There are plenty of other free sties that allow you to upload documents. Use one that preferably doesn't include soft p0rn links. A good one to use is
https://imgbb.com. You can't show images of PDF files so you need to convert them into .jpg or .png files first. Try
https://www.pdf2go.com for that.
Who signed the SoT on the further PoC? I need the name and position within Moorside Legal!!!
The Further PoC now:
• Alleges that the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012;
• States that the defendant was the keeper and/or driver of the vehicle;
• Identifies the “consideration” as the facility to park;
• Asserts that the breach arose by parking contrary to displayed terms;
• Claims a £100 PCN plus £60 debt-recovery uplift; and
• Adds interest and fees to reach £245 total.
• Exhibits are referenced (PCN, signage, and photographs) but not visible because you have failed to upload them.
Preliminary Assessment of ComplianceAt first reading, the “Further PoC”:
• Superficially follows the judge’s order by stating whether the claim relies on PoFA and a “relevant contract”.
• Still fails to provide the exact contractual wording or to identify the specific clause breached—contrary to PD 16 §7.5 and the requirements of paragraph 2 of the order (“…identifying the clause or obligation breached, the consideration, and the nature of any trespass or tort”).
• Retains the vague “keeper and/or driver” formulation, so it does not specify the cause of action with precision.
• Provides no breakdown of interest calculation or reference to any statutory basis under s. 69 County Courts Act 1984.
Consequently, while Moorside Legal met the filing deadline, there is a serious argument that they have not achieved substantive compliance with the court’s order. A claim remains strike-out-eligible under paragraph 3 of that order if the court determines that the directions were not properly satisfied.
Further, just looking at the cover letter with that, John Moody has conducted litigation within the meaning of section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Here’s why:
1. Conducting litigation includes, among other things,• filing or serving documents on behalf of a party;
• corresponding formally with the court on behalf of a party in an existing claim; and
• performing steps required by procedural rules in the conduct of the claim.
2. The email you’ve shown is addressed to the court (“Please update the Court record”) and explicitly states that Moorside acts for the Claimant, serving the “updated Particulars of Claim and Enclosures”.
That is a formal procedural step in the litigation.
3. The sender is identified as “John Moody, Paralegal.”Unless he personally holds an individual authorisation (e.g. as a solicitor, CILEX litigator, or other authorised person under the LSA 2007), he is not permitted to conduct litigation, even if his employer (Moorside Legal) is an SRA-authorised entity.
The High Court reaffirmed this in
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) — unauthorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision; only authorised or exempt individuals may do so.
4. Therefore, by sending that email on behalf of the claimant and directly corresponding with the court regarding service of pleadings, John Moody has undertaken a reserved legal activity that he is not individually authorised to perform.
That step is technically a breach of section 14 LSA 2007, potentially exposing both the individual and the firm to regulatory action if the act was unauthorised.
I will now wait for you to answer the questions and show us the attachments that were sent with the further PoC before I advise on what you should do next.
