Trace Recovery Legal department

Jump2047

It’s comical 😂

1505grandad

Via an "Alerter" re the case:-

https://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/2024/05/16/alerter-by-william-hibbert-thomas-samuels-a-warning-all-that-glisters-is-not-gold/

"In its judgment, the Court noted that claims on such bases were fundamentally misconceived. They were incoherent and/or failed to disclose any legally recognisable cause of action."

Coupon-mad

Even funnier, the Claimants in Stamp & ors v Capital Home Loans appear to be FOTL types:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/get-rich-quick-claims-dismissed-as-hopeless-and-abusive/5119781.article

Nothing like our defences in any way, shape or form. But this can be used against boilerplate abusive claims by PPCs. Very handy!

LDast

Why their response is embarrassing from a legal perspective.

1. Your Response is Specific and Substantive, Not Generic:

• In your response, you disputed the alleged debt and specifically raised two direct and legally relevant questions regarding the additional £70 charge and the principal sum of the parking charge. These are not frivolous or template questions but go to the heart of the legal basis of the claim.
• Templates are often used in legal correspondence to ensure that proper legal points are covered, but that does not make the questions any less relevant. You have asked for clarification on points that would be central to any defence if the claim were to proceed to court.

2. Your Questions Address Key Legal Issues:

• Debt Recovery Fee: Your question about whether the £70 charge represents a "Debt Recovery" fee and whether it includes VAT is entirely appropriate. The Government has criticised such inflated fees in the context of parking charges, calling them a form of "extortion". This is a genuine legal issue that directly relates to the fairness and legality of the claim. Asking for clarification on VAT is a practical question about the legality of charging VAT on such fees and whether you, as the defendant, are improperly being asked to pay it.
• Principal Sum – Damages or Consideration: The distinction between whether the PCN amount is being claimed as damages for breach of contract or as consideration for parking is a fundamental aspect of the case. In parking disputes, whether the sum is a penalty for breach or payment for services provided is often central to the legal argument. Your question challenges the very basis on which the claim is made and seeks clarity, which is far from nonsensical.

3. Moorside Legal’s Failure to Engage with the Substance of the Questions:

• Rather than addressing these legitimate legal questions, Moorside Legal has chosen to dismiss your response as a template. This is embarrassing from a legal standpoint because they have ignored their professional obligation to engage with the actual legal points raised in your response. Their failure to explain the basis of the £70 charge or clarify whether the principal sum is damages or consideration shows a disregard for the substantive legal issues in the case.

4. Misapplication of Stamp & Ors Judgment:

• Moorside Legal’s citation of the Stamp & Ors case, specifically paragraph 37, is misplaced. That paragraph deals with claimants who bring meritless claims based on nonsensical legal templates. You, however, are the defendant in this matter, and you are raising legitimate legal questions in defence of a claim about to be brought against you.
• The principle in Stamp regarding frivolous claims does not apply to defences where the defendant is questioning the legality of additional fees and the basis of the charge. The questions you raised are relevant and would need to be addressed if this matter proceeds to court. Therefore, the citation of Stamp is both irrelevant and embarrassing as it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal principles involved.

5. Professional Obligation to Address Legal Questions:

• As legal representatives, Moorside Legal has a professional obligation to respond to legitimate legal questions in good faith. By dismissing your questions without engaging with them, they are failing to fulfil their duties under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly the Pre-Action Protocol for narrowing issues before court proceedings.
• Their refusal to engage with the issues you've raised could potentially lead to a strike-out application or adverse cost consequences for failing to properly respond to pre-action correspondence.

Conclusion:

Moorside Legal’s response is embarrassing from a legal standpoint because it:

• Misapplies case law: They incorrectly rely on Stamp & Ors, a case addressing meritless claimants, while ignoring the fact that you are a defendant raising substantive legal defences.
• Fails to address key legal issues: Instead of responding to your legitimate questions about the legality of the £70 charge and whether the principal sum is damages or consideration, they dismiss your correspondence without engaging with its substance.
• Shows professional negligence: Their failure to properly engage with your legal arguments demonstrates a lack of professionalism and could have consequences for their client should the matter proceed to court.

LDast

Here is a proposed article that highlights how Stamp & Orr can be turned around and used against the PPCs and their bulk litigators:

Using Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd Against Bulk Litigators Acting on Behalf of Private Parking Companies

The rise of bulk litigation practices by Private Parking Companies (PPCs) has led to a deluge of claims, often based on template arguments and automated processes that overwhelm defendants and courts alike. However, the recent High Court decision in Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1092 (KB) offers a valuable precedent that could be used against PPCs and the bulk litigators who represent them.

In Stamp, the court expressed its strong disapproval of claimants who bring frivolous claims based on nonsensical legal templates, emphasising the waste of court resources and the potential abuse of process. While the facts of Stamp concern mortgage securitisation, the legal principles can be applied to PPC claims and their mass litigation tactics. Here's how:

1. Bulk Litigation and Abuse of Process

The court in Stamp condemned the use of stock templates by claimants who were indifferent to court resources, leading to a wasteful and potentially abusive process. This criticism can be equally applied to PPCs who rely on bulk litigation to pursue parking charges in court.

PPCs issue claims en masse, with minimal individual investigation, instead relying on automated templates and a volume-based approach. This practice risks overwhelming the court system, creating a scenario where claims are not properly investigated or based on insufficient evidence. This behaviour mirrors the very conduct criticised in Stamp, where the court took issue with the lack of individual scrutiny and the excessive burden placed on judicial resources.

By citing Stamp, defendants can argue that bulk litigation by PPCs constitutes an abuse of process and should be treated as such by the courts. Courts may be persuaded to strike out such claims on the basis that the litigation tactics employed are wasteful and fail to adhere to proper legal standards.

2. Template Claims and Nonsensical Arguments

Paragraph 37 of Stamp specifically condemns claimants who rely on stock templates that are nonsensical or legally incoherent. PPCs often issue template claims where the Particulars of Claim are generic and fail to address the specific facts of each case.

For example, PPCs always include inflated debt recovery fees—without proper explanation or legal justification. In every case, these claims involve vague and inadequate Particulars of Claim that do not provide enough detail to establish a valid cause of action. The failure to specify the contractual basis for the parking charge, or to explain how the claimed amount was calculated, could be seen as equally nonsensical to the template claims criticised in Stamp.

In defending against PPC claims, defendants can use the language of Stamp to challenge the legal validity of such template claims. If PPCs fail to provide adequate details, courts may strike out the claims for lack of reasonable grounds or because they are an abuse of process.

3. Failure to Engage with Defences

The court in Stamp criticised claimants who brought claims without engaging with the key legal issues. This lack of engagement is seen in almost every PPC case, where legitimate legal defences—such as keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), inadequate signage, or unfair terms—are routinely dismissed by PPCs using template rebuttals.

PPCs rely on automated responses or dismiss valid defences with little explanation. This practice mirrors the failure of the claimants in Stamp to properly engage with the specific legal complexities of their cases. By citing Stamp, defendants can argue that PPCs are abusing the court process by issuing claims without considering the legal defences raised by defendants, thus wasting court time and resources.

4. Inadequate Particulars of Claim

A recurring problem in PPC bulk litigation is the lack of detail in the Particulars of Claim. In Stamp, the court found that claims were hopeless because they were inadequately particularised and failed to disclose a legally recognisable cause of action.

In PPC cases, the Particulars of Claim always fail to:

• Specify the terms of the contract that the defendant is alleged to have breached.
• Provide evidence of signage at the location and how it conveyed the terms of the contract.
• Justify the additional charges (such as debt recovery fees) that are added to the claim without a clear basis.

Defendants can argue that PPC claims, particularly those issued in bulk, are similarly inadequate and fail to meet the standard required under CPR 16.4. If the Particulars of Claim are insufficiently detailed, the court should consider them hopeless and strike them out, just as it did in Stamp.

5. "Get-Rich-Quick" Scheme Criticism

In Stamp, the court referred to the claims as being part of a “get-rich-quick” scheme, designed to exploit the legal system for financial gain. This critique can be applied to PPCs, who use parking charges and inflated fees as a revenue stream.

The bulk litigation tactics employed by PPCs are arguably an attempt to exploit defendants and pressure them into paying charges—even when the legal basis for the charge is weak or non-existent. By using the threat of litigation and inflated charges, PPCs are engaging in practices that resemble a “get-rich-quick” scheme.

Citing Stamp, defendants can argue that PPCs are exploiting the legal system in a similar fashion and that their claims are an abuse of process designed to extract money from motorists, rather than to fairly resolve disputes.

6. Striking Out Bulk Claims

In Stamp, the court struck out the claims as having no legal basis. Similarly, defendants can argue that PPC claims—particularly those issued in bulk—should be struck out if they fail to provide sufficient legal or factual basis. Bulk litigation that relies on template formats and lacks proper consideration of individual cases should be treated as an abuse of process, and courts should be encouraged to strike out such claims to prevent further misuse of the legal system.

Conclusion

The Stamp judgment offers valuable insights into the misuse of template claims and the abuse of court processes. While the facts of Stamp concern mortgage securitisation, the principles established in the case can be used to challenge the bulk litigation practices of PPCs. By drawing on the court’s reasoning in Stamp, defendants can argue that PPCs’ reliance on template claims is an abuse of process, and that such claims should be struck out for lack of reasonable grounds or inadequate particulars.

In this way, Stamp can be a powerful tool for defendants facing PPC debt claims, helping to hold PPCs accountable for their exploitative litigation tactics and ensuring that the courts are not burdened with poorly prepared or meritless claims.

LDast

...or maybe not. Based on the feedback from a district judge, it seems the application of Stamp to PPC claims would likely face strong resistance in court. The judge points out that bulk litigation and the use of templates are common across many industries (HMRC, Utility companies etc.) and are not inherently considered an abuse of process under current court practices.

The major difference between the cases in Stamp and PPC bulk litigation lies in the legal grounding and framework that supports each type of claim. While template claims and mass litigation were criticised in Stamp as abusive, PPC claims are part of a legitimate legal process, albeit one that still warrants scrutiny for fairness and proportionality.

The main differences:

1. Stamp claims were based on irrelevant and antiquated legal principles, whereas PPC claims are grounded in contract law and statutory obligations.
2. The misuse of legal arguments in Stamp led to claims being struck out, while PPC claims generally comply with legal norms.
3. The abuse of process in Stamp stemmed from misleading claims encouraged by unauthorised parties, whereas PPC claims are systematically enabled by the legal framework under CPR.
4. Judges are more likely to view PPC claims as legitimate and procedural, while the claims in Stamp were considered frivolous and abusive.
5. The purpose of claims in Stamp was to exploit legal loopholes for financial gain, whereas PPC claims are focused on recovering contractual sums.

LDast

It just goes to show that Moorside Legal are just as intellectually malnourished as the rest of the bulk litigators.

They failed to engage with the specific legal points raised in the correspondence and instead relied on inappropriate case law references.

If/when a claim issued through them lands on the doorstep, point out their embarrassing failure to answer the questions as required by the PAP and go for unreasonable behaviour when it comes to costs. 

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

And even more ironic that they've handed us up to date case law against boilerplate pleadings?!

Yes, I liked that bit!

Jump2047

Thank you all for your help so far. 

I have not received anything yet since moorside’s LBC and their response to my email.

Still waiting for the day the court claim by them comes in my letter box  

Fruitcake

I suggest you look up, argumentum ad hominem, and perhaps quote it in correspondence.

An attack against the person making the argument rather than the substance of their argument.