Hi, been following the advice on here after receiving a letter of claim from Moorside Legal
Sent the email below (on 6th June)to Moorside after receiving the LOC
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows:
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 £70 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?
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.
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.
I have today received the below reply via email
We write in response to your email below.
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.
You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
Help would be greatly appreciated, thanks
What was the date of the original event?
No chance of engineering a time out then....
You will probably just have to wait for the court claim and then defend it from there - but post up the docs per DWMB2's post.
When the utter incompetents at Moorside Legal issue the claim (they will), they will, as usual, fail to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), 16.4(1)(a). Their claim will not state an actual cause of action.
The defence we provide will cover that failure and in due course, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. In the very unlikely event that a claim goes all the way to a hearing, your odds of being successful are very high anyway.
The response to the LoC you used is a bit outdated and we now use a much more comprehensive one, even if only to bugger them and their client about. However, their response always fails to fully comply with the PAP. In your case, you should report them to HMRC as their answer shows that they are defrauding HMRC of the VAT on the debt recovery/damages portion of the alleged debt.
Received this response last week My initial response email below
We write in response to your email
The pcn was issued for No valid parking session registered. On the 21/09/2024 at Eastwick & Sweetwater - E20.
See attached evidence
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 in prominent places. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN.
Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.
Regarding the PCN being issued after 14 days; Our basis for pursuing these is that we/the client has reasonably concluded that you were the driver. We have concluded this because; you were offered the opportunity to nominate a driver and did not, you have been provided all the information you would need to ascertain who was driving, and therefore we are reasonably concluding it was you.
Below is a breakdown of the charge:
Why is there an additional £70 added to the PCN amount?
Because the Parking Charge remained unpaid after it was due. Our Client made you aware that additional charges could be applied to the Parking Charge if it was not paid on time. They informed you of this on the parking signs and on any notices either placed on the vehicle or sent to you by post.
How is the £70 made up?
£70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Association 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 is a charge levied by our Client (the Parking Operator) to protect their legitimate interests. (Our Client’s legitimate interests for charging and additional fee is to encourage payment when the Parking Charge becomes due and to avoid the need for debt recovery.)
Please note that we will not be providing a copy of the contract.
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 have noted on your account you are seeking debt advice and have placed the matter on hold for 30-days. If you fail to make payment after the 30-day period has lapsed, we may be instructed to issue a County Court Claim against you.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
Collections Administrator
moorsidelegal.co.uk
Subject: Re: Your Ref: 10320156
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information 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.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
I Palmer
From: Help <help@moorsidelegal.co.uk>
Sent: 18 June 2025 10:42
To: jason palmer <jasonpalmer25@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Your Ref: 10320156
Dear Isabel Palmer
Our reference: 10320156
Our client: Parking control management uk limited
We write in response to your email below.
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.
You may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely
Moorside Legal
Millie
Collections Administrator
0330 828 5850
moorsidelegal.co.uk
Moorside Legal Services Limited trading as Moorside Legal
Registered in England and Wales with Company Number 15069347
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - SRA ID 8006077
Registered office address: Ground Floor Jade Building, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, BD10 9TQ
© 2023 Moorside Legal Services Limited All Rights Reserved
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 14 May 2025
Your Ref: 10320156
Reg No: EJ22 HWG
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows:
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 £70 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?
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.
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.
Yours faithfully[/b]
You can respond to that incompetent nonsense with the following:
Subject: Your Ref: 10320156 – Your “driver presumption”
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for the unintentional comic relief in this passage:
“Regarding the PCN being issued after 14 days; our basis for pursuing these is that we/the client has reasonably concluded that you were the driver… you were offered the opportunity to nominate a driver and did not… therefore we are reasonably concluding it was you.”
That paragraph manages to be wrong in law, wrong in logic, and wrong in practice—an unhappy trifecta for anyone proposing litigation.
1. PoFA is binary, not optional.
If the Notice to Keeper was posted outside the statutory time limit, the route to keeper liability is closed. Full stop. There is no discretionary override. The fallback is to prove driver identity on the balance of probabilities with evidence—not inference, not frustration, and certainly not wishful thinking. “We reasonably concluded...” is not a statutory gateway. It is a confession of evidential failure.
2. There is no s.172-style duty in private parking.
In criminal road traffic matters, Parliament created a duty to name the driver. In private civil claims, it did not. You cannot manufacture a reverse burden by inviting a keeper to “nominate” someone and then treating their refusal as proof.
Silence is not an admission. It is legally inert.
3. Your inference is circular.
Your syllogism is: you didn’t tell us the driver → therefore you were the driver. That is textbook petitio principii. The burden remains with the Claimant. If you intend to allege I was the driver, you must plead and prove it with cogent evidence (e.g. identification, witness, telematics), not with a displeased shrug and a presumption dressed up as conclusion.
4. Persuasive authority says what you deny.
County Court decisions have rejected precisely this “keeper = driver because they didn’t say otherwise” gambit. See VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]. Your paragraph reads as if that line of authority—and PoFA Schedule 4—never existed. That is not advocacy—it is omission.
5. Protocol still matters.
You have also declined to supply basic pre-action documents (landowner authority, signage plan/photos at the material time, VRM/payment audit logs, and the legal basis for any add-ons). Trade association templates can’t displace the PAPDC or CPR. If you intend to litigate, start by complying with the rules.
To be crystal clear: I am the registered keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. If your client cannot (a) show strict PoFA compliance or (b) adduce real evidence of driver identity, proceedings will be defended. Your “reasonable conclusion” will be a useful exhibit of the Claimant’s approach to both evidence and law.
If you are serious about litigation, re-issue a PAPDC-compliant letter with the core documents you intend to rely upon. Otherwise, do save everyone’s time (and your client’s money) and discontinue this attempt at reverse-engineering liability.
Yours faithfully,
I Palmer
If it were me, I'd also CC in the Claimant so they can see how utterly incompetent Moorside Legal are.
That's fantastic, thank you; I did wonder about the nonsense presumption of who was driving
Latest correspondence received today via email from Moorside
Dear
Our reference: 10320156
Our client: parking control management
We write in response to your email
Our position remains that you are liable for the Parking Charge Notice(s). The evidence supplied confirms that the terms and conditions displayed at the site were not complied with, and as such, the charges were correctly issued.
We note your comments regarding liability and procedure. However, unless payment is received in full, the balance will remain outstanding and our client may instruct us to proceed with legal action.
Please make payment below:
Yet more bumbling incompetence from this firm of failed wannabe legals. For the fun of it, I suggest you email back with the following:
Subject: Your Ref: 10320156 – PAPDC non-compliance maintained
Dear Sirs,
Your latest reply does not engage with any of the numbered PAPDC requests nor provide the documents you intend to rely upon. It simply asserts “our position remains” and threatens proceedings. That is not compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct.
Your email asserts that “our position remains that you are liable”. Please clarify whether this is (a) your position as supposed solicitors, after advising on the applicable law, or (b) your client’s position. If it is the latter, please confirm that you have advised your client that keeper liability under PoFA Schedule 4 arises only upon strict compliance with all mandatory conditions, and that there is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.
As regulated solicitors and officers of the court, you are required to act with integrity, not mislead, and to comply with pre-action obligations. If—despite the points already raised—you invite proceedings on a basis that ignores PoFA or reverses the burden of proof, I will rely on this correspondence on costs as evidence of unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with the PAPDC.
For the record:
1. Liability denied. I am the registered keeper, do not identify the driver, and rely on strict PoFA compliance (which you have not shown) or, failing that, your burden to prove driver identity with evidence, not assertion.
2. Documents still missing. You have not provided: the NtK relied upon, proof of service, landowner contract conferring standing to litigate, signage plan and contemporaneous photos, VRM/permit/payment audit logs, attendant notes, and the legal basis for all sums including the unrecoverable £70 add-on.
3. Protocol breach and consequences. If you issue without curing these defects, I will seek a stay and sanctions for unreasonable conduct, and will invite the court to strike out any irrecoverable add-ons.
If you are serious about litigation, re-issue a PAPDC-compliant Letter Before Claim and the above documents. Time to respond will run from receipt of a compliant pack. Otherwise, discontinue.
Yours faithfully,
I Palmer
Thanks again. Will send that off now