Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. Only parking companies who are members of either the BPA or IPC can access DVLA Keeper data. Your drivers licence has nothing to do with who a vehicle is registered to. The parking companies can only make a single request for DVLA Keeper data as long as they have "reasonable cause". If your V5C was not up to date at the time they made the request, then they can't go back later and request it again.

It is an offence not to keep your V5C up to date, punishable by a real fine of up to £1,000. So, get it updated ASAP and it can easily be done online.

2. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) because it does not include the mandatory condition that the right to recover from the keeper only applies “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met.” This clause is essential. Its omission means the notice falsely asserts an unconditional right to pursue the keeper, which is legally incorrect. That alone invalidates keeper liability.

It also fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which requires the notice to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge if the creditor does not know both the name and current address for service of the driver. The notice does not contain any such invitation. It refers only to the driver being liable and threatens enforcement action, but it never invites the keeper to pay.

If any single element is not complaint then it fails PoFA and there can be no Keeper liability, full stop. It is a binary matter. Just as someone cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, an NtK canot be partially or even mostly compliant. It either is or it isn't. The NtKs you have shown us aren't.

Most judges will not allow the fake added £70/PCN. At the moment, they are claiming 3 x £100 plus 3 x £70 for a total of £510. Worst case scenario if your defence is not accepted by the judge will be approx, £300 plus their fixed fee of £35 for the claim application, £50 legal fees and their £27 hearing fee. So, around £410 in this case.

You can guarantee that the incompetents at Moorside will fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means that you can request strike out for failing to adequately state a cause of action.

Hi! I received this reply from Moorside today.

They have attached (i) the original NTKs (ii) images of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park - same ones as are shown in the NTKs and (iii) certificates of postage for each NTK. Let me know if you want me to reattach any of these.

---

We write in relation to the above matter.

Please see the attatched and the below.

1. An explanation of the cause of action

Our client has instructed us to collect the outstanding balance of £170.00 in relation to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.

2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

Please see the attached Notice to Keeper.

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

We are instructed that a compliant PCN was sent. In accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 8 ( "A notice sent by post is to be presumed... to have been delivered (and so “given”... on the second working day after the day on which it is posted. 

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

The PCN was issued for "Present without payment having been made for the duration of the vehicles stay" see the attatched.

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.

The Terms and Conditions on which Alliance Parking UK Limited services are provided are clearly displayed throughout the private land. Please be advised that there are several signs within this location displaying the terms and conditions,  As you breached the terms and conditions of the car park, this PCN was correctly issued. 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.

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.

6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.

Please see the attached images.

7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

N/A

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).

It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.

9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed

We have requested this and will send in due course.

10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

Please be advised that the original amount of the PCN was £100.00. As outlined in the notice, a reduced amount of £60.00 would have been accepted as full and final settlement if payment had been received within 14 days from the date of issue.

Unfortunately, as no payment was received within that time frame, the opportunity to pay the reduced amount has now expired. As a result of continued non-payment and additional charges, the balance has increased and now stands at £170.00.

11. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

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 International Parking Community 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.

12. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

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 ask that you make the full payment of £510.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.

 

 

You can make payment in the following ways: 

Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay
 

 

If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice. 

 

Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have provided you with a response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Moorside Legal

You can email them back with this:

Subject: Your defective pre-action response – landowner authority, £70 uplifts, and PAPDC non-compliance

Dear Sirs,

Your assertion that I have no right to inspect your client’s landowner authority is misconceived. Standing is a threshold issue. If your client lacks authority from the landholder to contract with motorists and/or to litigate in its own name, there is no cause of action. The Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct (PD-PAC) requires disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute before proceedings (para 6(c)). Your client’s landholder authority (or a complete chain of authority) is plainly such a document. Please provide it (commercial terms may be redacted but the parties, site plan/boundary, dates, and rights to issue charges and litigate must be visible).

For the avoidance of doubt, the sector’s Private Parking Single Code of Practice (v1.1, 17 Feb 2025) itself requires written confirmation from the landowner covering the items listed at clause 14.1(a)–(j) (identity, site boundary, byelaws, permission granted, T&Cs to be applied, method of issue, etc.). Your client says it has this; then it is a key document it relies upon and should be disclosed pre-action.

PoFA: you’ve cited the wrong Schedule and the wrong effect. You refer to “Schedule 8” of PoFA. The relevant provisions are Schedule 4, not 8. If you intend to pursue the keeper, please identify the specific paragraphs of Schedule 4 said to be satisfied for each PCN and confirm whether you rely on para 8 or para 9. Note that para 4(5) limits any keeper recovery to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. Any attempt to add fixed “debt recovery” sums to a keeper claim would be contrary to statute.

You rely on trade-body codes to justify an extra £70 per PCN. Even your own sector Code only says that “where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added” (cl. 8.4.3). That is not law, does not bind the court, and cannot displace PoFA Sch 4 para 4(5) or the PD-PAC/CPR cost-shifting regime. Numerous County Court decisions (including the often-cited Excel v Wilkinson) have treated these add-ons as an abuse/double recovery and struck them out. My position is that no £70 uplifts are recoverable, still less three of them in one batch. If you disagree, please provide your authorities now.

For completeness, ParkingEye v Beavis did not grant a roving licence to pile on unregulated “debt recovery” fees in addition to the headline parking charge. If you intend to rely on Beavis, identify the passages you say justify your uplifts.

Your emails alternately assert a single outstanding balance of £170 and a demand of £510. If you allege three PCNs of £100 each, identify each PCN by number, date/time, location, alleged breach, and state precisely how you contend the total is calculated PCN-by-PCN. A coherent statement of case and key documents are required by PAPDC paras 5.1–5.2 within 30 days of request. You have not complied.

Documents required within 30 days (no portals)
Provide directly (by email/post), not via a login portal:

a) Landowner agreement/chain of authority (as above).
b) Full signage suite and a site plan showing sign and ANPR locations at the material time.
c) Unaltered NtKs for each PCN you rely on, with the exact PoFA route stated.
d) ANPR stills and event logs for each PCN.
e) DVLA request dates/results and any soft-trace/address-verification undertaken before escalation.
f) A PCN-by-PCN breakdown to the penny showing how you reach the demanded sum.

The PAPDC requires you to provide the documents or explain unavailability within 30 days; if you provide them, you must then allow a further 30 days before issuing. Proceeding sooner will be opposed as non-compliant.

If you issue proceedings without first complying with PAPDC/PD-PAC by giving a coherent explanation and the key documents above, I will report your conduct to the SRA for apparent breaches of Principle 1 (rule of law), Principle 2 (integrity) and Principle 5 (proper standard of service).

Please confirm, within 7 days, that you will: (i) send the documents requested in §5 within 30 days; and (ii) refrain from issuing any claim until at least 30 days after you have complied, as required by PAPDC 4.2/5.2. Otherwise, any claim will be met with an immediate application to stay for non-compliance (with costs) and an application under CPR 3.4(2) to strike out any unrecoverable add-ons.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

This is probably already on your radar, but in researching Excel v. Wilkinson I came across this government consultation with the public that closes in two days, you might be interested: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice

Which but of my signature did you miss?