Author Topic: PCM - No parking session registered - Chelsea Bridge Wharf, Battersea SW11  (Read 1445 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hello, I recently got a PCN in the post about parking in a private road along Sopwith Way in the SW11 area of Battersea, London. I was parked here as I was picking up a delivery from a restaurant near the Battersea power station. Here is my PCN letter...






Here is a street view on google maps of the road where I had parked google street view



The map above shows the location of my vehicle is shown as a blue star on the map. The restaurant is on Archers Lane which is inaccessible to motor vehicles, so I have parked on Sopwith Way and walk along riverside walk, to get to the restaurant on Archers Lane. As I had a big delivery to take, I hac to make a few trips back and forth which took over 10 minutes to finish.

I have used this road to park here numerous times in the past when making a delivery in this area but this is the first time I have received such a letter. I have yet to make an appeal as this is a private road so I know the rules are different here than as to parking on a public road. Any advice would be appreciated  :)

« Last Edit: May 13, 2025, 01:25:14 am by bertie21980 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Do you have evidence that you were “working” as a delivery driver and that you were simply loading and unloading at the time? If you do, then this is my advice:

Loading and unloading in the course of your work is not parking and is clarified in persuasive case law. However, that is not going to help you unless this goes to a claim, which it will.

No appeal to PCM or the IAS is going to get this cancelled although you are free to try and appeal on that basis. Personally, I would completely ignore everything from this firm of ex-clampers until a Letter of Claim (LoC) is issued.

An LoC can be responded to and a claim easily defended. Everything before that is going to be a wasted effort although others on here would advise you to go through the motions of the useless appeals process. To be honest, nothing before the LoC really matters and would not affect any claim if there was no response before litigation commenced. It’s your time that is required for a well trodden path of wasted effort.

Keep evidence of the job. Ignore all debt recovery threats and come back when you receive the LoC for advice on how to respond. Others may advise differently, but the eventual outcome will be identical.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2025, 12:37:51 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

ok thanks for the reply. I will just leave it until the LOC comes and get all the documents ready. I have had experienced before with dealing with a private parking issue and I was advise to wait until they sent that dreaded LoC. It was quite a while ago and I remember responding to it. I think they did respond back to me but I don't recall ever getting a court date

Hi guys, I recently got this 'Letter Before Claim' letter from Moorside Legal. Is this the letter I'm suppose to respond to? Its not even clear which penalty they are referring to as it just says their client is from PCM which I assume is for this penalty claim ???



Send the following email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

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

Thank you for the advice, b789. I just sent the email now

Hello everyone, I received an email from Moorside Legal yesterday, responding to my previous email. Any idea on how I should respond back? I'm guessing I should ignore it.

Quote
We write in relation to the above matter.

 The pcn was issued for No valid parking session registered on the 4/16/2025.

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.

below is a breakdown

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 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.)
 

 

We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 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. 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

Moorside Legal

That is just a debt recovery letter and it can be safely ignored. Come back when they issue a Letter of Claim (LoC).
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi everyone, I recently received another Letter Before Claim from Moorside Legal. Its seems almost exactly the same as my previous LBC which is also in this thread.



It might even be for another parking claim that I'm going through but the reference number is exactly the same as my previous one above. Anyway, Im going to reply to them the exact same email message as I did before. If anyone thinks otherwise that I would welcome the advice
« Last Edit: Today at 03:30:06 pm by bertie21980 »

If the reference number is the same then it should relate to the same claim. If responding again, as well as whatever you're planning to respond with, I would also open by pointing out that this is the second Letter of Claim they have sent in respect of the same claim.