Free Traffic Legal Advice

Any ideas what I can expect?

They are obliged to respond to your response to the LoC. They will use a boilerplate stock answer which does not explain the VAT questions asked. When they do respond, you can then report them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud (in the £millions).

We advise everyone to report VAT concerns involving the conduct of the legal and Debt Recovery firms operating as parasites clinging limpet-like to the 'rogue' private parking industry.

The report in your case specifically concerns Moorside Legal because the attached evidence (their response to the VAT questions) is about their failure to confirm whether consumers are being unlawfully hit with the VAT element of their added 'fees'.

This is not about parking charges (these cannot exceed £100).  It is all about the added £70 admin/DRA costs that the DLUHC called 'extorting money from motorists'.

These third party debt collectors include Moorside Legal, BW Legal, DCB Ltd, DCB Legal, Gladstones Solicitors, Empira, TNC, CIS, Trace Debt Recovery, ZZPS, Debt Recovery Plus, QDR solicitors, CST Law, Elms Legal and others who are listed as members of the BPA and/or IPC Approved Operator or approved debt firms.

Because the concern is that they steadfastly refuse to answer questions about the VAT on their DRA fee, it is now widely suspected that some or all of the private parking industry specialist Debt Recovery firms (including legal firms) may be operating as follows.

Either:

(a) not paying HMRC the VAT element on the £60 or £70 per PCN 'admin fees' that they charge for 'debt recovery'. This amounts to £multi-millions p.a. due to parking cases now exceeding well over 12m DVLA look-ups per year.  Within weeks, £70 per PCN is added and aggressively demanded. 90% of those cases that result in court claims include multiple £70 'fees' that the parking operator clients have never paid and appear to be unjust enrichment of the DRAs;

or

(b) including VAT within the fixed £70 'fee' which they describe as "our costs". This has the object or effect of making the consumer pay the VAT, which HMRC has already stated is unlawful in cases of enforcement or debt recovery fees.

The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection, which is specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus taxable:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3255

You will have given Moorside Legal a chance to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what they call "our costs" but they will have swerved the questions.

Oh yes, you will receive a claim. When you receive it, come back and show us the claim form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) and we will advise on deadlines, on how to submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and we will provide the defence, draft order and persuasive appeal transcripts that go together.

A bridge to cross when we come to it.

Are you saying that the letter you have shown us is their response to this letter:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ncp-birmingham-city-centre-judes-street-broken-machine-but-missed-letter/msg56325/#msg56325

If so, you should report them to the SRA

Send the following response to that letter:

Subject: Failure to Engage with Pre-Action Protocol Requirements

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th January 2025

I acknowledge receipt of your generic response, which fails to engage with my specific and reasonable requests for information under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). Your failure to provide meaningful responses is both obstructive and unreasonable.

For the avoidance of doubt, I require you to respond to my questions in full and in writing. Directing me to generic FAQs or a payment portal does not discharge your obligations under the PAPDC. I will remind you that paragraph 3.1 of the PAPDC requires you to provide “a summary of the facts” and “an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.” Your failure to do so will result in a costs sanction should this proceed to litigation.

To be clear:

[indent[1. I require a direct answer regarding the additional £70 charge: Is it a debt recovery fee, and if so, does it include VAT?
2. I require clarity on whether the principal sum is being pursued as damages for breach of contract or as consideration for a parking contract.[/indent]

If you fail to respond adequately, I will raise this with the court as a clear example of unreasonable conduct, and I reserve the right to seek costs on this basis.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

An email from Moorside Legal! They have not answered the questions I asked, of course, but does this change anything?

''Our client: National Car Parks Limited

We write further to your recent email.

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 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. ''

What now? Just wait for the claim form, I guess?

Another letter, telling me once again - in writing - they are unable to reply to me in writing.

Still no sign of a claim though. Any idea how long that might take?

It’s identical word for word to the letter from them I posted in post 19, the only difference is the date. This one is dated 31 March. It appears to be just their standard postal generic fob off response to any email. I can post a picture of it when I get home but I’m not sure it adds anything as you have it already above. Last time I did get an email response as well a couple of weeks later which was marginally more individual so we will see if they do the same this time.