Letter of Claim Moorside Legal - worth to reply even after 30 days?

slapPCM

This ticket I "collected" last October firstly attracted some TRACE letters (as usual) and a couple of Moorside Legal letters worded just like TRACE's to which I ignored.

This one is dated on 30 April 2025, but only arrived on or after 8 May (was then away for 7 weeks or so). I had arranged my neighbour monitoring my letters, but upon hearing "Moorside Legal" I assumed it's one of those debt collect style spams, and did not ask for more details (my bad).

Upon my return yesterday, I found it's a Letter of Claim. Now obviously the 30-day replying window had long passed, but is it still worth to reply them using the template set in the Newbie thread? or should I just sit tight and wait for a court claim? is there anything else I need to do?

The letter itself is nothing interesting, just like the one posted here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6603775/letter-of-claim-moorside-legal

DE_612183

no reason not to reply, I'd do it.

slapPCM

No action needed.

Just an (late) update. I emailed them using the template (at that time) in the newbie thread on 28 June. They replied by email, shown below, on 17 September.

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

We write in response to your email

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 ipc 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

Coupon-mad

Template reply we've seen before. 

Interesting that they all say something different about the basis of the added £70 extortion, with Moorside (run by the current President of the BPA, no less) saying:

"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."

Makes no sense whatsoever!

"Without the need for debt recovery" (errrr but this is a debt recovery letter from a debt recovery law firm!). Yet apparently it "does not represent the cost of recovery".

But it's not on the signs, Moorside, so it has no deterrent value and cannot be part of the contract either.

So what is it for, if not plain moneymaking extortion (shared between Moorside and the parking firm 50/50 I believe) and a classic attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the MHCLG?