We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Moorside Legal LOC yesterday, Claim Form received today.


I received a LOC from Moorside Legal yesterday (dated 7th May 2025) relating to an overstay (expired ticket) from 5th June 2019, from Alliance Parking UK Ltd.
I was about to e-mail them with the reply from the newbies thread asking for the 30 day period for debt advice (which would take it past the 6 years and therefore statute barred).
However, the post arrived today and contained claim forms (issued 16th May 2025).
They do not have appeared to have followed their own LOC to give 30 days for the 'debt' to be paid (not that I would)/response to be received.
Any advice on what I should do now?
Do I still respond to the LOC by e-mail or focus on the AOS to the Claim forms?
I assume they were trying to get in before the 6 year expiry . . .can this be used against them?
I have appealed to the landowner (twice) and had no luck there.
Thanks
Comments
-
Google the CPRs. You have 14 days to at least acknowledge a LoC, so no way they should be making a claim before 22nd May.You still need to defend using the template, but you need to formulate a new paragraph 1 asking for the claim to be struck out due to failure to adhere to CPRs. By all means state the claim is 2 weeks from being statute barred and it's a blatant attempt to avoid that by ignoring the pre-action protocols. Say you received the LoC just one day before the claim form.Ignore the LoC now it's a live claim.3
-
The pre-action protocols have no teeth. The court will never strike out a claim for not following a protocol, nor is it wrong to take steps to issue within statutory limitation without waiting to the last minute.
Ignore the letter. Defend the claim. Feel free to criticise C for a failure to deal with the dispute timeously.3 -
PampleMoose2015 said:...the post arrived today and contained claim forms (issued 16th May 2025).With a Claim Issue Date of 16th May, you have until Wednesday 4th June 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th June 2025 to file a Defence.That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.
Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.1 -
Johnersh said:The pre-action protocols have no teeth. The court will never strike out a claim for not following a protocol, nor is it wrong to take steps to issue within statutory limitation without waiting to the last minute.3
-
I completed AOS and am now working on defence.
As it is Moorside I have used the template defence and included the extra paragraphs as per guidance about the copy & paste POC.
My other main point is that there is no keeper liability as the Notice to Keeper arrived after 84 days which is outside of POFA 2012. Is the wording in para 6 below ok for this? I've included the POC and copy of NTK for info if needed.5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but the Defendant does not know who was driving given the amount of time that has passed since the allegation(s) in 2019.
6. At para 4 it is disputed Defendant is liable as Claimant did not conform with keeper liability by way of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to keeper Claimant sent to Defendant dated 28/08/2019, was 84 days after the date of allegation(s) (05/06/2019), which is outside the 56 day relevant period in Schedule 4 paragraph 8 (5). Therefore liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
Anything else you think I need to add?
Thanks0 -
I completed AOS and am now working on defence.
As it is Moorside I have used the template defence and included the extra paragraphs as per guidance about the copy & paste POC.
My other main point is that there is no keeper liability as the Notice to Keeper arrived after 84 days which is outside of POFA 2012. Is the wording in para 6 below ok for this? I've included the POC and copy of NTK for info if needed.5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but the Defendant does not know who was driving given the amount of time that has passed since the allegation(s) in 2019.
6. At para 4 it is disputed Defendant is liable as Claimant did not conform with keeper liability by way of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to keeper Claimant sent to Defendant dated 28/08/2019, was 84 days after the date of allegation(s) (05/06/2019), which is outside the 56 day relevant period in Schedule 4 paragraph 8 (5). Therefore liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
Anything else you think I need to add?
Please show the back of the NTK.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Any breach of the PAPDC can be argued and there are binding appellate cases you can refer to, including, but not limited to:
Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 [1], Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872 [2] and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 [3] in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
[1] bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/3529.html
[2] bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2003/2872.html
[3] bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/855.html
1 -
@PampleMoose2015, I just sent you a DM0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards