Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: b789 on July 02, 2025, 05:23:29 pm

As they hold an incorrect address for you, you MUST send a data rectification notice (DRN) to NCP DPO, instructing them to update your details with your current address for service and to erase your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.

Did you do this? If you've sent a DRN and they haven't replied, you could complain to the ICO about this lack of response. Regarding their lack of response to your other correspondence, you can complain to the British Parking Association.

I did this on the 2nd of July, however, I never received a response and when I spoke with their live chat having received a bounce back from my complaint email, about how I can formally complain, they said the details hadn't been updated on the system and they had no access to it?

In terms of ICO and British Parking Association, any advice in relation to 1.) Best Email address to use and 2.) Content of what I should be including in the email

I appreciate it's been a couple of months since my last post but I've just recently received a "Letter Before Claim" from Moorside Legal.

It's predominantly stating that I have an unpaid invoice of £170. It threatens of a CCJ, and on the letter only gives 3 options of contact for paying and I need to reply within 30 days. Letter is dated 21st of October, I've only just returned from a week away to receive this letter.

What are the advisable next steps? I'm conscious that nowhere on their letter does it include an email address to contact them so not sure how to reply to this to dispute it?

I'm hoping this works, please let me know if it's viewable. Thanks

Did you make the advised complaints to the ICO and British Parking Association?

Absolutely nothing to worry about. Even if they issue a claim, it is their loss once it gets struck out or discontinued. Respond to the LoC with the following to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

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]

They should respond to your LoC reply answering your queries. They're more likely to respond fobbing off your queries. At some point after that, they're likely to actually issue a claim, which you will then defend. It's difficult to say how long the overall process will take - the County Court system is over-capacity - if you have a browse on the forum you'll see how other cases have progressed. These things are usually measured in months rather than weeks.

So as you correctly predicted, they have sent an email querying the email as to why I would need to inspect any agreement between the client and the landowner, and continued to proceed to outline the reason for the charges.

They have however attached 3 photos of the infringement highlight the car is 50 seconds over the allotted time.

In terms of next steps, they've mentioned that they will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature as well as issue me to pay the fine.

Can you please advise as to what to do for next steps please?

Just show us the letter rather than paraphrasing it. You blew away the single defence that would have stopped this dead in its tracks when you blabbed the identity of the driver.

Moorside may be a bunch of incompetents but they will issue a claim. The best hope with a Moorside Legal issued claim is that it may get struck out because they never comply with CPR 15.4(1)(a) in their Particulars of Claim (PoC). However, that is not a guarantee.

They will also submit a WS written by one of their muppet paralegals, which will be hearsay and advocacy which can be argues should be disregarded.

Show the letter so a suitable response can be provided which can later be used against them for breach of the PAPDC.

@b789 will reply if you look for “gullible tree”.
Are the rest of us not good enough?