Free Traffic Legal Advice

Normal drivel from the hapless Moorside Legal.

You could replay with the following;


To whom it may concern,

I write in response to your letter dated 5th March 2026.

I am the vehicle keeper and the driver it not known by your client.

Once again, I refute that any monies are owed by me (the keeper) to either you or your client.

Your client should contact the driver directly if they feel that a parking charge is owed - I will not be providing driver details because the law does not require it.

The Letter Before Claim was from Moorside Legal and, as such, my replies are directed at you and not your client.

My previous letter was NOT an appeal but a legitimate response by myself to a LBC.

Your latest letter contains a clear legal inaccuracy which is specifically designed to mislead me into thinking that the vehicle keeper can be held liable in a scenario where the legislation clearly shows that keeper liability is specifically excluded.

Given that Moorside are being extensively investigated (by the SRA) I am surprised that you continue to deliberately misrepresent your true legal position in matters such as these.

The fact is that liability remains with the unknown driver - you do not have the legal authority to reallocate liability in the manner which you imply.

Your client and yourselves are, of course, entitled to pursue a registered keeper for any reason you wish - that is your right as a Claimant - however, this is, as a County Court Judge recently pointed out to a parking operator (who was attempting to rely on 'reasonable assumption' to move liability onto a keeper), 'This is actually a commercial decision by the parking operator and NOT an already established legal position' (paraphrased). The Judge then continued by pointing out that a parking operator 'must still PROVE their case in the same manner as any other Claimant and that an assumption of who was driving must still be materially evidenced in order to establish that the keeper was liable' (paraphrased).

So, to be clear, at the present time the liability remains with the individual who formed the alleged contract with your client - you cannot simply shift liability due to that inconvenience.

Liability in this matter has NEVER been with the vehicle keeper at any stage.

I also note that your previous letter does not address the other aspects which were raised.

In particular, the contradictory road markings demonstrated by your client's own evidence.


I am sorry that I cannot help your further in this matter.



Have a great day,


xxxxx xxxxxxx

Best to remove the personal details of the upload, (address etc).

I should point out that the line about there not being clear signage might not work, because there are massive red and white signs that say "No stopping" in letters the size of my head and "£100 charge if you stop" in letters not that much smaller. You can see them on Street View.

It was all too quiet....

So this popped through the letterbox yesterday. As previously, any help / guidance as to how to complete the claim response would be most gratefully received. Thank you in advance.

https://imgpile.com/p/oOiCCKc#3tCf9Uy

7. That the attempt to use PoFA Keeper Liability is not applicable to this specific location since the location is not classed as 'relevant land' under the legislation - the location at Leeds Railway station is subject to Railway Byelaws and therefore it is excluded from PoFA.

One might argue it is overkill, but I would add to this point why the existence of railway byelaws means it is not relevant land. Namely, that these byelaws meant that the parking of vehicles on the land was subject to statutory control.

May also be worth being explicit about the dates, I.e. That the alleged contravention took place before the recent change to the railway byelaws.