Free Traffic Legal Advice

I was sure I'd posted here previously about this PCN though it's not coming up in any searches.

This morning I received a LoC for a PCN from UKPS Ltd issued 14/01/2023.

My wife is the lessee of our vehicle and (prior to checking here, and stupidly I now know) sent back a form identifying me as the driver of the vehicle.

The alleged contravention is for 'Permit Required Eaton House Offices', near Coventry railway station. I'm sure I can dig out all the communication I've received.

What do you need from me?

Sorry to have left it so late

Thanks DWMB2.

The LoC is at https://imgur.com/a/OrbxNHI.

I'll do my best to dig anything else out this evening.

Thanks again.

I believe Moorside Legal are a fairly new player in private parking claims, so we've not got as detailed a sense of their way of working as we have with DCB Legal and Gladstones. If you have a search on the MoneySavingExpert you may be able to find some example cases for some background reading.

In the meantime, you should respond to their letter of claim. Here's an example of what you could send:

A classic example of how to, metaphorically speaking, blow both feet off with a single shot, by identifying the driver. A leased/hired vehicle PCN is what is known as a “golden ticket” as long as the drivers identity is not revealed, inadvertently or otherwise.

For future reference, never reveal the drivers identity if you receive a PCN, especially if the vehicle is leased.

Now we have to review all the correspondence, for what it’s worth. There is no doubt that Moorside Legal are going to issue a claim. What you are hoping for is that they manage to screw up the Particulars of Claim (PoC), as their recent record shows, they do regularly.

When they respond to your response to the LoC, you can report them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud. It takes minutes to do so online and there is no comeback to you. It alerts HMRC to their VAT evasion.

Come back and show us the PoC on the N1SDT claim form when it arrives (it will). Also, make sure you leave ALL dates and times on any correspondence showing. You’ve redacted the date of the alleged contravention in what you’ve shown us so far.

We need to clarify a few points first.

The Notice to Hirer (NtH) sent to you say that they included copies of the following documents:


Please confirm if all those documents were served to you with the NtH. I would place money on the fact that they did not include a copy of the Hire Agreement.

Also, I don't see any "Letter of Claim" from Moorside Legal. All you have shown us is copies of two debt collection letters from them dated  23rd October and 21st November. Please have a read of the Pre Action Protocol (PAP) requirements for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and note where they have not fulfilled the requirements of section 3:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf

So, until an actual LoC is received, you don't communicate with Moorside Legal, especially in their capacity as a useless debt collector.

What you ought to angered about is the moronic behaviour of Volkswagen Financial Service. Considering they are members of their BVRLA, you would expect them to understand the difference between a Parking Charge Notice and a Penalty Notice issued for an "offence".

The language they have used is unlawful and is a breach of the CRA 2015. Using terminology such as "offence" and "fine" and "authority" for what is only a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which is nothing more than a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company, is wrong.

All they had to do is transfer liability from themselves as the Keeper to you as the Hirer following the requirements of PoFA and that is the ned of the matter as far as they are concerned. UKPS cannot later revert back to them if they have complied with PoFA.

So, in their letter dated 31st January 2023 they incorrectly state that they have received "a notification of a Driving Offence". That is mendacious as nowhere in the NtK does it mention the word "offence" and it legally cannot because it is a civil matter and no "offence" has occurred.

They then go on to incorrectly state that they have given your details to the "relevant authority". In no way, shape or form is UKPS an "authority". They are an UNREGULATED "private" parking company.

If they have transferred liability according to the requirements of PoFA, they do not need to provide a Third Party Authorisation Letter. Liability has been transferred to you, the Hirer, and that is the end of the matter as fares VWFS is concerned.

I suggest you write to them highlighting their mistakes and to contact the bVRLA for guidance on how to deal with PCNs and PNs which are distinctly different matters.

Anyway, s pointed out, you have not yet received (or at least shown us) an LoC. When you do, come back and show it to us.

There is another significant flaw in the NtK and the NtH issued by UKPS The NtK/H states only that the vehicle was parked "in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge", without specifying how the terms and conditions were breached, this renders the NtK/H non-compliant with PoFA. The wording is too vague to meet the statutory requirement to describe the grounds for the charge.

The NtK/H must specify what the breach was (e.g., overstaying a free parking period, failing to display a valid permit, parking in a restricted area, etc.). The vague wording does not demonstrate any evidence of an actual breach of the parking terms.

Under Paragraph 14(2), the Notice to Hirer must state the details from the original NtK and a copy of the original NtK must be included. It must comply with the requirements of Paragraph 8(2) or Paragraph 9(2) (depending on whether a Notice to Driver was issued or not).

It must state the circumstances of the parking charge. This includes describing the parking charge due and the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose (e.g., overstaying, not displaying a permit).

The NtH must clearly describe the breach, such as "overstaying a 2-hour limit" or "parking without a valid permit." It must also include a copy of the Hire/Lease Agreement and a statement from the hire/lease company confirming the hirer's details, must also be provided.

In this case, from what you have shown us, the NtH and the attached NtK fail to state the specific breach and instead use vague language like "...the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge..." this breaches Paragraph 14(2)(a) and the underlying requirements of Paragraph 8(2)(c) or Paragraph 9(2)(c), as outlined above.

This is because the documents fail to specify what the driver allegedly did to breach the terms or clearly explain the circumstances in which liability arose.

So, when the LoC arrives, you can respond and tell them that as the Hirer, you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver and as the Hirer, you are not liable for the charge because off their failures to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA.

In which case respond to the LoC with the following:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 4th December 2024

I refer to your Letter of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:

[YOUR ADDRESS]

Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.

I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:

1. Does the additional £60 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.

2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?

3. Please state clearly and unequivocally which specific term(s) of the alleged parking contract the driver is alleged to have breached, along with evidence of how these terms were communicated to the driver. Failure to provide such information will demonstrate that your claim is vague, baseless, and bound to fail.

I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.

Further, it is embarrassing – legally speaking – that a so-called firm of legal professionals cannot see that this claim is fundamentally flawed and bound to fail. Your failure to include any mention of the contractual term the defendant is alleged to have breached demonstrates a lack of intelligence, diligence, or both.

The fact that your Letter of Claim and prior correspondence rely on vague and boilerplate assertions without clearly stating the basis of liability is not only procedurally improper but demonstrates disdain for the court process and the legal profession. As legal representatives, you are officers of the court and have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal process, which includes ensuring that claims are founded on a proper legal and factual basis. Your failure to identify the specific contractual term allegedly breached is evidence of a serious deficiency in process and reflects a disregard for your obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly CPR 1.3, which requires legal representatives to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and proportionately.

The Letter of Claim itself serves as evidence of your failure to act as officers of the court, as you ought to know that presenting a claim without revealing the specific contractual term allegedly breached is not only deficient but also an abuse of process. This conduct undermines the principles of fair litigation and brings the legal profession into disrepute. By issuing vague and unsupported claims as part of a bulk litigation model, you fail to discharge your responsibilities to the court and instead demonstrate a willingness to pursue meritless claims in the hope of coercing payment.

I will not hesitate to bring these deficiencies to the court’s attention as part of a robust defence. Furthermore, I will formally request that the court impose appropriate sanctions against both the claimant and you as their legal representatives. This may include cost penalties and/or referrals to the relevant regulatory authorities for conduct that fails to meet the standards expected of officers of the court.

I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct. If you, as the recipient of this letter, are not fully legally trained, I suggest you escalate this correspondence to a senior colleague or someone within your firm who is adequately qualified to understand the serious consequences of failing to address the deficiencies in your client’s claim and the professional obligations imposed upon you as officers of the court.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

There's no time limits but if they issue a claim without responding, you can use it against and this can be used as part of a defence argument regarding procedural unfairness and unreasonable conduct.

Also, you would have to make a formal complaint to the SRA.

For now, just wait and see. Moorside Legal are just a bunch of incompetent, wannabe legals.