You can stop panicking. This is a standard “fishing” exercise designed to make the registered keeper either pay or name the driver.
1. No keeper liability at Gatwick Airport
Gatwick Airport land is subject to statutory control (airport byelaws). That means it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Without relevant land, PoFA cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. In plain terms: if the driver has not been identified, they cannot hold the keeper liable. That is why the original NCP letter tries to pressure the keeper with “pay or name the driver” wording. There is no legal obligation to name the driver.
So provided the keeper has not identified the driver at any point, this matter is fundamentally stuck for them. They can only pursue the driver, and they do not know who that is.
2. The Moorside “Letter Before Claim” is not a proper Letter of Claim
That letter from the utter incompetents at Moorside is a template demand. A compliant Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims must contain proper detail of the cause of action, a clear breakdown of the sum claimed, and the key documents they intend to rely upon (such as signage/terms and proof of landowner authority). What you have been sent does not do that. It reads like a payment invitation, not a protocol-compliant Letter of Claim.
3. Even if they issued a claim, it has minimal to zero chance of going to go to a hearing
They would have to plead a coherent cause of action against the keeper. Moorside are too incompetent and intellectually malnourished to do that properly. They cannot rely on PoFA, because Gatwick is not relevant land. If they try anyway, you defend on that basis and it is dead on arrival. This sort of case collapses long before any hearing because the keeper liability route is closed and they do not want the scrutiny of a defended claim where their paperwork and compliance will be examined.
4. What the Keeper should do now
Do NOT use their portal and do not ring them. Do NOT say who was driving. Do NOT get drawn into explaining the trip.
You should send a short, firm written response to Moorside along these lines:
• deny any keeper liability
• state the location is airport land subject to byelaws and therefore not relevant land under PoFA, so the keeper cannot be liable
• confirm the driver will not be identified
• state their letter is not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and request they either close the file or issue a compliant Letter of Claim with the required documents (signage terms in force, site plan, landowner authority, full breakdown of sums and the legal basis for any add-ons)
• require all further contact in writing
That is enough. You are not trying to “argue the whole case” now. You are putting them on notice that (a) Keeper liability is denied and (b) you will not be naming the driver.
5. What NOT to do
• Do not pay “to make it go away” (that is what the template is designed to achieve).
• Do not say “I wasn’t the driver” or give any narrative that hints who was.
• Do not be tempted into long complaints about ANPR failures or autopay at this stage. The winning point is simpler: no keeper liability.
Bottom line
If the driver is not identified, this is not something to worry about. They are posturing. The keeper’s position is strong because airport land blocks PoFA keeper liability entirely, and Moorside’s letter is not a proper protocol Letter of Claim. If they were stupid enough to litigate against the Keeper, it is readily defensible and very unlikely to ever reach a hearing.
Send the following email response to the morons at Moorside to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself. If it bounces back with a "not monitored" response, just send it again until it does not receive that fake bounce response:
Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [________] – National Car Parks Limited
Dear Sirs,
I am the registered keeper. Liability is denied. Any claim issued against the registered keeper will be defended in full as having no real prospects of success
1. No keeper liability (Gatwick Airport = non-relevant land)
Your client’s allegation concerns Gatwick Airport land, which is subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, there is no lawful mechanism to transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The driver will not be identified.
Your assertion that the keeper must either pay or name the driver is legally wrong and misleading. There is no legal obligation upon a keeper to identify a driver.
2. Your “Letter Before Claim” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your letter is a bare payment demand. It contains no meaningful detail of the alleged cause of action and encloses nothing at all.
In particular, you have failed to enclose the mandatory PAPDC documents (Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement) and you have provided none of the key documents which the Protocol requires a creditor to supply so that a debtor can understand the claim and obtain advice (including the contract/terms relied upon, evidence of signage, and proof of your client’s standing/authority at the location). This is not a compliant Letter of Claim.
3. Required action
Within 14 days of the date of this letter, you must either:
(a) confirm in writing that the matter is closed and that no further action will be taken against the registered keeper; or
(b) serve a fully compliant Letter of Claim, including the mandatory PAPDC enclosures, and providing (as a minimum) the following:
(i) your pleaded legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper despite PoFA being inapplicable on airport land;
(ii) copies of the Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon;
(iii) the precise contractual term(s) alleged to have been breached and an explanation of the alleged breach;
(iv) contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date and a site plan showing the sign locations and the alleged location of the vehicle;
(v) the written agreement/chain of authority showing your client’s standing to operate, enforce and litigate in its own name at that precise location;
(vi) a full itemised breakdown of the sum demanded and the legal basis for any added sums.
4. Regulatory notice/further conduct
You are now on notice that continuing to pursue the registered keeper where no keeper liability can arise, and/or continuing to state or imply that the keeper is required to pay or identify the driver, will be treated as improper conduct. If you persist, I will submit a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and will rely upon your pre-action non-compliance and misleading assertions in any proceedings, including on the issue of costs and case management.
I will not engage via any portal. All correspondence must be in writing to the address above and/or by email to [your email address].
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Date]
Dear b789
Apologies for the delay in responding.
I am very grateful for your thorough and detailed response. It helped me understand the whole situation.
I emailed the above-suggested response to Moorside Legal and am currently dealing with their bounce-back auto-response nonsense.
Any idea how many attempts it would take until their automated message stops coming back? I am replying to their message with the response above, but not with a new email each time. I hope it makes sense to you.
Thank you
You can stop panicking. This is a standard “fishing” exercise designed to make the registered keeper either pay or name the driver.
1. No keeper liability at Gatwick Airport
Gatwick Airport land is subject to statutory control (airport byelaws). That means it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Without relevant land, PoFA cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. In plain terms: if the driver has not been identified, they cannot hold the keeper liable. That is why the original NCP letter tries to pressure the keeper with “pay or name the driver” wording. There is no legal obligation to name the driver.
So provided the keeper has not identified the driver at any point, this matter is fundamentally stuck for them. They can only pursue the driver, and they do not know who that is.
2. The Moorside “Letter Before Claim” is not a proper Letter of Claim
That letter from the utter incompetents at Moorside is a template demand. A compliant Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims must contain proper detail of the cause of action, a clear breakdown of the sum claimed, and the key documents they intend to rely upon (such as signage/terms and proof of landowner authority). What you have been sent does not do that. It reads like a payment invitation, not a protocol-compliant Letter of Claim.
3. Even if they issued a claim, it has minimal to zero chance of going to go to a hearing
They would have to plead a coherent cause of action against the keeper. Moorside are too incompetent and intellectually malnourished to do that properly. They cannot rely on PoFA, because Gatwick is not relevant land. If they try anyway, you defend on that basis and it is dead on arrival. This sort of case collapses long before any hearing because the keeper liability route is closed and they do not want the scrutiny of a defended claim where their paperwork and compliance will be examined.
4. What the Keeper should do now
Do NOT use their portal and do not ring them. Do NOT say who was driving. Do NOT get drawn into explaining the trip.
You should send a short, firm written response to Moorside along these lines:
• deny any keeper liability
• state the location is airport land subject to byelaws and therefore not relevant land under PoFA, so the keeper cannot be liable
• confirm the driver will not be identified
• state their letter is not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and request they either close the file or issue a compliant Letter of Claim with the required documents (signage terms in force, site plan, landowner authority, full breakdown of sums and the legal basis for any add-ons)
• require all further contact in writing
That is enough. You are not trying to “argue the whole case” now. You are putting them on notice that (a) Keeper liability is denied and (b) you will not be naming the driver.
5. What NOT to do
• Do not pay “to make it go away” (that is what the template is designed to achieve).
• Do not say “I wasn’t the driver” or give any narrative that hints who was.
• Do not be tempted into long complaints about ANPR failures or autopay at this stage. The winning point is simpler: no keeper liability.
Bottom line
If the driver is not identified, this is not something to worry about. They are posturing. The keeper’s position is strong because airport land blocks PoFA keeper liability entirely, and Moorside’s letter is not a proper protocol Letter of Claim. If they were stupid enough to litigate against the Keeper, it is readily defensible and very unlikely to ever reach a hearing.
Send the following email response to the morons at Moorside to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself. If it bounces back with a "not monitored" response, just send it again until it does not receive that fake bounce response:
Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [________] – National Car Parks Limited
Dear Sirs,
I am the registered keeper. Liability is denied. Any claim issued against the registered keeper will be defended in full as having no real prospects of success
1. No keeper liability (Gatwick Airport = non-relevant land)
Your client’s allegation concerns Gatwick Airport land, which is subject to statutory control and is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, there is no lawful mechanism to transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The driver will not be identified.
Your assertion that the keeper must either pay or name the driver is legally wrong and misleading. There is no legal obligation upon a keeper to identify a driver.
2. Your “Letter Before Claim” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your letter is a bare payment demand. It contains no meaningful detail of the alleged cause of action and encloses nothing at all.
In particular, you have failed to enclose the mandatory PAPDC documents (Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement) and you have provided none of the key documents which the Protocol requires a creditor to supply so that a debtor can understand the claim and obtain advice (including the contract/terms relied upon, evidence of signage, and proof of your client’s standing/authority at the location). This is not a compliant Letter of Claim.
3. Required action
Within 14 days of the date of this letter, you must either:
(a) confirm in writing that the matter is closed and that no further action will be taken against the registered keeper; or
(b) serve a fully compliant Letter of Claim, including the mandatory PAPDC enclosures, and providing (as a minimum) the following:
(i) your pleaded legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper despite PoFA being inapplicable on airport land;
(ii) copies of the Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon;
(iii) the precise contractual term(s) alleged to have been breached and an explanation of the alleged breach;
(iv) contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date and a site plan showing the sign locations and the alleged location of the vehicle;
(v) the written agreement/chain of authority showing your client’s standing to operate, enforce and litigate in its own name at that precise location;
(vi) a full itemised breakdown of the sum demanded and the legal basis for any added sums.
4. Regulatory notice/further conduct
You are now on notice that continuing to pursue the registered keeper where no keeper liability can arise, and/or continuing to state or imply that the keeper is required to pay or identify the driver, will be treated as improper conduct. If you persist, I will submit a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and will rely upon your pre-action non-compliance and misleading assertions in any proceedings, including on the issue of costs and case management.
I will not engage via any portal. All correspondence must be in writing to the address above and/or by email to [your email address].
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Date]