Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I holiday in Polzeath every year and last November (2024) i recieved a letter from Alliance chasing me for payment of a parking charge that ocurred in August 2022.

Back then i received three "PCN's after the holiday claiming id parked illegally three times over the course of the week we were there. This is risduculous as each time we simply drove in anbd out and decided not to park. On one occassion, my wide popped to a shop to grab something which meant we were in the car park for 12 minutes. The other two times we simply drove in and out and didnt even select a parking bay.

I chose to pay two of the three as a gesture but i dont believe we owed them anything at all. But as we did linger for 12 mins on one occasion i felt that id go some way to make a gesture, hoping it would be enough. But no.

two years later, a letter arrived (Nov 24) chasing me for the third PCN (i know they are not PCNs) - I have been getting harassed by Trace and Moorside legal ever since.

I am refusing to pay them any more monies for simply driving in an out of the car park, it is unnacceptable.

Today i have received a letter of Claim from moorside legal still chasing down the £170 elevated fine for the third PCN.

I appealed the original tickets and Alliance naturally refused the appeal, and are now threatening court for this third unpaid ticket. I believe on that occasion we literally drove in and out because we couldn't find a space.

I would be very grateful of your thoughts on my situation.

Tuff

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and show us appropriate correspondence, without which it’s not going to be possible to give you good advice.

LOC meaning Letter Of Claim I guess.

Remove personal details. As it says in the “read this first” document!

Also here is the correspondence last November when they began chasing the third ticket.

NB The reference to a Europarks ticket was my mistake, i checked my bank and found another parking ticket which i thought was the third alliance one. But it was another incident. I got confused.

Tuff

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Unfortunately, this is FUBAR. You say that the driver has not been identified, yet here is clearly states that you identified as the driver:



Then you tell us that you agreed to pay two of the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), yes they were indeed PCNs, in fact the two that were probably the easiest to defend, which is an admittance e of liability.

The one PCN where they have the best evidence of a breach of contract, a stay longer than the minimum consideration time, and therefore evidence of a contractual agreement, whether the driver read the signs or not, you are challenging.

I don't know what "gesture" you were trying to make by paying two of the PCNs except to mark you as a "mug" for further fleecing. You have gone about dealing with this in completely the wrong way and are now mired in potential litigation.

The two paid PCNs are completely irrelevant now except that the claimant could refer to them as evidence of the defendant already admitting liability on two pervious occasions for the same contravention at the same location.

Your only saving grace in the matter is that it is being handled by the incompetents at Moorside Legal, which, when they issue the inevitable claim, will screw up the Particulars of Claim (PoC) enough that you can hope for a defence that should win it on a technicality and the claim has a good chance of being struck out.

The one important piece of correspondence that matters right now, and we have not seen it yet, is the Letter of Claim (LoC). Sow that to us and suitable response can be provided, even though it will not stop them issuing the claim, you will be able to report Moorside Legal to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, should you be so inclined to do,

Depends. When you appealed using their website, there were probably some drop down menus or selection boxes where you were asked in what capacity are you appealing. As the Driver, the Registered Keeper, the Hirer or Other.

Whilst it is not beyond reason to suspect that the operator has simply put that there in a mendacious attempt to mislead, you can put them to strict proof that the defendant actually selected any such option.

It is true that Alliance may have nt taken anyone to court recently but that is not the case here. Moorside Legal have been commissioned to try and get you to pay up under thereat of litigation. They will issue a claim and hope that you will pay up out of ignorance and fear.

It is our experience that Moorside Legal issued claims are either struck out on a technicality or are discontinued once they realise that the defendant is not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and are prepared to go all the way.

For now, respond to the LoC with the following by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in yourself:

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy of the NtK now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

Before I send though, Moorside have sent me two letter before this LOC, which i took to be the Letter Before Claim that this request now asks for. I threw those letters away as they were more vague than this one.

Never 'throw away' letters that have any relation to potential legal action.

Obviously without being able to see those letters it's rather hard to comment...

But does that affect the content of this that you are now suggesting i send? Surely they'll just say they sent the Letter Before claim and i didnt respond?

...but you are responding now to their 'LOC'