Author Topic: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17  (Read 6007 times)

0 Members and 23 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #30 on: »
You respond to the LoC by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yoruself with the following:

Quote
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #31 on: »
I sent the above (excellent) reply and have heard nothing since. Almost 4 months now.

Quote
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Should I raise a formal complaint or should we let sleeping dogs lie?

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #32 on: »
Another LBA.
Exactly the same as the previous one.
Looks like it was triggered automatically by 6 months of nothing happening.

Reply by email and repeat previous response?


Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #33 on: »
OK unless anyone has any other suggestions I'll get him to send them another email pointing out his previous reply still applies.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #34 on: »
Yes - do exactly that.

Moorside appear to be in trouble.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #35 on: »
This seems to be happening semi regularly now. As I said in another post:
Reply with the same text that you used in the previous response to the letter of claim.
I would add a paragraph pointing out that this is the second Letter of Claim they have sent in respect of the same alleged debt some [X] months apart. That you have already provided a response (which as a courtesy you are also providing again now) and that (if true) that they have failed to provide a substantive response.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #36 on: »
The automated response to resending the email as follows:





Seems a bit strange that their Customer Help email address is not monitored!
« Last Edit: April 10, 2026, 07:12:15 pm by Glitch »

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #37 on: »
Do I ignore this, or call them, use the portal, or write to them?



Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #38 on: »
If it were me then I'd ignore this.

You have responded the first time.

This is clearly a problem with Moorside.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #39 on: »
Thanks. That was my initial thought too.
 
They've changed the automated response.

First time they said they'd respond within 5 days. 6 months and no response. Seems like they can't cope with emails.

Might still send the response by letter to give them something to chew on. They shouldn't get away with the abject LBC and might put them off going any further.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #40 on: »
Letter posted this afternoon. Got a certificate of posting.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #41 on: »
A reply from Moorside has been received.

Seems like they are ignoring the need to provide a fully compliant LBC.
They refer to the portal for some of the required info (Items 1 & 2) Ignore Item 3. Deny they need to provide Item 4 and made an attempt to explain costs.

Interesting statement on the second page.

'Please note that that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided a response. However should you wish to raise a new dispute we will investigate the matter further and respond accordingly'

Does that mean they won't answer the same questions but will answer new ones?



Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #42 on: »
Can they rely on their portal to provide all the information that should be in the LBC?

Are they obliged to provide details of the contract between the land owner and PCM?

Does the latest communication need a further reply, or do we await court action?

I note @b789 has not been active for months and there are a lot of open cases at the moment.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #43 on: »
Can they rely on their portal to provide all the information that should be in the LBC?
I think some people have complained to the SRA about being disadvantaged by this. In my view they shouldn't be insisting on the use of proprietary software to access documents they're required to provide as part of the pre-action protocol. Pragmatically, if you think you may need to rely on any of the documents provided on the portal to assist with your defence of the claim, you may choose to use it.

Are they obliged to provide details of the contract between the land owner and PCM?
You could raise it as an issue in your defence (ie put them to proof they have such a contract), although it is a rather speculative line of defence, so I wouldn't lead with it.

Does the latest communication need a further reply, or do we await court action?
In my view, no. You've set out your position, they've set out their position. There's little to be gained from an endless ping pong of letters.

Re: Parking Control Management - Robert Dashwood Way - SE17
« Reply #44 on: »
Tried to register on their portal and it says:

Account not found, please check your information and try again.

Requires Account Reference, Surname and Postcode. Only used company name. There is no surname. I have used their reference and the correct postcode.

I will write to them about this to register the point that they are pointing us to towards a portal that doesn't seem to work and/or insufficient information to register. In the most recent letter they've also pointed us back to the original PCM website for the 'evidence'.