Free Traffic Legal Advice

To be frank, you have virtually nothing that would form a robust appeal at London Tribunals, and any reps you submit to Westminster will be rejected.

You parked in a well-marked out parking bay. There is a sign for it located at the end. Whilst it would have been better practice if the council had placed a sign at each end, they are not obliged to. The bay is not hugely long, being 25.2 metres in length.  When parking in a marked bay the onus is on the motorist to find out if there are any restrictions on the use of the bay by looking for the controlling sign.

The sign has no days or hours for the restriction which means it applies 24x7

The payment advice slip is not printed very well, but is not part of the PCN, it's an 'add-on' for convenience.

Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, but it is reality. However don't rush to pay the discount, as you have 14 days from the 1st January. There could be a 'technical' appeal based on Westminster mismananagment of the enforcement process. Such appeals have nothing to do with the actual contravention, but by their nature, are usually dealt with at London Tribunals, so the full PCN penalty of £160 would be in play.  However, our Mr Hippocrates has been very successful with such appeals so wait a bit, but don't miss the deadline for the discount if you are minded to pay it.

Final thing - is the car yours and are you the holder of the VC Registration Certificate ?

Email back the utter incompetents at Moorside with the following:

Quote

Subject: Final notice – continuing non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

Ref: [their reference]

Dear Sirs,

Your latest email does not remedy, or even meaningfully engage with, the serious deficiencies previously identified in your purported Letter of Claim. It merely repeats generic assertions, ignores binding pre-action obligations, and attempts to divert disclosure to a web portal I expressly stated I will not use.

I will make this absolutely clear.

1. A web portal is not compliance

I expressly informed you that I will not engage with any web portal. You have chosen to ignore that and instead provided a link, apparently in the hope that this absolves you of your duties under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

It does not.

The Protocol requires you to provide information and documents. Directing a recipient to hunt for evidence online, behind login credentials, is not compliance. It is procedural incompetence.

If these documents are genuinely intended to be relied upon in litigation, you are required to disclose them now, in durable form, by email or post.

2. Your position on landowner authority is legally illiterate

Your statement that it is “unclear why” I would need to inspect the landowner agreement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of basic civil procedure.

If your client issues proceedings, it bears the burden of proving standing — i.e. lawful authority from the landowner to contract with motorists and to litigate in its own name. That is not optional, and it is not insulated from scrutiny simply because you choose to label it “commercial”.

Redaction of financial terms is one thing. Refusal to disclose authority altogether is another. The latter is indefensible and routinely criticised by the courts.

3. PoFA compliance is asserted, not demonstrated

You baldly assert that the PCN was issued “in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”, yet you still have not provided the full Notice to Keeper, the notice chain, or identified how the mandatory requirements were met.

Assertions are not evidence. If you intend to rely on PoFA, you must disclose the documents that supposedly engage keeper liability. You have not done so.

4. The £70 add-on is incoherent and contradictory

You claim the £70 is “not the cost of recovery”, yet in the same breath concede that “costs are incurred” in recovery.

Those two statements cannot coexist.

You have also failed to identify whether this sum is pleaded as damages, consideration, or a contractual sum, or whether VAT is included. That is not a trivial omission; it goes directly to pleadability and recoverability.

5. You remain in breach of the PAPDC

Despite being given a clear opportunity to correct matters, you have still failed to provide:

• the documents relied upon to establish keeper liability

• the signage terms as they appeared on the material date

• a site plan showing sign locations

• the precise contractual term allegedly breached

• evidence of landowner authority

• a coherent breakdown and legal basis for the sums claimed

This is not a technicality. It is wholesale non-compliance with paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

6. Final opportunity before regulatory escalation

This email constitutes your final opportunity to comply.

Provide the above documents by email or post within 14 days. Do not refer me to any portal. Do not send further template assertions. Do not repeat that appeals have “expired”; that is irrelevant at the pre-action stage.

If you fail to comply and instead issue proceedings, or continue to stonewall disclosure, I will:

1. place this correspondence before the Court when directions and costs are considered; and

2. submit a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding your conduct, including your disregard for mandatory pre-action obligations and your attempts to obstruct scrutiny of standing and evidence.

No further reminders will be given.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

You haven’t shown us the exact wording of your appeal, only the operators response to it. Did you identify the driver? Did you use wipords such as “I did this or that”, instead of only referring to the driver in the third person with “the driver did this or that”?

The Antakya is not PoFA compliant with para 9(2)(a) as it does not specify the period of parking. Also, they have not allowed enough time for the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes for a contract to have been formed.

What evidence have they provided to show that “the driver was not reading the signs at the time”? None!

On what planet is “the vehicle was parked in an area that invites no parking for any length of time” capable of being the basis of a contract formation?

For now, just respond the incompetents at Moorside 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]

Show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Do not redact any dates or times. We don’t need to see any reminders, only the NtK that was first issued.

Also, show us the EXACT wording of your initial and IAS appeals.

Once you have sone that, we can give better advice. An LoC from the feckwits at Moorside tells us nothing.