Show Posts - Learner1

Quote from: b789 on 22 Dec, 2025 19:58You 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 AirportGatwick 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 ClaimThat 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 hearingThey 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 nowDo 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 writingThat 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 lineIf 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:QuoteSubject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [________] – National Car Parks LimitedDear 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 success1. 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 ClaimsYour 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 actionWithin 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 conductYou 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 b789Apologies 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

Quote from: InterCity125 on 22 Dec, 2025 16:32Hold off sending that for the moment and wait for further advice.The LoC is only dated 10th Dec 2025 so plenty of time.Given that this is airport land there is no keeper liability. Of course the original PCN does not convey this information as it is not in their interest to present a balanced legal view of the situation. Instead they deliberately imply that the keeper could be pursued. They also specify that you must either pay the charge yourself or name the driver - there is no such legal requirement whatsoever.With that in mind, others may suggest an amendment to the PoC response which makes it clear that keeper liability is denied.Wait for further comments which may take slightly longer than normal due to Christmas commitments etc.Dear InterCity125Thank you so much for the response and for pointing out that the keeper's liability is denied.A sigh of relief.

After searching the forum, I came up with this response; please advise if this is the correct one. I would appreciate your input.''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 intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). 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, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the 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 very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now provide:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the Ł70 add‑on.These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).Your letter’s attempt at intimidationI also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.Yours faithfully,[Your Name]''Thank you very much

This is the orignal PCN received:

Quote from: InterCity125 on 22 Dec, 2025 08:43They're probably fishing for liability.Given your wording, can we assume that the driver has never been identified?As LoC's go, that one is a shocker and totally non-compliant with the required protocol.Thank you for your response, InterCity125No, RK did not communicate with NCP, so the driver was never identified.I was wondering what response I should send to Moorside Legal at this stage.

Dear all,I would appreciate your help with this matter.The vehicle is registered with NCP at Gatwick Airport under Autopay. On this occasion, the ANPR system failed to capture the number plate, and a PCN was issued in error.As the registered keeper (RK) was away at the time, they were unable to appeal or have the issue corrected by NCP. Subsequently, multiple letters were received from Marston Recovery, followed by a Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal a couple of days ago.The Letter Before Claim does not specify a deadline for contacting or anything, but it requests payment.Please could you advise on the next steps the RK should take to respond?Thank you very much

Good morningUpdate:The order for recovery was revoked, and I have now received a Notice to Owner from Westminster Council. I have attached all the pages.Please guide me on whether I have any chance of contesting it.I really appreciate your help.Many thanksGoogle Street Viewhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/1i89PujzSte9Zu1u6Car Image:

Quote from: stamfordman on 11 Oct, 2025 18:13From what I can see you got a threat letter from Marstons chasing the charge certificate - we've seen this before.Are the name and address on this letter correct?If you genuinely didn't get the notice to the owner, it's a simple tick box on the TE9 to get back to the NTO stage, and I think you can do it by email. Thank you so much for your time.I emailed the witness statement and have received the acknowledgement.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 11 Oct, 2025 20:17OP, I can see that you're confused. Who wouldn't be with such a poorly worded OfR.PCN in this context refers to one served by post - in parking jargon a 'regulation 10' PCN - and not one served by hand/affixed to a car, which applies to you.Your grounds are that, in the words of your OfR, you did not receive the Notice to Owner/PCN.The wording should be 'did not receive the enforcement notice', but what the hell, the council might get round to changing their wording one day, or not!Thank you for the thorough explanation. I noticed on the back of the OfR that it also says 'Notice to owner', so I know for next time.I have emailed Form TE9 and have received the acknowledgement.Hopefully, this will go back to square 1.Thank you again for your help; I appreciate the time you took to assist me.

Quote from: Incandescent on 12 Oct, 2025 00:11Please post up all of the threatening letter from Marstons; you have left off the top part. This could be regarded as an illegal demand for money, as there is nothing in the enforcement process for letters like this.In the meantime, submit your Witness Statement with the box for "I did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice" Remember when filling in the TE9, if you look at the TE3, the "Applicant" is Westminster Council not you.Thank you so much for the guidance.I think this is the only letter I had from them.While I was away on holiday, they have been calling almost every day for the whole week,number appeared as spam. When I arrived back and listened to their voicemails, nothing was there, but only automated voice messages that Marston Holdings tried to call. Quite annoyingI emailed Witness Statemnt using TE9 form that came along with Form TE3.Yes, applicant was Wesminster City Council also the rest of the basic details were already filled.I just completed Respondent section.Acknowledgement email received.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 10 Oct, 2025 10:33If the OfR is addressed to you by name then you MUST submit the Witness Statement in time. Otherwise whoever is the addressee must act.Why you are where you are is not priority at present, it's that you are where you are with an OfR which if submitted in time would mean that you go back to square 1.Time is not your friend and 'Form TE3 with TE9 received a couple of days ago.' is too vague. Post the OfR pl, just delete your details.Thank you so much for your response.In the witness statement, would the option 'I did not receive the Notice to Owner/Penalty Charge Notice(Parking Contravention)' still be valid in my situation?PCN's record on the Westminster Website says it was 'handed to owner. Not sure who they handed over to, as when I returned to the car, there was no PCN attached to it.PCN record on Westminster Website: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WOx2BB-m9CM4xfPf7bae6zoqD8YGM0Cb/view                                   https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ohGI8UKRjoEpBood11vSwplUYKXXdHfN/viewCar Image on the Website         : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fn7YItr_nC7DNja4BcpwaD7vevxNvzbf/viewOfR                              : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jlvGrOh2OehAiQKsRUEwqd3-l4FCzhB/view                                   https://drive.google.com/file/d/15lFt8uVxhLvym_iAyQoxnOGKb1s5e8-X/view

Quote from: Incandescent on 10 Oct, 2025 09:34Is this post about you and your car, or for somebody else ? If it's you, then you have missed the following statutory documents: -- Notice to Owner- Charge CertificateCases like this normally centre on the name and address on the V5C Registration Certificate for the vehicle. Yet you have received the Order for Recovery. So is the name and address on the OfR correct in all respects. Have you moved house since the date of the PCN ?Thank you so much for the response.Yes, it's about me, and I am the RK.I don't recall receiving a Notice to Owner or I might have missed it due to being away on a holiday.The letter before OfR,I received was from Marston Recovery asking for the payment or a debt will be regitered.Should I consider this as a Charge Certificate?No,I havent changed the address since the date of the PCN.Letter before OfR : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vOXaYFi5g81Ol_j4JP1DcBumUKYWqkva/view                    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MV1sQh0uw7P5T5Io8tFOhmG4IFLt3I7E/view

Dear AllGood eveningForm TE3 with TE9 received a couple of days ago.Applicant: Westminster City CouncilUpon checking PCN details on their website, it states that the alleged contravention was 12r-Residents Permit holders only.Served by: Handed to the DriverRK never received this PCN, nor was it attached to the car at that time.Would filing a witness statement by the respondent stating that they hadn't received the PCN be helpful in this scenario, or would this not be applicable in this case?Any guidance and help would be greatly appreciated.Thank you so much