Letter of Claim - UKCPS - Moorside Legal - Parking 'No Stopping' Gateway House Manchester

nigelbb

Coupon-mad said:

I think if you emailed them then it is OK for them to reply that way.  Do nothing. Wait.

This 'explanation' for adding £70 per PCN makes no sense whatsoever:

"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."

Eh?!

The 'explanation' for adding £70 per PCN makes perfect sense as it reveals the true intent of the added sum. It is "in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge". In other words it's just the old £100 reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days scam. They are admitting that the extra £70 is a penalty intended to force early payment & nothing to do with costs of debt recovery.

Coupon-mad

Agentsmith162 said:

Hello all, 

I have been going through the motions like so many others in relation to 'No Stopping' allegation at Gateway House, Manchester Piccadilly Station. 

I have received x2 PCN (Parking Charge Notices) from UKCPS for alleged 'No Stopping' in a controlled area at Gateway House, Manchester Piccadilly. I have appealed both counts due to inappropriate signage on the site and that it would be required to stop the vehicle to read, understand and accept any terms that would be applicable. I also contested that I was not the driver and refused to give them details of the driver (who is a blue badge holder).

As we did not see signs, nor were any double red lines or road surface markings indicating where any potential controlled areas would be, we had no reason to believe we were in any breach of contract. 

As part of my appeal, I requested that they furnish me with Terms and conditions which were not supplied. Both my appeals to UKCPS appeal responses were both were 'not upheld' as expected - as per above, I believe they did not provide me with Terms and Conditions. 

In both alleged instances lasted around 1 minute or less - one even allegedly lasted 30 seconds.

Furthermore, when dealing with Trace (Debt Collection Agency) - I specifically told them in writing that they were not allowed to use my personal information to contact me (such as telephone numbers, emails, visiting me at my home or place of work)... 

however, when Moorside Legal took on my case, they contacted my work mobile number which transferred the call to my Business Webex and my MD received the call which caused me unbelievable embarrassment.

I have complained to Moorside Legal that they breached Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 however, this was also not upheld as they believe that instruction was never sent to Trace - but I have it in writing to them clearly instructing them they could not use this number.

-------------------------------

UPDATE FROM MOORSIDE:

Agentsmith162 said:

This was the latest response - Our client: UKCPS Ltd

We write further to your recent correspondence.

We can confirm that our case management system is now up to date with your correct address.

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 International Parking Community 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

------------------

They seem to continually think this relates to a car park... I never entered a car park, it was a private service road.

Further to this, I actually issued my response back at the end of November yet I have only just received their response yesterday.

Also, they have not addressed VAT and they have not given correct figures (it was £140 not £70). 

I contest the signage is prominent at all - I will make this case in court if indeed they're daring enough to send me.

Their correspondence is so inconsistent I feel like they have no idea about any details relating to what UKCPS have assigned them for.  Cowboys!

Umkomaas said:

It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice.

I guess this might have slipped under @Coupon-mad and the Steering Group's radar! 🧐 🤣

Coupon-mad said:

Especially interesting that this misleading lie comes from Moorside Legal, part of the group of companies whose Director is the Vice President of the BPA.

Ignoring the clear conflict of interests for a minute, you'd think he'd know better. You'd think he'd have learnt something in life by now...

...Especially after he suddenly stepped down as BPA president last time (just a few years ago) after reportedly saying something he thought was funny but was forced to regret and apologise for.

I say 'reportedly' but it was the BPA's own publication Parking News that exposed it - he apologised and it was said he undertook disability training - and brought it into the public domain! 

Moorside Legal are still sending the same rubbish now, effectively lying to victims that the self-serving Code and the added £70 per PCN (referred to in the same sentence) is 'Government approved':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81367491/#Comment_81367491

Did you hear any more about your case?

Mumof3grownups

Hi OP. I am in a similar situation. Have followed all the advice on this forum and two years on now have an LOC from Moorside Legal.
just interested to know if they did actually take you to court and what was the outcome?

Le_Kirk

Mumof3grownups said:

Hi OP. I am in a similar situation. Have followed all the advice on this forum and two years on now have an LOC from Moorside Legal.
just interested to know if they did actually take you to court and what was the outcome?

The OP has not been active on the forum since January; it might be best if you send a message using the envelope symbol top right of the forum.