Moorside Legal - LBC

Abstract97

Hi, long story short, about six months ago received four letters from UKCPS for allegedly parking at Travelyn Square in Leeds City Centre on four seperate occasions. The first three are titled "Postal - Non Pofa" and the fourth is titled "Postal - Pofa". Not entirely sure what this means.

I had pulled up on the side of a main road (wasn't a car park or parking space) to quickly grab something from a corner shop. There was absolutely no signage indicating that parking was prohibited in this area. At the end of the day it was a main road, yeah it had double yellow lines but usually that would have constituted a PCN from the council?

Anyway, I didn't bother to appeal as advice from Coupon Mad and other forum users said it would he pointless to appeal UKCPS as they reject them so I ignored every contact and letter to date. It went to Trace Debt Recovery, then Moorside Legal - all the usual threats and spiel from them, all put in a folder but ignored.

The threats got worse, they managed to find family members phone numbers and started texting them, threats about court action and balifs.

This brings us to a couple of days ago, I received the first dreaded 'Letter of Claim' I'm still awaiting the next three.



I've drafted up the following response to Moorside Legal's LBC from advice I've found on other forums and the newbies thread on this forum. Am I missing anything important here or would this suffice? Many thanks in advance.

Dear Sir(s) / Madam(s),

Your Ref. XXXXXXXXX

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: UKCPS Ltd

I refer to your "Letter Of Claim".

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

My address

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I was the registered keeper of the vehicle during the time of the alleged PCN. 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 as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. 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 and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action

2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

4. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.

7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed

10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.

11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client 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.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

Gr1pr

Its sufficient for the LoC stage,  so keep studying and following that newbies thread 

Coupon-mad

And read other Moorside Legal UKCPS claim threads ahead of yours in the process.

Abstract97

Moorside have responded to my email..

They've included pictures attached of signs that were not visible where I was parked.

We have responded to your questions in your email below.

1. An explanation of the cause of action

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

2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

Please see the attached Notice to Keeper.

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

We are instructed that a compliant PCN was sent. In accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 8 (6) "A notice sent by post is to be presumed... to have been delivered (and so “given”... on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.  

4. What the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

The PCN was issued for No Parking is permitted at any time at Trevelyan Square Leeds LS1 6HP on the XX/XX/XXXX.

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

The Terms and Conditions on which UKCPS Ltd's services are provided are clearly displayed throughout the private land. Please be advised that there are several signs within this location displaying the terms and conditions, As you breached the terms and conditions of the car park, this PCN was correctly issued. Considering the evidence, we are satisfied that the PCN has been issued in line with industry standards and is compliant with the International Parking Community’s (IPC) code of practice. The signage of the car park also complies with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice.

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.

6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.

Please see the attached images.

7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

N/A

8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.

9. A plan showing where any signs were displayed

Please see the attached signage at the location.

10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.

Please see the attached signage at the location.

11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

Please be advised that the original amount of the PCN was £100.00. As outlined in the notice, a reduced amount of £60.00 would have been accepted as full and final settlement if payment had been received within 14 days from the date of issue.

Unfortunately, as no payment was received within that time frame, the opportunity to pay the reduced amount has now expired. As a result of continued non-payment and additional charges, the balance has increased and now stands at £170.00.

12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

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.

13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

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.

Please note that we will not be addressing any further correspondence related to disputes of the same nature, as we have already provided you with a response. However, should you wish to raise a new dispute, we will investigate the matter further and respond accordingly.

 

You can make payment in the following ways:

 

Contact us on 0330 828 5850 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);

Register online at www.moorsidelegal.co.uk;

Customer Portal - Quick Pay (moorsidelegal.co.uk)

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

Coupon-mad

There was no need to ask for evidence which is why the suggested LBC reply doesn't. You added unnecessary questions. Now you have been informed about the claim when it would have been better not to have been sent this.

Await the claim form. Nothing has changed.

Abstract97

Coupon-mad said:

There was no need to ask for evidence which is why the suggested LBC reply doesn't. You added unnecessary questions. Now you have been informed about the claim when it would have been better not to have been sent this.

Await the claim form. Nothing has changed.

I did ask further up my thread if my LOC response was sufficient/correct, but hey ho. We are where we are. Thanks for your response. Its my first time receiving these types of parking fine, so please forgive me if I didnt follow the thread to a T. Unfortunately theres conflicting opinions all over the web and I wanted it to be right.

Coupon-mad

Like I say it has changed nothing but there was no need to add more to the template.