Author Topic: PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021  (Read 726 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« on: »
The driver entered a Holiday Inn car park on 25/03/21, stayed in the car to make a call and left after 15ish mins. Received a PCN on 11/04/21 dated 07/04/21. I believe an email was sent to UKPS to dispute this and no response back was received. I don’t have a record of this being appealed using POPLA. Received 3 letters in May/June 2025 from Trace debt recovery requesting £160. Received a Letter Before Claim dated 29/07/25 from Moorside Legal requesting £170. Please advise how best to proceed.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« Reply #1 on: »
Please show us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) received.

Anything from Trace or any other debt collector for that matter can be safely ignored and we don't need to see or even know about it. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

The main lesson you need to learn from this is to stop using any location that os private land to hang around on in a vehicle unless you are aware of the terms and conditions of using that private land. Why didn't you just stop on the street?

In the meantime, respond to the incompetents at Moorside Legal with e following by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote
Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns 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 do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

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

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

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: PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« Reply #2 on: »
I don’t have the original PCN. It was my first one and I stupidly thought they’d be reasonable. The area didn’t have street parking, i had gotten drive through food and the car park was full, I thought the hotel next door was part of the same retail park but they aren’t.

Re: PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« Reply #3 on: »
Not to worry. Once the issue a claim, it is easily defended and will eventually be struck out or discontinued.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« Reply #4 on: »
Response received from Mooreside legal.

We write in relation to the above matter.

Please log in to our customer portal to see the documentation you have requested. We have also attached this information to this 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 is a member of the BPA 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.
 
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 have noted on your account you are seeking debt advice and have placed the matter on hold for 30-days. If you fail to make payment after the 30-day period has lapsed, we may be instructed to issue a County Court Claim against you. 
 
You may wish to seek independent legal advice. 
 
Yours sincerely,
Moorside Legal


https://imgur.com/a/03YyDfK

Any advice on how to proceed with this?
Many thanks



Re: PCN UKPS from 25.3.2021
« Reply #5 on: »
Just do a search for identical Moorside responses over the last few days and respond in the same way. Refuse to accept anything through their portal and require them to provide all the evidence their client intends to rely on either by email attachment or by post.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain