Before you respond to that letter, you send the following complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). I advise you to send it by first class post and you get a free proof of posting certificate from any post office. You include with it copies of the first LoC (just the first two pages, not the forms), the response you sent, their 27 January payment plan response and the latest LoC.
I will deal with the response to the latest LoC separately.
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Postcode]
[Email]
[Date]
Solicitors Regulation Authority
The Cube
199 Wharfside Street
Birmingham
B1 1RN
Dear Sir or Madam,
Formal complaint about Moorside Legal Services Limited (SRA ID 8006077)
I write to make a formal complaint about Moorside Legal Services Limited (“Moorside Legal”), SRA ID 8006077. In my view their conduct in a private parking matter shows a systemic disregard for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the Protocol”), the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, and their professional obligations as solicitors. Their letters appear to be used as pressure tools rather than genuine pre-litigation steps. I ask the SRA to open a formal investigation into both my case and Moorside Legal’s standard practices in this area.
1. Parties
Firm: Moorside Legal Services Limited, trading as Moorside Legal, SRA ID 8006077, Company No. 15069347. Their correspondence to me has given the following addresses:
– January 2025: Ground Floor, Jade Building, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, BD10 9TQ
– November 2025: Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre, Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham, OL8 3QL
Their client: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (a private parking company).
My status: I am the registered keeper of a vehicle in respect of which their client alleges several unpaid private Parking Charge Notices. I dispute liability in full.
2. Chronology
On 9 January 2025 I received a document headed “Letter of Claim” from Moorside Legal, demanding £170 said to be due in respect of “one or more Parking Charge Notices” allegedly issued by their client. The letter was generic and under-particularised. It did not clearly state the cause of action, the specific PCN number(s), date(s), or location(s), nor did it explain whether the claim was said to be for contractual damages, contractual consideration, or trespass. It threatened that County Court proceedings would be issued if payment was not made.
Later in January 2025 I responded in writing as the registered keeper, denying liability. I made it clear that I am not obliged to identify the driver and that there is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver. I also raised detailed issues about the absence of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Crucially, I identified that Moorside Legal’s Letter of Claim did not comply with the Protocol and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I therefore treated their letter as non-compliant and made a detailed request for the information and documents which the Protocol requires a creditor to supply before issuing proceedings. Among other things, I requested:
– A clear explanation of the cause of action
– Confirmation of whether I was being pursued as driver or keeper
– Confirmation of whether their client was relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
– Copies of any contract relied upon, together with the relevant signage and landowner authority
– A proper breakdown of the sum claimed and an explanation of any “debt recovery” add-on
I expressly stated that I would respond substantively within 30 days of receiving a Letter of Claim that satisfied the Protocol and that I required Moorside Legal to comply with their pre-action obligations before any claim was issued.
On 27 January 2025, instead of providing any of the requested documents or clarifying the basis of the alleged claim, Moorside Legal sent me a letter headed “Proposed payment plan” (or words to that effect) inviting me to pay around £510 by instalments, said to be for “three unpaid invoices” or similar. This letter completely ignored my dispute and my Protocol-based request for information. It simply assumed that the alleged debt was valid and sought to pressure me into a payment plan to “avoid court action”. There was still no explanation of how the overall figure was calculated, and no disclosure of any underlying documents.
After that, there was a period of around ten months where no proceedings were issued and no proper response was provided to my pre-action letter.
On 12 November 2025 I then received a new “Letter Before Claim” from Moorside Legal, this time on different headed paper and from a different address. It stated that I supposedly owed £680 for “multiple unpaid invoices” for Parking Control Management (UK) Limited. Again, the letter itself did not list the alleged PCNs (no dates, locations, or reference numbers, and no explanation of the alleged breaches). Instead, the letter asserted that “full details” of the case were available on Moorside Legal’s “Customer Portal” (portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk), and that if they received further instructions from their client “before a claim is issued, these will be added to the outstanding debt and updated on the portal”.
3. Refusal to use the “portal” and concerns about service and transparency
I wish to make it clear that I have refused, and continue to refuse, to use Moorside Legal’s portal. I am entitled to receive a properly particularised Letter of Claim and supporting documents in writing, not to have to register with and navigate a third-party website in order to find out what I am being accused of.
In my view it is presumptive and out of order for a regulated firm to assume that pointing a consumer to an online portal satisfies their obligations under the Protocol. A Letter Before Claim is supposed to contain, or be accompanied by, the key information and documents itself. It is not acceptable to send an under-particularised letter and then attempt to shift the burden onto the recipient to go fishing for details online, particularly where the portal is controlled by the creditor’s solicitors and the contents can be changed at will.
The November 2025 Letter Before Claim is especially troubling because it openly states that the alleged “outstanding debt” is not fixed and may be increased before proceedings are issued, with any such changes only reflected on the portal. In other words, the “Letter Before Claim” itself is neither final nor complete, and Moorside Legal appear to regard their portal as the true locus of the alleged claim. This undermines the purpose of the Protocol, which requires a clear, stable pre-action summary of the claim and an up-to-date statement of account at the time the Letter of Claim is sent.
For the avoidance of doubt:
– I do not consent to using Moorside Legal’s portal.
– I do not accept that a private portal is an appropriate or sufficient method of serving the information and documents required under the Protocol.
– I consider their insistence on channelling “full details” and “updates” through the portal, rather than disclosing them transparently in writing, to be presumptive, unfair, and contrary to good professional practice.
4. Why I say this breaches SRA Principles and Codes
In my view, Moorside Legal’s conduct breaches several core duties, including the obligation to uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice, to act with integrity, and to act in a way that maintains public trust.
A firm acting properly would, upon receiving my detailed Protocol-based response in January 2025, either:
– Provide the requested documents and information and produce a compliant, particularised Letter of Claim; or
– Explain why certain documents could not be provided and narrow the issues to enable informed engagement.
Instead, Moorside Legal ignored my requests, sent a payment-plan demand as if the debt were admitted, then did nothing for ten months before issuing an even more generic Letter Before Claim for a higher sum, which again failed to particularise the alleged claim and attempted to push everything onto an online portal. This is not how a responsible firm behaves when using the court process.
Their communications are also misleading and oppressive. The second Letter Before Claim presents itself as a formal pre-court letter, while at the same time stating that the alleged debt is subject to change and that “full details” exist only behind a portal. The relentless emphasis on County Court judgments and credit damage, without providing the basic information necessary for me to understand and challenge the alleged claim, is precisely the kind of behaviour which the Protocol and the Practice Direction were designed to prevent.
In addition, Moorside Legal’s model appears to misuse the threat of litigation as a debt-collection tool. They wield their status as solicitors and references to court proceedings to exert pressure, but fail to comply with the safeguards and duties that accompany that status. In my case, they have treated the Protocol obligations as a tick-box formality while prioritising payment plans and online portals over proper written disclosure.
5. Why I believe this is systemic rather than a one-off
The November 2025 Letter Before Claim is clearly a template, not something drafted around the specifics of my case. Its reliance on a “Customer Portal”, its statement that the debt amount may be altered pre-issue, and its lack of in-letter particulars all point to a systemic process. Given the volume nature of private parking claims, I am concerned that many consumers will simply be browbeaten into paying without ever receiving a clear, written explanation of what is alleged against them.
I therefore ask the SRA not to treat this as an isolated file-handling error but to examine Moorside Legal’s systems, templates and supervision in relation to:
– The content of their Letters Before Claim
– Their use of portals in place of written disclosure
– Their treatment of Protocol-compliant responses and document requests
– The escalation of claimed sums without explanation
6. What I am asking the SRA to do
I respectfully request that the SRA:
1. Open a formal investigation into Moorside Legal’s conduct in my matter, including their failure to respond properly to my January 2025 letter, their issuing of a “Proposed payment plan” instead of a substantive reply, and their November 2025 Letter Before Claim which relies on a portal and an unstable debt figure.
2. Examine Moorside Legal’s standard practices and templates for private parking and other debt claims, particularly in relation to compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
3. Consider whether regulatory or disciplinary action is necessary to ensure that Moorside Legal’s future conduct upholds the rule of law, treats consumers fairly, and does not misuse threats of court proceedings as a substitute for proper disclosure.
I include copies of the January 2025 Letter of Claim, my January 2025 response, the “Proposed payment plan” letter of 27 January 2025, and the 12 November 2025 Letter Before Claim in support of this complaint. If you require any further information or documents I will be happy to assist.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Get that sent off ASAP.
