Moorside Legal - Letter of Claim - None Specific answers to Template Email

Coupon-mad

Moorside Legal then?

You are nearly out of time so I really hope you did the AOS already (to extend your defence deadline)  or you'll possibly have a CCJ already.

See the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

You don't seem to have read that or used the Template Defence? There's a special version for Moorside cases. Takes mere minutes. Your para 6 should not talk about facts. Do not respond to what ISN'T pleaded in the POC.

RandomGuy2024

Yes, Moorside Legal.
Yes I completed the Acknowledgement of Service on 02/04/2025
Yes I've added the 1-6 of the "Gladstones, CEL (in-house only) and Moorside Legal claims" specific template, and then from Paragraph 4 of the standard template defence and renumbered, total of 34.
I've added my bits in Point 6 "(Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)"

Ok, I thought Point 6 should be as detailed as possible. I've removed everything apart from the below

6.      (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

·        Particulars of Claim

o   Point 1: Address of Car Park is incorrect, it cannot be in the City of Salford and in the City of Manchester

o   Point 2: The Parking Charge Notice cannot be issued on the same day as the Parking Charge as the driver is given up to 72hours after parking to pay.

The parking took place on 01/03/2024 therefore the Parking Charge could not be issued until at least 03/03/2024

o   Point 3: Breach of the Terms on NCP Signs - Signage provided by NCP is incorrect and not representative of signage in the Car Park

o   Point 4: NCP Terms & Conditions do not state payment of a Parking Charge Notice is required within 28days

Coupon-mad

Issue Date was the 28th March 2025

You could also add that the POC misleads the court that the 'total of the PCN' was £170 which is untrue and would be impossible for a PCN on private land.

patient_dream

Your post back in November where you show the reply from Moorside

They say ... "£70 does not represent the cost of recovery"
Later vthey say ..."there are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services"

Is it debt recovery ... YES AND IT'S FAKE

They make note that both ATA's are approved by government.  At the time that is correct but nowhwere will you find the government approved a fake scam

The £70 scam is known as the OSNER scam and the scam was approved by both ATA's, most Judges know this hence if you lost the case, doubtful, the fake will not be allowed and normally a judge will not allow interest at 8% .... If they did allow it, we should all be banking with the courts ???

Moorside are not an authority in parking charges, there is a higher being, the Supreme Court. ParkingEye v Barry beavis

The Supreme Court ruled the parking charge was set to operate the scheme.
No fake add-ons

It seems that Moorside do not understand this but most court Judges do. And, as said above, Moorside are misleading you and the court and that is serious for Moorside

We have recently seen the first Discontinuation from Moorside. They are new kids on the block and we expect many more to follow, just like DCBL

You have been givrn a wealth of knowlege from this forim, please use it

RandomGuy2024

Added the part of about the Total of the PCN.

Anything else to add?

As always, I appreciate all the help