information:
Summary of findings
- Email addresses tested: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk; litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk
- Status: both accepted; domain reported as catch-all
- SMTP provider: Barracuda Networks
- MX record: d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com
- Domain age: more than 800 days (a stable corporate domain, not newly registered)
A catch-all configuration on a Barracuda-hosted system means your server is set to accept mail for any address at moorsidelegal.co.uk and return a standard “250 OK” SMTP response, even if the individual mailbox name is not specifically configured, in order to mask mailbox validity. The tests show that both help@ and litigation@ are accepted in this way.
That behaviour may frustrate external probing of which individual mailboxes exist, but it does not alter the core legal and technical fact that once your server has accepted an email at SMTP level with a 2xx OK success code and no bounce is generated, delivery (service) into your system is complete.
What you choose to do internally with that message – including routing it to staff who then send a boilerplate “this mailbox is not monitored, use the portal” reply – does not change the reality that:
– You are in possession of the personal data.
– You are the controller responsible for handling it lawfully, fairly and transparently.
– You must not hold out help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO and data subject contact address in your Privacy Notice while instructing staff to fob people off with a knowingly misleading “not monitored” line and forcing them into a payment portal.
When you put that together:
1. Your Privacy Notice explicitly designates help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO contact for exercising rights and as your contact email generally.
2. Emails sent to that address are in fact accepted by your server, read by staff, and then met with a mendacious template claiming the mailbox is “not monitored” and that all communication must be via your portal.
Both positions cannot simultaneously be true in a way that complies with your legal obligations. Either:
– The mailbox is monitored and the “not monitored” claim is knowingly false, used to deter and obstruct data subjects and defendants from asserting their rights by email; or
– It is not monitored for DPO purposes, in which case your Privacy Notice is materially inaccurate and misleading because it advertises a non-functional route for exercising rights and contacting you.
In both scenarios, your current practice appears incompatible with:
– Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR (lawfulness, fairness and transparency).
– Article 12 UK GDPR (duty to facilitate the exercise of data subject rights and avoid undue obstacles).
– Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR (duty to provide accurate, functional contact details for the controller and, where appointed, the DPO, and to enable data subjects to contact the DPO easily and directly).
It is particularly serious that you are using this “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” template specifically in response to reasoned pre-action correspondence, where the Civil Procedure Rules and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims require meaningful engagement. Attempting to channel defendants into a payment portal while pretending that your published DPO/contact address is effectively dead is plainly calculated to frustrate both procedural fairness and statutory data protection rights.
Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that Moorside Legal Services Limited “is part of the APN Group”. APN Group’s own privacy policy designates dpo@apn.co.uk as the group DPO contact. The APN Group DPO is therefore now expressly on notice that a group entity is operating a sham DPO/contact email route and using a stock “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” script in circumstances where the underlying mailbox is clearly active and handled by staff.
For the avoidance of doubt:
– Emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk are being accepted by your Barracuda-hosted server and are not bouncing.
– At least one such email has been opened and acted upon by staff, who chose to send the “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” template rather than deal with the content as a DPO/contact request and as pre-action correspondence.
– In those circumstances, any denial of receipt or attempt to treat emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as “not valid” communications will be treated as bad-faith conduct.
You are therefore put on formal notice that:
– The burden of delivery is satisfied once your server has accepted an email at SMTP level with a 2xx “OK” status and no bounce. You cannot evade receipt by labelling the mailbox “
not monitored” after staff have already accessed the message and responded with a template.
– Continuing to publish
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact address while staff send “
not monitored, use the portal” replies is inherently misleading and obstructive of data subject rights and defendants’ rights.
In addition to the data protection issues, these practices will be drawn to the attention of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), specifically the unfair commercial practices regime in Part 4, Chapter 1 and the banned practices set out in Schedule 20. In outline:
– You are engaging in misleading actions and omissions in relation to published contact channels and access to redress.
– You are failing to meet the requirements of professional diligence within the meaning of section 229 DMCC by maintaining a non-functional or deliberately frustrated DPO/contact route and channelling consumers exclusively into a payment-focused portal when they dispute liability.
If the CMA finds against you, consequences can include:
– Compliance directions and enforcement orders requiring changes to your practices.
– Monetary penalties of up to the higher of £300,000 or 10% of global turnover.
– Further regulatory action if systemic bad-faith conduct is identified.
I am simultaneously lodging formal complaints to:
– The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), for failure to meet the transparency and facilitation requirements of UK GDPR in relation to data subject communications and objections to processing; and
– The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in relation to Moorside Legal Services Limited, for operating sham contact routes and frustrating written engagement in the context of pre-action debt claims, in a way that undermines access to redress and public confidence in the profession.
I therefore require the following, in writing, within one calendar month:
1. A clear statement whether help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is monitored for DPO and data subject communications. If it is monitored, you must confirm that the “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” template will be withdrawn immediately and that all future emails sent in reliance on your Privacy Notice will be treated as valid data subject and pre-action communications. If it is not monitored, you must confirm that your Privacy Notice will be corrected immediately and that a functional DPO email address will be published and properly monitored.
2. Confirmation that the specific email sent in response to your Letter of Claim (to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk) has been retrieved, placed on the relevant file, and is being treated both as a valid data subject communication (including an objection to processing and request for restriction) and as formal pre-action correspondence under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
3. Details of the concrete steps you will take, and deadlines for implementation, to ensure that all published DPO and contact addresses (including those in Moorside and APN privacy notices) are truthful, functional, properly monitored, and not undermined by staff being instructed to send “not monitored, use the portal” responses.
You are fully responsible for the configuration and operation of your email systems and for ensuring that your published privacy information is accurate and not misleading. This letter puts both Moorside Legal and APN Group on explicit notice that the current arrangements are being treated as deliberate obstruction and misrepresentation and that the regulators are being asked to investigate and, where appropriate, sanction that conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your address]
[Relevant references: PCN/Moorside ref]
Here are the three complaint templates you can use in parallel (ICO, SRA, CMA).
ICO complaint template (email/text to paste into ICO form). You’ll usually use the ICO’s online form, but this is the narrative you can paste in:
Subject: Complaint against Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Non-functional DPO email and obstruction of data subject rights
I wish to complain about the handling of personal data and data subject communications by:
Moorside Legal Services Limited
Part of the APN Group
Email as published in their privacy notice: help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice states that any data subject wishing to exercise their rights or contact the DPO should email help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (with the subject “Data Subject Rights – Your Name”) or write to a given postal address. help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is the only published email address.
Relying on that notice, I have sent a detailed response to a Letter of Claim to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. Those emails contain personal data and clearly engage data subject rights (objection to processing, restriction, rectification) and pre-action obligations.
The firm replied not with a substantive answer, but with a boilerplate “fob-off” email stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and that all contact must instead go through their online portal, which is presented as a payment/“customer” portal. This reply was not an automated bounce. It was a standard template that a staff member chose to send after accessing the original email.
I have also tested the technical configuration of their domain, moorsidelegal.co.uk. Both help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted by their Barracuda-hosted catch-all mail server (MX: d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com). The server returns a normal "250 OK" SMTP response and no bounce is generated. That means the emails are being delivered into Moorside Legal’s system, and at least a subset of them is being read by staff.
In practice, this means:
• Moorside publish help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email in their privacy notice.
• Emails sent to that address are accepted and read.
• Staff then send a template claiming the mailbox is “not monitored” and instructing individuals to use a payment portal instead.
Either the mailbox is monitored, in which case the “not monitored” wording is knowingly false and deters people from using their rights by email, or it is not properly monitored, in which case the privacy notice is materially inaccurate and misleading.
In my view this breaches:
• Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR – lack of fairness and transparency.
• Article 12 UK GDPR – failure to facilitate the exercise of data subject rights and placing undue obstacles in the way.
• Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR – inaccurate and non-functional DPO/contact details, and failure to ensure the DPO can be contacted easily and directly.
It is particularly concerning that this behaviour occurs in the context of debt collection and pre-action letters before claim, where individuals are already under pressure and need a clear route to assert their rights and correct their data.
What I am asking the ICO to do:
• Investigate whether Moorside Legal and APN Group are complying with Articles 5, 12, 13, 14 and 37–39 UK GDPR in relation to the
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk address and their handling of data subject communications.
• Require them to either:
– make help@moorsidelegal.co.uk a genuinely monitored DPO/contact address and stop sending “not monitored, use the portal” replies; or
– amend their privacy notice and publish a functional DPO email address that is properly monitored.
• Require them to treat emails already sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as valid data subject communications and pre-action correspondence and to confirm this to affected individuals.
I attach:
• A copy of their privacy notice extract showing help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
• A copy of my original email to that address.
• The boilerplate “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” response.
SRA complaint template (Moorside’s conduct as a firm). Email to report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Obstructive contact practices and misuse of “not monitored” email in debt claims
I wish to complain about the conduct of:
Moorside Legal Services Limited
SRA number: 8006077
Moorside Legal act as solicitors in bulk debt recovery/parking charge litigation. Their Privacy Notice states that data subjects and clients should contact their Data Protection Officer via help@moorsidelegal.co.uk. This is also the only email address they publish for contact.
When a consumer/defendant replies by email to a Letter Before Claim (e.g. to set out a defence, raise issues under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, or exercise data rights), Moorside Legal do not engage with the contents. Instead, after a delay, they send a boilerplate response stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and instructing the individual to use their online portal or telephone number. This is not an automatic server reply; it is a template a member of staff sends after reading the email.
Technical checks show that their Barracuda mail server accepts emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk with a normal "250 OK" response and no bounce. At least some emails are clearly being read, because staff then send the “not monitored, use the portal” template in response.
The effect is that:
• A published email route for serious pre-action correspondence is, in practice, converted into a dead-end.
• Defendants who try to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol in writing are fobbed off and pushed into a payment portal instead.
• The public-facing privacy notice and “contact us” information are inconsistent with the reality of how the firm actually handles incoming emails.
In my view, this undermines:
• The proper administration of justice and compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules and Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
• Public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession, because a regulated firm is using a sham contact route and a standard script to frustrate written engagement.
• Basic standards of honesty and integrity – either the email address is monitored and the “not monitored” claim is untrue, or the privacy notice is materially misleading.
I ask the SRA to consider whether Moorside Legal’s conduct is compatible with the SRA Principles and Codes of Conduct, in particular the duties:
• To act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
• To act with honesty and integrity.
• To behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in solicitors when handling disputes and pre-action correspondence.
I attach:
• Moorside’s privacy notice extract showing help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as the DPO/contact email.
• A copy of a reasoned email response to a Letter Before Claim sent to that address.
• Moorside’s “this mailbox is not monitored, use the portal” reply.
CMA/Trading Standards complaint template (DMCC 2024) which you email to general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Complaint about Moorside Legal Services Ltd – Unfair commercial practice under DMCC 2024 (obstructed contact channels and sham DPO email)
I wish to report a business-to-consumer practice which I believe breaches the unfair commercial practices provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
Trader: Moorside Legal Services Limited (part of APN Group)
Sector: Legal services / debt recovery / private parking claims
Moorside Legal pursue private individuals for alleged parking charges and send Letters Before Claim. Their Privacy Notice tells consumers and data subjects to contact their Data Protection Officer at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk – this is also their only published email address.
When a consumer replies to a Letter Before Claim by email to that address (for example, to dispute the debt, challenge the claim or correct their data), Moorside Legal do not deal with the contents. Instead they send a standard “this mailbox is not monitored – please use our portal” response and attempt to divert the consumer into a payment-oriented online portal.
This response is not an automated server bounce. It is a boilerplate email sent by staff after reading the original message. Technical checks on their Barracuda-hosted mail server show that emails to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are accepted with a "250 OK" SMTP status and no bounce, so messages are reaching their system and being processed.
In practice, this means:
• Moorside Legal advertise an email address as the route to contact them and their DPO, but then treat written correspondence sent to that address as if it were invalid.
• They use a template to claim the mailbox is “not monitored” and funnel consumers into a portal that is clearly designed around payment rather than dispute resolution.
• Consumers trying to exercise statutory rights or respond properly to a Letter Before Claim are obstructed and channelled towards paying instead of being allowed to use a clear written route.
I believe this behaviour falls within the unfair commercial practices regime because:
• It is at least a contravention of the requirements of professional diligence under section 229 DMCC – falling short of the standard of skill and care reasonably expected of a trader dealing with consumers in a debt-claim context, and not commensurate with honest market practice or the general principle of good faith.
• It may also amount to misleading actions or omissions, because the published contact details suggest consumers can use email to exercise their rights and engage with the trader, whereas in reality those emails are dismissed and they are pushed into a portal.
• It is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made – in particular, to use the portal in the belief that it is the only valid channel, to prioritise payment over dispute, or to abandon attempts to challenge the claim because the advertised contact route proves to be a sham.
I ask that this practice be investigated as a potential unfair commercial practice under the DMCC 2024, with a view to:
• Requiring Moorside Legal to provide functional, monitored contact details that match their privacy notices and letters.
• Preventing them from using a “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” script in response to legitimate dispute correspondence.
• Considering enforcement measures and penalties if systemic unfair practices are established.
I attach:
• Screenshots/extracts from Moorside Legal’s privacy notice (help@moorsidelegal.co.uk as DPO/contact email).
• Copy of a Letter Before Claim.
• Copy of an email response sent to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk.
• Moorside’s “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” reply.
Use this image as the evidence of their Data Protection email address from their Privacy Notice:
(https://i.ibb.co/R47zCqC4/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-10-38-34.png)
Having researched this a bit further, you should send the following email that reflects what actually happened (manual boilerplate reply after 5 days) and hits them on their own privacy notice and legal duties:
Subject: Formal Data Protection Complaint – Non-Functional DPO Contact, Obstruction of Rights, and Intentional Misrepresentation
To: Data Protection Officer, Moorside Legal Services Limited help@moorsidelegal.co.uk
Cc: Data Protection Officer, APN Group dpo@apn.co.uk; enquiries@apn.co.uk; [your own email address]
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am writing to you in your statutory capacity under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, in relation to Moorside Legal Services Limited and the wider APN Group.
Moorside Legal’s own Privacy Notice (updated December 2023) states in the “How to contact us” section that, if I wish to exercise any of my data subject rights or have questions about the notice, I should contact you by:
“Emailing our appointed Data Protection Officer at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk (subject heading: Data Subject Rights – Your Name); or writing to us at Ground Floor Jade Building, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, BD10 9TQ (attention of: Data Protection Officer).”
Relying on that representation, I sent a detailed email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk in response to a Letter Before Claim. That email contained personal data and included objections and restrictions to processing, making it plainly a data subject communication within the meaning of Articles 12 and 21 UK GDPR.
Five days later, instead of any meaningful response, I received a boilerplate email from Moorside Legal stating that the mailbox is “not monitored” and instructing me to use an online portal. This was not an automatic server rejection. It was a template reply that somebody at Moorside Legal manually sent days after the original email. In other words, a human has clearly accessed my message, decided not to engage with its content, and then sent a stock response asserting that the very address your Privacy Notice designates for DPO contact is “not monitored”.
Those facts speak for themselves. Either:
1. The help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is in fact monitored by staff who read and action messages, in which case the claim that it is “not monitored” is knowingly false and is being used to deter data subjects from exercising their rights; or
2. The help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is genuinely not monitored for DPO and data subject purposes, in which case your Privacy Notice is materially inaccurate and misleading because it holds out that address as the primary route for contacting the DPO and exercising rights.
In both scenarios your current conduct appears to be incompatible with:
– Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR (lawfulness, fairness, transparency).
– Article 12 UK GDPR (duty to facilitate the exercise of rights and to avoid undue obstacles).
– Articles 13, 14 and 37(7) UK GDPR (duty to provide accurate contact details and to enable data subjects to contact the DPO easily).
Your own Privacy Notice also states that you process emails as part of “Records of your contact with us” and that you may share information with “email service providers for the purpose of responding to you once you have consented by email”. It is therefore not open to you to pretend that emails sent to your published DPO address somehow fall outside your responsibilities, or that you can simply ignore them and direct people to a payment portal instead.
From a technical standpoint, the position is straightforward. I have independently checked your domain configuration. The addresses help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk are both reported as a catch-all on a Barracuda hosted system, with MX record d238565.a.ess.uk.barracudanetworks.com and a stable corporate domain that has been in use for well over two years. A catch-all configuration means your server will accept mail for any address at moorsidelegal.co.uk and return a 250 OK SMTP status even if no specific mailbox exists, in order to mask mailbox validity.
That behaviour may frustrate external verification, but it does not alter the key fact that once your server has accepted a message at SMTP level with a 250 OK success code, delivery into your system is complete. What you choose to do internally with that message, including routing it to staff who then take the time to send a boilerplate “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” reply, does not change the fact that you are in possession of the personal data, you are the controller responsible for handling it lawfully, fairly and transparently, and you must not operate a dummy or dead-end address in your privacy notice for the DPO while instructing staff to fob people off with an untrue “not monitored” line.
Requiring individuals to use a payment-oriented portal as the only practical route of communication, while simultaneously publishing a DPO email address that generates a dead-end reply, is not facilitating data subject rights. It is obstructing them.
In addition, Moorside Legal’s Privacy Notice expressly states that Moorside Legal Services Limited “is part of the APN Group”. APN Group’s own privacy policy designates dpo@apn.co.uk as the group DPO contact. The APN Group DPO therefore has a clear responsibility to ensure that group entities, including Moorside Legal, provide functional, accurate and accessible DPO contact details and do not operate sham contact channels that frustrate the exercise of rights.
For the avoidance of doubt:
– My email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk was sent in reliance on your Privacy Notice.
– It was accepted by your server, handled by your staff and responded to (albeit with a boilerplate obstruction).
– It therefore constitutes personal data in your possession, and you are obliged to treat it as a valid data subject communication and as formal pre-action correspondence under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Accordingly, I now require, in writing:
1. A clear statement, without evasion, confirming whether the mailbox
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk is in fact monitored for DPO and data subject communications. If it is monitored, you must explain why your staff are sending boilerplate messages claiming it is “not monitored”, and what immediate steps you will take to stop that misrepresentation. If it is not monitored, you must explain why you continue to publish it as the DPO contact address in your Privacy Notice and what immediate steps you will take to correct that and provide a functional DPO contact route.
2. Confirmation that my previous email (sent on [date]) has been retrieved, added to the relevant file and is being treated as a valid data subject communication (including an objection to processing and a request to restrict processing) and as formal correspondence in response to the Letter Before Claim. You must confirm the date on which this has been done.
3. Confirmation that you will, going forward, accept and process information-rights correspondence (including objections, restriction requests, erasure requests, rectification requests and complaints) sent to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and to
dpo@apn.co.uk, without insisting that I use a payment or “customer” portal.
4. Confirmation of the concrete changes you will make, and the timescale for implementation, to ensure that:
– All DPO and contact email addresses published in your privacy notices are accurate, functional and properly monitored; and
– No further “mailbox not monitored, use the portal” replies are sent in response to data subject communications sent in accordance with those notices.
Please treat this as a formal data protection complaint and as a data subject communication under Articles 12 and 21 UK GDPR. I require a full, substantive response within one calendar month.
If you fail to respond, or if you refuse to correct the disconnect between your published DPO contact details and your actual email handling practices, I will escalate this matter to:
– The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), with copies of your Privacy Notice and the boilerplate “mailbox not monitored – use the portal” reply, on the basis that your practices breach the requirements of transparency, fairness and facilitation of rights.
– The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in respect of Moorside Legal Services Limited, on the basis that obstructing written correspondence and data subject rights in favour of a payment portal undermines access to redress and public confidence in the profession.
– The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) and the unfair commercial practices regime, on the basis that maintaining a non-functional DPO contact channel while funnelling all contact into a payment portal may amount to an unfair commercial practice and obstruction of consumer redress.
You are fully responsible for the configuration and monitoring of your email systems and for ensuring that all DPO and contact details published in your privacy notices are truthful, functional and compatible with your obligations under UK data protection and consumer protection law. This letter puts you expressly on notice of the issues and of my intention to escalate if they are not addressed.
I look forward to your prompt and substantive reply.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Relevant reference numbers]
Overall, your draft is strong in substance but it can be tightened up and made more precise legally, with the emphasis placed in slightly different places. Before finalising your position, it is sensible for you to check your tenancy agreement (and any related estate rules from L&Q) for any references to parking, use of communal areas, or “regulations” imposed by the landlord or its agents.
If the tenancy or accompanying documents confirm a right to park or reflect the allocation of Bay 78, that reinforces your primacy of rights. Even if there is wording about complying with estate regulations, you can still argue that PCM cannot use that to derogate from or monetise an existing right to park in your own bay, but it is useful to know what the documents actually say so you are not surprised later.
You do not want to assert that the tenancy is silent on parking if they later produce a clause that mentions it. Better to use neutral wording that does not depend on what the tenancy does or does not say.
Your strongest argument remains the primacy of your rights granted by L&Q: your right to use Bay 78 comes directly from the landlord and has existed since 2012/2013, long before PCM became involved. PCM are merely agents and cannot interfere with, vary or override rights already granted by the landlord, so that point needs to be front and centre.
The signage argument is worth keeping but should be treated as secondary. You should stress that even if PCM were in a position to offer you a contract (which you deny), the terms are not prominent or legible, so no contract can be formed on the basis of those signs.
The fact that you held a valid permit for Bay 78, which had simply fallen from view, is important context and should be framed as, at most, a trivial or de minimis issue rather than any genuine breach. "My right to use Bay 78 arises from my landlord, not from PCM’s signage, and any display of a permit has been done purely as a courtesy to assist identification of authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any power to impose conditions on my existing right." That approach is consistent with the reasoning in Jopson v Homeguard, where the court recognised that residential schemes should not be applied rigidly to punish minor, transient matters where the occupier is otherwise entitled to be there.
Your standing and contract point is conceptually sound and should be retained. Because you already have the right to park in Bay 78, PCM has nothing to offer you, there is no consideration from them to you, and they have no proper basis to charge you for using your own allocated bay. In the letter you can also invite them to disclose any part of your tenancy, headlease or estate regulations they say supports PCM’s position, which helps flush out their arguments early.
The PAPDC angle is also good. You should clearly require the full set of documents (PCN, photos, signage, contract) and explicitly insist that they provide the Reply Form and Information Sheet if these were not enclosed, and state that the matter must be put on hold until they comply with the Protocol.
On the data protection side, it is better not to claim they have no lawful basis at all, because they do have a general legitimate interest in managing parking. Instead, now that they are on clear notice that you have prior rights and there is no genuine contractual breach, you can say that continued pursuit and data processing may be unfair or excessive and will lead to complaints to the ICO, DVLA, your MP and the landlord.
Finally, it is sensible to keep a short costs warning referring to CPR 27.14(2)(g). You can simply state that if they proceed unreasonably against a residential occupier parked in their own allocated bay, you will defend the claim and seek your costs for unreasonable conduct. There is no need to go into great detail about costs at the Letter Before Claim stage.
Before you send anything, it would be sensible for you to review your tenancy and any L&Q documents for anything at all that mentions parking, even if it is only general wording about use of car parks, communal areas, “regulations”, or “parking schemes”, rather than Bay 78 specifically.
In your Letter Before Claim response, you can suggest that if Moorside or PCM contend that any part of your tenancy, headlease, or estate rules supports their position, they must disclose the full wording of every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions and clearly identify which provisions they say authorise PCM to interfere with your use of Bay 78. That both underlines that your rights arise from L&Q, not PCM, and forces them to show you any lease-based argument they think they have.
No reason to delay responding but it would be worthwhile if you can clarify with us any mention at all about parking in your tenancy agreement, even if only relating to common areas etc. Here is a revised response based the above observations you can use which should be emailed to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and you also CC yourself:
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date] – PCM UK PCN [reference] – Bay 78
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim and confirm that I dispute the alleged debt in full. The matter must remain on hold pending full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
1. Landlord-granted right to Bay 78 (primacy of contract)
My housing provider and landlord, L&Q, formally allocated Bay 78 to me in or around 2012/2013 and I have had continuous and uninterrupted permission to use this bay for over a decade.
PCM acts only as an agent or contractor of the landowner or management company. An agent cannot override rights previously granted by the principal. I hold a valid resident’s permit for Bay 78 issued via the landlord or management, which evidences that allocation and permission.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my tenancy with L&Q and their allocation of that bay to me. No later-introduced parking scheme or permit system operated by PCM can unilaterally vary or extinguish those rights without my informed agreement. Accordingly, there is no enforceable contract between PCM and me in respect of my use of Bay 78.
For the avoidance of doubt, if you contend that any term of my tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or “parking regulations” support your client’s position or authorise PCM to interfere with my use of Bay 78, you must disclose the full wording of every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions and clearly identify which provisions you say confer such authority. My rights arise from L&Q, not from PCM’s signage, and you are therefore required to show any lease-based argument you intend to rely on.
2. No contract formed due to inadequate and illegible signage
Even if PCM could in principle contract with me (which is denied), the signage at the location is faded, difficult to read, and incapable of fairly communicating any contractual terms.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly Schedule 2, any terms relied upon must be transparent and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld a charge in circumstances where the signage was clear, prominent and legible. That is not the case here.
Where terms are not adequately brought to the attention of the consumer, no contract can be formed on those terms. Any attempt to enforce a penalty in such circumstances is unfair and unenforceable.
3. Valid permit held – at most a trivial failure to display and display only as a courtesy
At the material time, I held a valid permit for Bay 78 and it was in the vehicle. It had fallen from its usual position due to previous vandalism of my car, which I had documented. This was a temporary display issue, not a situation where I lacked a permit or was parking without authorisation.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my landlord, not from PCM’s signage, and any display of a permit has been done purely as a courtesy to assist identification of authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any power to impose conditions on my existing right. The most that can be said is that there was a trivial or de minimis failure of display, not any genuine breach.
This approach is consistent with the reasoning in Jopson v Homeguard (2016, HHJ Harris QC, Oxford County Court), where the court recognised that residential parking schemes should not be applied rigidly to punish minor or transient matters when the occupier is otherwise entitled to be there. Similarly, in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, the Court of Appeal held that a landlord or its agent cannot derogate from a granted right to park.
Your client is therefore attempting to penalise me for using my own allocated bay, with a valid permit, in circumstances where any alleged issue is at most a minor failure to display caused by factors beyond my control.
4. PCM has no standing to contract with a lawful occupier
As a lawful occupier with landlord-granted rights to Bay 78:
• PCM has no standing to offer me a contract for parking in the bay already allocated to me.
• PCM provides me with no consideration in respect of that bay.
• PCM has no cause to claim damages from me for using land I am already expressly authorised to use.
One cannot lawfully charge a person for doing what they are already contractually entitled to do. Your client is attempting to interfere with and monetise rights granted by my landlord many years before PCM’s involvement. That is not a legitimate basis for a civil claim.
5. Non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your Letter Before Claim is defective and does not comply with the PAPDC. To remedy this, please supply all of the following:
1. A copy of the original PCN and any subsequent notices.
2. All photographs and evidence relied upon, including close-ups and wider-angle images of the vehicle and of the signage in situ at the material time.
3. Clear copies of all site signage and a site plan showing where signs were located at the material time.
4. A full, unredacted copy of the contract or landowner authority on which PCM relies, showing the contracting parties, the land covered, the dates and duration of any agreement, and the specific rights (if any) to issue PCNs and to litigate in their own name.
In addition, as set out above, if you claim that any term in my tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or regulations supports your client’s position, you must provide full copies of those documents and highlight every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions, together with an explanation of how you say those clauses authorise PCM to interfere with my use of my allocated bay.
Until you have provided the above and allowed a reasonable time for me to consider and respond, the case must remain on hold under the Protocol.
6. Data protection concerns
You are now on clear notice that:
• I am a lawful occupier of the property.
• Bay 78 was allocated to me by my landlord.
• I held a valid permit at the material time and was parking exclusively in my allocated bay.
In those circumstances there is no substantive basis for alleging a parking contravention against me. If, despite this, your client continues to process and share my personal data in pursuit of this baseless claim, I will consider such processing to be unfair and excessive and reserve my position as to complaints to:
• The Information Commissioner’s Office.
• The DVLA regarding misuse of keeper data.
• My Member of Parliament.
• The landlord (L&Q) and any managing agent.
7. Conclusion and costs warning
For the reasons above:
• I have long-standing landlord-granted rights to Bay 78.
• I held a valid resident’s permit and was parking only in my allocated bay.
• Any display of a permit was a courtesy, not an obligation imposed by PCM.
• The signage is inadequate to form a contract.
• PCM has no standing or consideration to create a contract with me in respect of land I am already entitled to use.
• Your Letter Before Claim does not comply with the PAPDC and you have yet to disclose any lease or estate clause that could possibly assist your client.
• There is no legal basis for this claim. I invite your client to cancel the PCN and to confirm in writing that the matter is closed.
If you nevertheless commence proceedings, I will defend the claim in full and draw the court’s attention to this letter, your client’s lack of standing, my primacy of contract, and your non-compliance with the PAPDC. I will also seek my costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis that it is unreasonable to pursue a residential occupier for parking in their own allocated bay in circumstances where the right to park pre-dates your client’s involvement.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[PCN reference/Bay 78]