3. Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal  (Read 1486 times)

0 Members and 363 Guests are viewing this topic.

Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« on: »
Hi all

Please can I have advise on how to respond to this letter from Moorside Legal. It also doesn't have a date to respond by, a breakdown of costs or threat inflicted a CCJ which I have seen on other Letters Before Claims.

PCN incurred a few years ago for parking in a car park owned by a fast food franchise for patrons only. It was exactly opposite a soft play so I mistakenly thought I had parked in the right place. I did not see a sign and was in a rush as one of my toddlers needed the toilet. As soon as we went into the soft play, the lady at reception had seen me park there and advised I should move the car to avoid a ticket, which I did immediately (once little one had been to the toilet).
I did dispute the charge but they rejected it and I have not responded to any letters since.
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« Reply #1 on: »
Email the following to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your so-called “Letter Before Claim” is a masterclass in procedural non-compliance. It reads less like a legal document and more like a payday loan advert—complete with “friendly team” and “flexible payment plans.” Charming, but irrelevant.

Let me be clear: this is not a compliant Letter Before Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It fails to provide:

• The basis of the alleged claim (contract? tort? clairvoyance?)
• Any evidence whatsoever (no NtK, no signage, no landowner authority, no contract terms)
• A breakdown of the sum claimed (is the £170 damages, consideration, or just wishful thinking?)
• Copies of key documents relied upon

Your letter is devoid of substance, legal reasoning, and basic compliance. It does not enable informed dialogue, nor does it satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, or 5.2 of the Protocol. It is procedurally defective and legally meaningless.

Should proceedings be issued on the back of this nonsense, 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.

Unless a compliant Letter Before Claim is issued, I will be referring this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) under Rule 1.4 and Rule 2.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, on the basis that your conduct:

• Misrepresents the legal status of the claim
• Fails to uphold proper standards of legal service
• Demonstrates a lack of integrity and competence in pre-action procedure

Should your client issue proceedings based on this defective LoC, I will present it to the court as evidence of unreasonable conduct and procedural non-compliance. I will seek:

• An immediate stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction
• A costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable behaviour
• Sanctions under paragraphs 13 and 16 of the Practice Direction

If your client wishes to pursue this matter, I suggest they instruct solicitors capable of drafting a compliant Letter of Claim. Until then, I am under no obligation to respond further.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« Reply #2 on: »
Thank you so much @b789. I will e mail over and see what they come back with
Logged
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« Reply #3 on: »
Hi @b789
I have received the following reply from Moorside today.
My questions are
1) Do I log in to view the documents they say they have added
2) Should I now pay?
Thanks

We write in relation to the above matter.

Please liaise with us via our customer portal moving forward, as emails to our help inbox will not be addressed.

 

Documentation requested has been uploaded to our portal including your appeal rejection letter from our client.

 

Our answers to your questions are as follows:

 

The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70  is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of the IPC which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.

 

 

By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract.

 

We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.

 

You can make payment in the following ways: 

Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
 

If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice. 
Logged
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« Reply #4 on: »
Yes, you can log into their portal to view the "evidence" they say they have. It will need to be checked against what they were instructed to provide as part of the PAPDC.

If you can, download it all and host it on Google Drive, redacting only your personal information so we can see it. Make sure that you make the drive publicly visible.

Of course you don't pay it! Why on earth would you do that when any claim issued by the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal is easily defeated?

Respond to them by email with the following (and CC your sel:

Quote
Subject: Your Letter of Claim – PAPDC compliance and documents required

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email. I do not consent to using your portal; please correspond by email or post.

I note your Letter of Claim enclosed the Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement. However, the letter remains non-compliant in substance. It does not provide the information and documents necessary for informed engagement (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.2), namely:

• The contractual basis alleged and the terms relied upon (clear images of the signage in force at the material time and a site plan showing locations/visibility).
• Evidence of the allegation, including contemporaneous images/observations and a stated period of parking (not merely a single timestamp).
• he Notice to Driver/Notice to Keeper relied upon, with dates and proof of posting; confirmation if you allege keeper liability under PoFA 2012 and, if so, the specific paragraphs relied upon; confirmation the location is relevant land.
• The landowner agreement/authority conferring standing to offer contracts and litigate in the operator’s name (unredacted as to authority and term).
• A full breakdown of the £170, identifying the principal sum and any add-ons with their legal basis and any interest calculation.

Your 7-day demand is inconsistent with the PAPDC. The earliest you could properly issue is 30 days after you provide the requested documents to me by email or post, and (if applicable) 30 days from receipt of my completed Reply Form, whichever is later. Uploading to a portal I have not agreed to use does not amount to provision. Please confirm you will not issue while the above documents are outstanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, I dispute the debt. Any attempt to recover an additional £70 is an impermissible double recovery. Trade association codes do not override statute or the small-claims costs regime; the add-on is not recoverable (see Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (HHJ Jackson, 2020)).

Once you provide the documents listed, I will consider my position and return the Reply Form. If you issue proceedings without first complying with the PAPDC, I will seek a stay with directions and costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g), relying on Webb Resolutions v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments v Park West Club (Part 20) [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments v Stent Foundations [2007] EWHC 855.

Please confirm that you will correspond by email or post and provide the above documents.

Yours faithfully,

[Keeper’s name]

[Postal address]
[Email]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal
« Reply #5 on: »
Hi @b789. Thanks for getting back to me.
I logged onto the portal and the link to view documents wasn't even working so I have tweaked your email slightly and sent the below. 

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email. I do not consent to using your portal; please correspond by email or post.

The documentation you claim to have uploaded on to the portal is not showing and therefore I am unable to check you are now complying with the relevant legal obligations required.

Your 7-day demand is inconsistent with the PAPDC. The earliest you could properly issue is 30 days after you provide the requested documents to me by email or post, and (if applicable) 30 days from receipt of my completed Reply Form, whichever is later. Uploading to a portal I have not agreed to use does not amount to provision, particularly when the documents are not viewable and the reported link is not working.. Please confirm you will not issue while the above documents are outstanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, I dispute the debt. Any attempt to recover an additional £70 is an impermissible double recovery. Trade association codes do not override statute or the small-claims costs regime; the add-on is not recoverable (see Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (HHJ Jackson, 2020)).

Once you provide the documents listed, I will consider my position and return the Reply Form. If you issue proceedings without first complying with the PAPDC, I will seek a stay with directions and costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g), relying on Webb Resolutions v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments v Park West Club (Part 20) [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments v Stent Foundations [2007] EWHC 855.

Please confirm that you will correspond by email or post and provide the above documents.

Yours faithfully,

Name, address and e mail
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Letter Before Claim Moorside Legal