Got myself in a right flap! Gatwick South drop off & Trace Debt September 2026 update!

RecordLover

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82140688#Comment_82140688

Yes the V5 was changed immediately ( although the car has since been sold on ) and moorside were instructed to delete previous data and told of my only address.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82140336#Comment_82140336

I've already said what to send and I confirmed that my advice hasn't changed.

Also ask Moorside for a full copy of the NTK and images of the signs.

RecordLover

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I have now emailed the following to Moorside and will send the same to Times24 once they have got back to my SARS request.

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. xxxxxxxx

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: Moorside Legal Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023).

I have researched the PoFA 2012, which I am aware does not apply at Gatwick Airport. Times24 UK Limited must cancel and erase my data, as I am not the liable party. As you and your client are aware, there is no keeper liability at Gatwick Airport because the airport is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Your client cannot pursue me as keeper.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct.

If you persist in processing my data and in the event of filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for no less than £500. This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the DPA 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Further to this I am filing the following complaint.

NCP is and remains the creditor and they are the company that went into administration in March and the administrators are PwC. They (NCP, no other party) were the offeror of the contract.

Times24 is a different legal entity and were not named on the signs and were not the creditor.

Even though they share the same parent company, they operate as separate corporate entities registered at Companies House.

National Car Parks Limited: Company number 00253240. Its status is listed as "In administration” following restructuring actions taken by its parent group.

Times24 UK Limited: Company number 06631612. Its status is "Active", functioning as the active management arm for many of the still operational parking sites.

It is unlawful under DVLA KADOE rules for a parking firm to transfer or assign parking debt to a company that's not acting as a debt collector. Times24 are not a debt collector and also cannot assume the role of creditor.

I'd suggest Times24 should not even have access to this DVLA data, supplied only to NCP. And NCP remain the data controller.

I will also be filing this complaint with Times24 and what remains of NCP. If either company fails to respond satisfactorily regarding what looks like a mass data breach ( I am aware that this is not the only case ) I will be escalating the matter to both the DVLA and the ICO as well as reporting the BPA president Mike Marrs personally to the DVLA and the ICO for leading APN Group (including Trace Debt and Moorside Legal) in what looks like a mass data breach.

I am requesting from yourselves a copy of the original Notice to keeper and images of the signage present on site at the time.

Yours faithfully

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lets see what they say!

RecordLover

We have a response from Moorside, I like that they say all the files are in the My Documents section which funnily enough hasn't opened since they responded!

Here is their reply -

We write in relation to the above matter.

Thank you for contacting us.

Kindly note that you may view the supporting evidence by visiting portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk. The relevant files can be accessed within the “My Documents” section.

Our client has instructed us to collect the outstanding balance of £170.00 in relation to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.

The Parking Charges was issued by our client, Times24 UK Limited for " No payment" at Gatwick Airport South Terminal Drop Off, Gatwick, RH60NP on the 30/06/2024.

National Car Parks have changed their name to “Times24”. It is still the same legal entity as before, and all debts owed to National Car Parks remain fully enforceable by Times24. 

Please note that, despite National Car Parks being in administration, all outstanding debts owed to National Car Parks remain due and are legally enforceable.

As this charge is not being pursued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we are not relying on the statutory keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4, so its specific conditions do not need to be met. In the absence of driver details, we rely on the principles considered in Elliott v Loake (1982) when assessing, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving. 

Our basis for pursuing these is that we/the client has reasonably concluded that you were the driver. We have concluded this because; you were offered the opportunity to nominate a driver and did not, you have been provided all the information you would need to ascertain who was driving, and therefore we are reasonably concluding it was you. 

The General Data Protection Regulations set out a number of lawful reasonings for obtaining and storing personal data. (Many of these do not rely on consent from the data subject).

We wish to advise that the legal basis for processing data related to Parking Charge Notices is as specified under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR);

6(1)(b) – Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject or take steps to enter into a contract.

By parking you entered and agreed to a contract for the use of the land. As part of these contractual obligations, you agreed to pay a charge to our client who has instructed us to pursue this debt.

6(1)(f) – Processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party…

Legitimate interests include the pursuing of contractual obligations, the enforcement of Parking Charge Notices and the protection of landowners’ rights as owners of private land, who may contract a parking operator to manage the land. Moorside Legal Services acts on behalf of our client in pursuing unpaid charges under these contractual obligations.

The processing of your data is therefore necessary for a contract which has been entered into between our client and you and because it is necessary for the legitimate interests of our client to recover the outstanding debt. We are provided your information by our client in order to settle the contract between you and our client.

On behalf of our client, we are entitled to pursue an individual for an unpaid debt. We do so as we provide extensive resources and legal knowledge on recovery of outstanding debts that are due to be paid.

In accordance with our client’s instruction, we are obliged to make proportionate attempts to contact you to request payment be made, inform you of the next steps if you choose not to make payment, and to serve documents if we are instructed to do so.  

Please note that we are satisfied that our correspondence does not amount to harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 

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 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. 

Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice.  

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

What would be the best way to respond to this? I assume the case they refer is the one that actually had forensic evidence etc?

Coupon-mad

No, not having that.

If the PCN and signage had the 'other' NCP company number on, then they are lying to you:

"The Parking Charge was issued by our client, Times24 UK Limited"

No, it wasn't.

"National Car Parks have changed their name to “Times24”. It is still the same legal entity as before"

No it isn't.

"and all debts owed to National Car Parks remain fully enforceable by Times24."

Not true, where the PCN had the company number of NCP.

"Please note that, despite National Car Parks being in administration, all outstanding debts owed to National Car Parks remain due and are legally enforceable."

No they aren't, not if the PCN and sign was from the 'other' legal entity. If so, data has been assigned to Times24 unlawfully and in breach of KADOE rules.

You need to report this to the DVLA and the ICO as data abuse. Parking debts are not allowed to be assigned or transferred to another legal entity. And you can also report Moorside to the SRA for misleading you about who the creditor is, despite you stating the facts about the two different legal entities.

However you need the sign and NTK first.

Obviously you'll be replying telling them that you cannot open the 'My Documents' section so you require images of the original NTK and original sign to be attached to an email by return. When supplying this,Moorside must also confirm that their data complaints procedure is now exhausted because you will be reporting them to the DVLA and ICO for data abuse and - it seems - lying about who the creditor is. And Moorside will also be reported to the SRA for misleading a recipient about the creditor, who is not Times24.

 "I assume the case they refer is the one that actually had forensic evidence ?"

Yes but irrelevant. Don't go down that rabbit-hole. Concentrate on the above reply only.

RecordLover

That is exactly what I did and to my surprise they sent them first thing this morning. Not only confirming what we already knew about the company house side of things but also confirming one other piece of key information. Here is what I received

So the charge was issued a full 46 days after the alleged incident!

Does this make the charge completely void in the first place?

yarpsnehpets

The issue date is not relevant because they are not using POFA.

The NtK clearly states that the creditor is National Car Parks (EUK) Limited - I suspect that will be enough to establish the true creditor in this matter.

You'll have to see how they progress this.

You can still defend on the basis of no keeper liability so happy days.

RecordLover

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144814#Comment_82144814

What I can’t understand is if they aren’t using POFA then what are they basing it on? A criminal case from the 80’s that bears no real relevance?

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144833#Comment_82144833

They are simply using Elliott v Loake to try and trick you into thinking that the case does offer some kind of 'legal basis' for pursuing the keeper in a circumstance where the requirements of POFA cannot be met by the operator.

From their perspective, they cannot really admit that there is no legal basis for them pursuing you otherwise you could just laugh in their faces and tell them to foxtrott oscar.

RecordLover

With that I can’t see how they would even attempt to take it further then, either they try using pofa or they are basing the whole thing on a non relevant case?