Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All

Received the Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for a unpaid road toll vignette in Hungary.

I ignored all other concocted invoices and binned them.

Their claim is concocted to fool the courts that it was a parking infringement on land opererated by their client EPC.

Should I reply or ignore the LoC and wait for the summons?

I attach herewith LoC.

Regards



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Euro Parking Collections are in trouble for obtaining/using UK registered owners' details illegally because since the UK left the EU the Cross Border Agreement on exchange of details stoppe

Search EPC and spend an hour or so reading about their naughty activities.  HMG, Watchdog, Which and others have reported on this company.

Do respond to the utterly stupid bunch of incompetents at Moorside Legal. They are embarrassingly useless at their purported profession of being legal advisors and should be reported to the SRA for their blatant disregard for the law.

Let them try and issue a claim in the English county court. It's their claim fee they are wasting. Consider these key points:

1. Foreign Public Law Obligations Cannot Be Enforced in UK Courts

English courts do not enforce foreign penal, revenue, or public law obligations. This means that fines, penalties, tolls, or statutory charges issued by a foreign government or public authority cannot be pursued in the UK civil courts.

This principle was established in Government of India v Taylor [1955] AC 491, where the House of Lords ruled that foreign tax debts could not be enforced in the UK courts. The same applies to foreign motoring fines or toll penalties.

Key point:

A private UK debt collector (or law firm) acting on behalf of a foreign government or public body has no legal standing to sue in an English court for a statutory or regulatory charge.

2. Private Companies Must Prove a Contractual Debt

If the alleged toll charge, penalty, or fine is being treated as a contractual debt, the claimant (the English company acting on behalf of the foreign entity, EPC in this case) must demonstrate:

• A valid contract between the Keeper and the toll operator (e.g., clear terms and conditions that the driver agreed to).
• Jurisdiction – If the contract was formed in a foreign country, it likely specifies that any legal disputes must be resolved under that country’s jurisdiction.
• Legal standing – The UK-based company (EPC) must prove they have the right to sue, either as an assignee of the debt or as a party with direct privity of contract.

Key point:

Without a contract binding the Keeper to the payment, there is no enforceable claim in an English court.

3. Brexit Has Weakened Cross-Border Enforcement

Before Brexit, the EU Cross-Border Enforcement Directive (2015/413/EU) allowed mutual recognition of traffic fines across EU countries. Since Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by this directive, meaning foreign motoring fines or toll penalties are not automatically enforceable in the UK.

There is no bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU (or individual EU states) that allows private enforcement of tolls or penalties through UK courts.

Key point:

If the debt is linked to a foreign law (rather than a private contract), the UK courts will not have jurisdiction to enforce it.

4. Data Protection and Unlawful Access to Keeper Details

If the English company (EPC) obtained the Keeper’s details without a lawful basis (e.g., without DVLA permission post-Brexit), then:

• Their possession of the Keeper’s data is likely unlawful under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
• A complaint to the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) should be filed, as this constitutes a serious data protection breach.
• If the Keeper is a consumer, they can also demand proof under a Subject Access Request (SAR) to determine how the data was obtained.

Key point:

Unlawfully obtained data makes the claim not only unenforceable but also expose the English company (EPC) to legal consequences.

5. Moorside Legal’s Involvement – An Abuse of Process

• If Moorside Legal (or any similar UK firm) is sending debt demands, they are using scare tactics rather than pursuing a legitimate legal claim.
• If they issue a claim, an application to strike it out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) (no reasonable cause of action) or CPR 24.2 (summary judgment) would be appropriate.
• As they are misrepresenting the legal position, a formal complaint to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) should be made.

Key point:

Moorside Legal has a reputation for incompetence and procedural failings. Any court action they initiate should be met with a robust challenge.

Conclusion: No Enforceability Without a Contract

• As the demand relates to a foreign statutory fine, toll, or penalty, it is not enforceable in an English court.
• As it is a private contractual debt, the English company (EPC) must prove a valid contract, legal standing, and jurisdiction – which is unlikely.
• If keeper details were obtained unlawfully, EPC is violating UK data protection laws.
• Moorside Legal’s involvement suggests this is a scare tactic rather than a legitimate legal claim.

For now I suggest you respond Moorside Legals embarrassing incompetence with the following:

Moorside Legal
PO Box 1418
Bradford
BD1 9GP

[Date]

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim – [Your Reference]

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your Letter of Claim dated 27 February 2025 regarding an alleged debt claimed by Euro Parking Collection Plc (EPC).

This letter serves as a formal request under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) for the following information:

1. Proof of Assignment and Authority

• Clear documentary evidence demonstrating that your client has a legal right to pursue this matter in its own name.
• Confirmation of whether your client owns the alleged debt or is acting merely as an agent for a foreign entity.

2. Jurisdiction and Legal Basis

• A full legal explanation as to why an alleged toll charge issued under a foreign statutory framework is being pursued as a private contractual matter in the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
• Evidence that a valid contractual relationship existed between the alleged debtor and the foreign toll operator.
• The specific legal basis that allows a UK-registered company to enforce a foreign public law penalty in a civil court.

3. Proof of Keeper Data Legitimacy

• Full disclosure of how my personal data was obtained, given that EPC no longer has access to the DVLA database post-Brexit.
• Evidence that the data was obtained lawfully and in compliance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. Detailed Breakdown of the Alleged Debt

• A clear itemisation of the amount demanded, including any fees, interest, or adjustments.
• Full disclosure of any attempts at direct enforcement by the original creditor before the involvement of EPC and Moorside Legal.

Failure to Respond and Consequences

As a firm claiming to operate within the legal sector, you are fully aware of your obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol.

• Failure to provide a substantive response to this request within 30 days will be viewed as a breach of the PAPDC and may result in an application for any future claim to be struck out for procedural non-compliance.
• This failure will also be formally referenced in a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regarding Moorside Legal’s repeated breaches of ethical and procedural standards.
• If you proceed with court action without responding to this PAP request, I will seek an adverse costs order against both your client and your firm for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Finally, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the unlawful processing of my personal data.

This is my only and final correspondence until a full and compliant response is received. Any further attempts to pursue this matter without addressing these legal issues will be considered harassment, which I will report accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

You can send it as a pdf attached to an email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.

You also need to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. This will provide a Vehicle Record Enquiry Log, which lists all organisations that have requested your details.

You request this information by completing sections 1 and 3 of this form:

DVLA subject access request (SAR)

and then email it as an attachment by email to subjectaccess.requests@dvla.gov.uk and also CC in yourself.

Please let us know how you get on.

Thank you all for your replies much appreciated and a very huge thank you to b789 in drafting the reply.

Will keep you all updated!

You should make a formal complaint to the DVLA and also get your MP involved. There have already been several questions raised about this to the London Assembly which they have not provided answers except to state that they are investigating. That was over a year ago. You can also read about a BBC Watchdog report here.

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:


The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against Euro Parking Collection PLC (EPC) for unlawfully obtaining my personal data from the DVLA in relation to an alleged unpaid Hungarian road toll.

According to a DVLA Subject Access Request response, EPC obtained my keeper data on 6 December 2023 citing a need “to identify the registered keeper/driver of a vehicle which failed to pay the appropriate fee at a Toll road/bridge.” However, this alleged event took place in Hungary, not the UK, and no lawful gateway exists for such cross-border enforcement since Brexit.

EPC is not a member of the BPA or IPC Approved Operator Scheme. While EPC may act on behalf of Transport for London for enforcement related to ULEZ or congestion charges, this complaint is not connected to any TfL matter. EPC appears to have accessed my data in its own name, not as an agent of a statutory body.

The DVLA should not have released my data for a foreign contravention, and EPC had no reasonable cause to request it. I believe this request was misleading and unlawful. I have attached a supporting statement and request a full investigation. Please acknowledge receipt and provide a reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Unlawful Data Access by Euro Parking Collection PLC

Operator name: Euro Parking Collection PLC 
Date of DVLA data access: 06/12/2023 
Vehicle registration: [Vehicle VRM] 
Nature of incident: Alleged unpaid toll in Hungary 

I am submitting this formal complaint to report the unlawful acquisition and misuse of my personal data by Euro Parking Collection PLC (EPC), who accessed my details from the DVLA in relation to an alleged unpaid toll in Hungary.

The DVLA’s Subject Access Request (SAR) response confirms that on 6 December 2023, EPC requested my keeper data in connection with “a vehicle which failed to pay the appropriate fee at a Toll road/bridge.” However, no indication was given that this incident occurred outside the UK.

The toll allegedly relates to a Hungarian motorway vignette, a matter governed by foreign law. Since the UK’s exit from the European Union, the Cross-Border Enforcement Directive (2015/413) is no longer in force. Therefore, there is no longer any mutual legal assistance framework in place for the exchange of vehicle keeper data for foreign traffic or toll-related offences.

EPC is not an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member of the BPA or IPC, and as such, should not have direct KADOE access to DVLA data. While EPC may act on behalf of Transport for London (TfL) in certain limited circumstances (e.g., ULEZ enforcement against foreign vehicles), this complaint is not related to any TfL matter, and there is no suggestion that EPC acted under statutory authority in this instance.

Instead, EPC appears to have submitted a KADOE request in its own name, describing the alleged offence in vague, neutral terms without disclosing that the event occurred abroad. This omission resulted in the DVLA releasing keeper data for a purpose that is no longer lawful under UK data protection law or the terms of the KADOE contract.

Why This Breach Matters

- The DVLA is the data controller for personal data it releases and must ensure that such data is not misused or accessed without reasonable cause.
- Under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently.
- Accessing data to pursue a foreign toll charge under civil contractual grounds in a UK court is not a permitted purpose.
- EPC’s use of KADOE in this way exceeds any authority granted via TfL and violates the spirit and intent of DVLA’s data-sharing framework.

Request for Investigation and Action

I ask the DVLA to:

- Confirm whether EPC’s access request breached the KADOE contract;
- Determine whether EPC provided misleading or incomplete information in its data request;
- Take appropriate enforcement action against EPC, including a review of their data access privileges;
- Clarify the circumstances under which DVLA data may be used to pursue foreign toll charges post-Brexit.

This complaint concerns the initial access to the data as well as its subsequent misuse. No reasonable cause existed, and EPC has pursued an alleged Hungarian toll as though it were a UK contractual parking matter — a misrepresentation which now forms the basis of a Letter of Claim from a UK firm (Moorside Legal).

Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and confirm a reference number.

Name: [INSERT FULL NAME] 
Date: [INSERT DATE] 
Email: [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS] 
Vehicle registration: [REDACTED] 
Evidence: DVLA DSAR response (attached)

I wouldn't include EPCs unlawful access of your data in Portugal. However that does not you making a separate formal complaint about that but you would probably have to use them in a Portuguese court if you want to claim compensation for a data breach. It's not in our remit here to deal with that.

Before Brexit, the EU Cross-Border Enforcement Directive (2015/413/EU) allowed mutual recognition of traffic fines across EU countries. Since Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by this directive, meaning foreign motoring fines or toll penalties are not automatically enforceable in the UK.

The Cross Border Agreement was limited to eight specific offences allowing foreign authorities to obtain 'owner' details.....

    Speeding;
    Not using a seatbelt
    Not stopping at a red traffic light or other mandatory stop signal
    Drink driving
    Driving under the influence of drugs
    Not wearing a safety helmet (for motorcyclists);
    Using a forbidden lane (such as the forbidden use of an emergency lane, a lane reserved for public transport, or a lane closed
    Illegally using a mobile phone, or any other communications device, while driving.

The EU is currently considering added further offences.

Since Brexit the CBA no longer applies to the UK.

Thank you for the updated letter.

Much appreciated.

Basil Brush