Pursued by Moorside Legal

Coupon-mad

But hang on, in Moorside cases you DO NOT tell the story. That's the point of the Chan/Akande para 3 instead.

Your story isn't needed because the template defence already covers unclear signs anyway. You then expand on that in your later WS.

shockedandappalled said:

I forgot to include a question I wanted to raise. I have read that Mike Marrs is CEO of the BPA and UKCP is member of the BPA. He is also CEO of Trace and Moorside Legal. Can I make something of that, legally?

To my mind it is clearly indicative of a planned programme to bully, coerce and extract money from people, many of whom would pay up because they are intimidated and do not want the conflict.

You can mention those points at WS stage.

And evidence the lack of signs because the Template Defence paves the way.

Gr1pr

Which is what I was recommending,  leave the story until the WS

Coupon-mad

Yep and once the defence is in, the OP can then concentrate on the Public Consultation!

shockedandappalled

This month, we need you:

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do the government's Public Consultation if you haven't done it yet. Their proposals are wrong. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline! Just 2 weeks left but please don't rush it. You can do some then save it and come back to it as you have time.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that.

So to try to help, I've written some guidance on that thread.

Any questions on the Consultation please ask - on the dedicated thread - but I've covered up to question 20 already in that first post, openly telling everyone what I'm going to put and/or what sort of evidence you might wish to use for your response, if you agree with what we'll be saying from our experience.

Whilst your answers must of course be your own, there are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people may not think of without our guidance because we see cases every day and we know the legal background. 

However, people like you have lived & breathed the intimidation, greed and unfairness first hand so your voice is needed!

shockedandappalled

Moorside have responded to my defence, below. Form N180 was included with their email. I’d be grateful for further advice at this point. 

It is your responsibility as a motorist to review the terms and conditions and choose whether you can comply with the same, before you park a vehicle. Our Client has provided the benefit of parking on private land, in return for compliance with the terms and conditions. By parking without dispalying a valid permit to park, you are in breach of the terms and conditions and our Client is entitled to seek repayment for the debt due.

 

The Parking Charge is not a penalty. Our Client is not required to establish loss, nor is it intended to be a 'threat'. The Parking Charge is in place to encourage users of the private land to comply with the terms and conditions, which ensures efficient and safe management of the car park for all users.   

  
In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible. 

Gr1pr

Standard stuff,  see the 8 steps in the defence template thread, read step 2 and then slap your forehead,  lol

Then keep following the 8 steps,  checking your MCOL claim history weekly too ( like a bank account )

patient_dream

Much ado reply from Moorside

No mention of the scam amount they added then ?

Coupon-mad

shockedandappalled said:

Moorside have responded to my defence, below. Form N180 was included with their email. I’d be grateful for further advice at this point. 

It is your responsibility as a motorist to review the terms and conditions and choose whether you can comply with the same, before you park a vehicle. Our Client has provided the benefit of parking on private land, in return for compliance with the terms and conditions. By parking without dispalying a valid permit to park, you are in breach of the terms and conditions and our Client is entitled to seek repayment for the debt due.

 

The Parking Charge is not a penalty. Our Client is not required to establish loss, nor is it intended to be a 'threat'. The Parking Charge is in place to encourage users of the private land to comply with the terms and conditions, which ensures efficient and safe management of the car park for all users.     

In view of the above, our Client is satisfied that you are liable for the full amount of the Claim, and we urge you to make payment as soon as possible. 

This is already in the first 8 steps and is unimportant. No need to show us the expected response you already read about in the Template Defence steps.

Gentle nudge: Only ten days or do to do the Government survey if you haven't already. It takes a few hours, just so you know. Hence the guidance to try to help. 

shockedandappalled

I have now received form N149A from the CNBC. I also have email copy of Moorside’s N180. In completing my own N180 should I agree or disagree with the statement saying the case is ‘suitable for determination without a hearing’? I’m assuming I would want to insist on a hearing if it came to it, Yes? 

Moorside wanted service by email and I requested documents by post. Subsequently, they sent me their previously emailed letter stating their clients Directions Qestionnaire was included, but failed to include it, of which I have formed them by email. 

Gr1pr

Yes

Just follow the advice in the first 4 steps in the defence template thread 

Download the N180 DQ document from the government website,  fill it in as guided in the 8 steps and email it 

Coupon-mad

Every question in the DQ us already covered in the guidance in the first 8 steps.