Moorside legal, what next?

adam1415

Good morning all,

Nothing new and extraordinary here. I have appealed against pcm uk ltd, now got letter before claim. I have responded to moorside based on knowledge and advice i gained in here. Their reply, i believe is standard, yet I am stuck and don't know what to do next.

Initially, I have not received any letter of claim, yet it was indicated in the email it had been sent!! I rang them 2 weeks after this email (i was on holiday), so they sent me a copy via email.

I am not sure if I can post my response to them at this stage. However, I have not disclosed the driver, I have asked for pics, contract between landowner and pcm uk ltd, breakdown of costs etc.

They (moorside) failed to provide clear, accurate pictures of t&c signs as requested (very blurry and illegible). I think they copy-pasted from pcm.

See attached.

By entering and parking the vehicle on our clients 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. due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions our client has issued the pcn.

It is unclear why you would need to inspect any contract between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, nor will we be providing this.

In regards to the additional £70.00, below is a breakdown:

Why is there an additional £70 added to the PCN amount?

Because the Parking Charge remained unpaid after it was due. Our Client made you aware that additional charges could be applied to the Parking Charge if it was not paid on time. They informed you of this on the parking signs and on any notices either placed on the vehicle or sent to you by post.

How is the £70 made up?

£70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Association 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 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 is a charge levied by our Client (the Parking Operator) to protect their legitimate interests. (Our Client’s legitimate interests for charging and additional fee is to encourage payment when the Parking Charge becomes due and to avoid the need for debt recovery.)

Does the £70 represent the cost of recovery? (or “loss to the operator”)

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. Ther are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.

What are the costs of recovery / can you provide a breakdown of costs?

The cost to our client for our debt resolution services are commercially confidential and I am unable to disclose that information. 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 Association 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.

Do you charge VAT to your Client for your debt recovery services? / Is the VAT included or excluded in your fees to your client?

We adhere to HMRC rules on the treatment of VAT and as such we do charge our client VAT on top of our service fees.

We ask that you make the full payment of £170.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.

1505grandad

" International Parking Association" - oh dear - shows how incompetent they are.

Gr1pr

Sit and wait for Moorside Legal to issue a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL to arrive in the post in due course

adam1415

This is an email I received today. It looks like automatic response but am pretty sure they are planning court case. They keep nagging me to pay 170 pounds and to respond. I have already responded and received a very poor reply with explanation, with 3 images, one blurry (t&c sign so blurry it wax completely illegible).

I was reading in many places that the mediation is offered prior court. Do I receive a letter with this?

I have emailed also a land owner but until now no response. The incident happened on February and I haven't got any receipts to prove I was shopping there.

Many thanks

Le_Kirk

Standard frightener stuff to try to get you to pay before they invest more time and money in a court claim.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82110535#Comment_82110535

Keep following the above advice

Mediation comes AFTER a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL is issued

Study a few ongoing cases from this year, to understand the timeline

patient_dream

It really does NOT make any difference what Moorside say about the fake £70

The fact is that the BPA and IPC are unregulated members clubs and the fake £70 is called the OSNER SCAM ?

OSNER from the debt collector ZZPS and the BPA dreamed up this fake

With Moorside supporting this, they are applying DOUBLE RECOVERY which the courts do not allow and most judges will deduct it anyway and that is because the fake £70 is not a law, it is designed to extort more money from the consumer.

Of course Moorside are ignoring the Supreme Court v Parkingeye ruling which clearly states "THE PARKING CHARGE IS SET TO COVER THE OPERATING COSTS" …… Moorside should be taking notice of the Supreme court rather than two unregulated members clubs who fabricated the FAKE

You do not owe £170, your ticket is £100

Do you have a picture of the sign or can you get one please and upload it here

Car1980

Don't forget that these usually end in discontinuation.

adam1415

This is the exact image they sent me when I requested photopgrapic evidence from them. Noone knows where and when it has been taken. Very illegible, blurry. And it is a screenshot of something.

patient_dream

HOW DAFT sending you a blurred picture which could be anywhere ?

A judge would not be pleased with such flimsy evidence

Ask Moorside for a REAL photo and where it is located at that car park

Failure to provide proper evidence. If the fake £70 is hidden in the tiny unreadable print.

It has been said that the first point you can see and read forms a contract. In your case it is £100 and NOT £170

£100 IS CLEAR ON THE SIGN

We look forward to either a judge spanking Moorside and awarding you costs or they discontinue. Either way, for fakery, the CMA should be informed

adam1415

I think it is best not to entertain them anymore. The judge, if it goes to court, will see the email, the photo, etc. The judge will also see that my vehicle was not park outside of a bay. It may have been parked uniquely 😎 but not outside of a bay.

Furthermore, it is a screenshot. That means, the original photo from PCM files must be the same.