@Vivid23, I see you’ve posted all about this over on MSE today. Any response to the advice already given here?
Hi
I received a letter of claim in Feb 2025 to which I replied with:
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Letter of Claim
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
**Confirmed address
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
3. Please state clearly and unequivocally which specific term(s) of the alleged parking contract the driver is alleged to have breached, along with evidence of how these terms were communicated to the driver. Failure to provide such information will demonstrate that your claim is vague, baseless, and bound to fail.
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
Further, it is embarrassing – legally speaking – that a so-called firm of legal professionals cannot see that this claim is fundamentally flawed and bound to fail. Your failure to include any mention of the contractual term the defendant is alleged to have breached demonstrates a lack of intelligence, diligence, or both.
The fact that your Letter of Claim and prior correspondence rely on vague and boilerplate assertions without clearly stating the basis of liability is not only procedurally improper but demonstrates disdain for the court process and the legal profession. As legal representatives, you are officers of the court and have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal process, which includes ensuring that claims are founded on a proper legal and factual basis. Your failure to identify the specific contractual term allegedly breached is evidence of a serious deficiency in process and reflects a disregard for your obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly CPR 1.3, which requires legal representatives to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately.
The Letter of Claim itself serves as evidence of your failure to act as officers of the court, as you ought to know that presenting a claim without revealing the specific contractual term allegedly breached is not only deficient but also an abuse of process. This conduct undermines the principles of fair litigation and brings the legal profession into disrepute. By issuing vague and unsupported claims as part of a bulk litigation model, you fail to discharge your responsibilities to the court and instead demonstrate a willingness to pursue meritless claims in the hope of coercing payment.
I will not hesitate to bring these deficiencies to the court’s attention as part of a robust defence. Furthermore, I will formally request that the court impose appropriate sanctions against both the claimant and you as their legal representatives. This may include cost penalties and/or referrals to the relevant regulatory authorities for conduct that fails to meet the standards expected of officers of the court.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct. If you, as the recipient of this letter, are not fully legally trained, I suggest you escalate this correspondence to a senior colleague or someone within your firm who is adequately qualified to understand the serious consequences of failing to address the deficiencies in your client’s claim and the professional obligations imposed upon you as officers of the court.
Yours faithfully,
**Name here
___________________________________
Their response was:
Our client: Parking Control Management UK Limited
We write further to your recent email.
Our answers to your questions are as follows:
The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.
By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.
This Parking Charge Notice relates to a contravention at Royale Leisure Park - W3 for "Parked outside of the confines of a marked bay" ****date here
The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in and around our client's private premises. When remaining on the premises, all motorists must choose to abide by them. However, on this occasion you failed to do so.
Please find attached your vehicle in clear breach of the terms and conditions.
Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided you with a response. However, should you wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter further and respond accordingly.
You can make payment in the following ways:
· Contact us on 0330 828 5850 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
· Register online at
www.moorsidelegal.co.uk; · Customer Portal - Quick Pay (moorsidelegal.co.uk)
If you fail to make full payment or set up a payment plan, we may be instructed to issue a County Court Claim against you.
You may wish to seek legal independent advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
________________________________________________________
Now I have received a letter before claim. Should I just use another template you've kindly recommended to some on the forum?
Show Posts
