Trolling/Taking down Moorside

doubledotcom

this is the generic response I give to the Keeper when responding to an LoC from this firm of utter morons:

Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.

I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

patient_dream

Soulnds like MOORSIDE and the others who ply their trade with ROGUE TRADERS

Smelly_Dog

Brilliant. You have a gift with words! Thank you for fighting the good fight!

prowla

Remember they're there to help you resolve this matter quickly and easily. :-)

SayNoToPCOs

1505grandad said:

"Moorside Legal add “debt recovery” fees to the balances of alleged debtors. This £70 charge is included in the total balance and has no basis in UK law, being simply the limit imposed by the various Parking Operating Companies’ regulatory bodies such as the IPC and POPLA."

An observation  -  should POPLA be BPA?

Yes, thank you.

James_Poisson said:

"This £70 charge is included in the total balance and has no basis in UK law, being simply the limit imposed by the various Parking Operating Companies’ regulatory bodies such as the IPC and POPLA".

This should be changed it simply isn't true, they are nothing more than approved trade clubs not "regulatory bodies", the latter would infer that they could include the £70 charge if they had authority but they don't. 

Their COP is just made up as a guide to suite their agenda to favour wherever possible their paying members.

Absolutely right yes, I'll amend it to clarify that these are unregulated trade bodies.

chrisw said:

Many of the defences depend on the inadequacies of the legal bodies. If they are forced to up their game, wouldn't this lead to less opportunities to get the cases dismissed?

They'll never up their game. Their business model is that most people will either cave and pay them to make them go away, or not bother to represent themselves in court so end up with a judgement by default. The money isn't in it for them to actually invest any effort into their cases. I'm just happy to make them have to waste some money on this and if it results in a no-ethics "solicitor" losing their job, all the better.

Car1980 said:

My partner is a solicitor and reliably informs me that any level of SRA investigation is a thoroughly unpleasant experience 

I presume your partner is going to reply on their headed paper and make a number of demands under the PAPs?

Finding out that they are threatening to sue a represented person will surprise them.

Unfortunately she doesn't want her name attached to this particular vendetta...

doubledotcom

I've just started reporting some of the parking firms and their ATAs to the CMA under the DMCC. Very easy and simple to do.

You can report the morons at Moorside and any other bulk litigation firm under the DMCC if what you’re complaining about is consumer-facing conduct (e.g. misleading or aggressive debt collection letters, threats of CCJs or costs that don’t exist, fake “official” appearance, misleading statements about legal position, obstructive complaint processes etc.), and that conduct is part of a wider pattern affecting lots of people, not just a one-off spat on a single claim.

The DMCC’s unfair commercial practices regime applies to any “trader”, which includes a law firm or bulk-litigator when they’re acting as a business sending debt demands to consumers. So if Moorside’s letters or processes are misleading consumers about what they must do, what powers the firm has, the size of the debt, the consequences of non-payment, or systematically ignoring or obstructing complaints to nudge people into paying, then that can be framed as an unfair commercial practice and you can report it to the CMA in exactly the same way as you would report a parking company.

The CMA is more likely to act where there’s sector-wide harm or a clear pattern (e.g. many people getting templated, misleading letters), not just one litigant’s bad behaviour in a single case.

So, you can fold Moorside Legal into a DMCC-themed CMA complaint if you can show their letters and tactics are part of a broader, consumer-facing pattern alongside their parking clients. It just needs every person who receives one of their stupid LoCs to report them.

LoneStarState

doubledotcom said:

The CMA is more likely to act where there’s sector-wide harm or a clear pattern (e.g. many people getting templated, misleading letters), not just one litigant’s bad behaviour in a single case.

I think this could work with the IPC and IAS stitch up that is nothing more than a glorified conveyor belt to upping the PCN amount to £170.  Essentially fraud by false representation as there is no independence or impartiality and is a sector wide harm on consumers enabled by the DVLA.

I wonder if the CMA looks to whether public organisations such as the DVLA that are facilitating such sector wide failures can be investigated.

SayNoToPCOs

LoneStarState said:

doubledotcom said:

The CMA is more likely to act where there’s sector-wide harm or a clear pattern (e.g. many people getting templated, misleading letters), not just one litigant’s bad behaviour in a single case.

I think this could work with the IPC and IAS stitch up that is nothing more than a glorified conveyor belt to upping the PCN amount to £170.  Essentially fraud by false representation as there is no independence or impartiality and is a sector wide harm on consumers enabled by the DVLA.

I wonder if the CMA looks to whether public organisations such as the DVLA that are facilitating such sector wide failures can be investigated.

I reckon you could drag the ICO into it as well for unlawful processing/sharing of data.
Might as well hit them from all angles.

1505grandad

The usual BAU bs:-

https://ico.org.uk/media2/migrated/4020676/dvla-opinion-20220613.pdf

"If the DVLA breached the DPA 2018, why is the Commissioner not taking enforcement action?"

Coupon-mad

doubledotcom said:

I've just started reporting some of the parking firms and their ATAs to the CMA under the DMCC. Very easy and simple to do.

Great! More people should be doing this.