You are not obliged to respond to Moorside’s request for information, as they already possess the necessary identifiers from your June 9 correspondence. Their failure to engage for over two months, followed by this generic gatekeeping email, is procedurally unacceptable and indicative of the firm’s habitual incompetence.
However, to eliminate any excuse for further delay—and to document their procedural failure—you may choose to respond once, under protest. The following draft asserts control while exposing their conduct:
Subject: Re: Your Email Dated [Insert Date]
Dear Moorside Legal,
Your email of [insert date] is a textbook example of the procedural incompetence that has characterised your handling of this matter from the outset.
The response sent to you on June 9, 2025, directly referenced your Letter of Claim and included all necessary identifiers, including the vehicle registration and claim reference. You have had more than sufficient information to verify the recipient and respond substantively. Your failure to do so for over two months, followed by this generic gatekeeping email, is not only procedurally defective—it reeks of deliberate obfuscation.
If this is your attempt to reset the clock or sidestep the obligations triggered by the June 9 response, be advised: it will be treated as a breach of the Pre-Action Protocol. Your delay, evasiveness, and inability to process basic correspondence will be documented and relied upon in any costs application or procedural challenge.
Nonetheless, to eliminate further excuses, I confirm the following under protest:
Address: [Insert address]
Postcode: [Insert postcode]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert registration]
You are now expected to respond substantively to the June 9 correspondence without further delay. Any further incompetence will be met with appropriate procedural escalation.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
