Hello

To @b789  

Thank you

My original thread: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...#msg109341

Since you left, no one seems to want to help me over there.

I would be grateful if you could continue assisting me with this case.

To summarise

I have received 2 LOC 1 LBC

No visible confines impeded in enforcement officers photo.
Driver has image of the officer taking pictures, showing an empty car park. So no claim that the driver has cost them business.
Photos taken over the span of one minute by enforcement officer.
Vehicle can be seen running in photos driver took of officer, possible to claim PCM tried to trap driver as driver was parking

Latest status

Moorside responded to my email

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). 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, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the 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 very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.

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


1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the £70 add‑on.


These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).

Your letter’s attempt at intimidation

I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.

To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.

Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:

• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.


If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[img][/img]

https://ibb.co/qGsmTGq
https://ibb.co/60kfJpWC

What should I do now?

Every civil claim begins with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). They are not a formality. They define the case the claimant is bringing, the legal basis relied upon, and the factual allegations that must be answered. If the Particulars are defective, vague or non-compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs), the entire claim rests on unstable ground.

In private parking litigation, this point is routinely overlooked. Many claims are issued using standardised, formulaic wording that asserts the existence of a “contract” and a “breach” without properly identifying what agreement is relied upon, how it was formed, or what specific terms were allegedly broken. Defendants are then expected to respond to a case that has not been properly articulated.

The High Court decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is a reminder that this is not acceptable pleading. It reinforces a fundamental procedural principle: where a claim is based on an agreement, the claimant must clearly state whether that agreement is written, oral, or made by conduct, and must plead the required particulars for that category. Failure to do so is not a minor drafting defect; it is a failure to comply with the rules governing how contractual claims must be brought.

For anyone defending a private parking claim — or advising on one — understanding the importance of robust, rule-compliant Particulars of Claim is essential. The adequacy of the pleading is often the first, and sometimes the most powerful, line of defence.

The decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is procedurally significant because it reinforces strict compliance with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 where a claim is based on an agreement. Although it arose in a construction context, the principles are directly applicable to private parking claims, which are almost invariably pleaded as contractual claims.

The core procedural framework is set out at paragraph 42:

Quote:“The rules and Practice Direction together provide that the Particulars of Claim must set out a concise statement of the claimant’s case and, where it is based on an agreement, must provide the particulars or details specified in the Practice Direction. It is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out the claimant’s case as to whether the agreement is oral or in writing or made by conduct or some combination.”

• If the claim is based on a written agreement, a copy of the contract or the documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the Particulars of Claim.
  
• If the claim is based on an oral agreement, the Particulars should set out the words used and state by whom, to whom, when and where they were spoken.
  
• If the claim is based on an agreement by conduct, the Particulars must specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.
  

• “The Defendant entered into a contract by parking.”
  
• “The terms were displayed on signage.”
  
• “The Defendant breached the terms.”
  

1. State whether the alleged agreement is said to be written (the signage), oral, or by conduct.
   
2. Attach or serve the written contractual terms relied upon (that is, the full signage wording).
   
3. Particularise the conduct said to constitute acceptance.
   
4. Identify the specific term said to have been breached.
   
5. Identify clearly who the contracting parties were, particularly where the claim is against a registered keeper.
   

• The Particulars disclose no properly pleaded cause of action because they do not identify the nature of the alleged agreement.
  
• The claimant has failed to comply with PD16 paragraph 7.
  
• The court should strike out the Particulars or order Further and Better Particulars before the defendant is required to plead substantively.
  

I found out that you've started a new forum @b789. Thanks so much for helping!

My original FTLA thread here - https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...ement-/30/

Recently I actually received 2 replies from noreply@moorsidelegal.co.uk. They sent the second reply 6 days later because the first got the wrong parking company.
And the original PCN (High Path Estate, SW19) with some photos and our previous appeal were attached in their replies.

They claimed "The terms and conditions were clearly displayed in prominent places within the car park" - but again as I appealed before it is not true:

"There is no entrance sign. And the only sign that appears to relate to the car park is tiny and practically hidden, not placed in close proximity (but about 25 feet away from the parking spaces), i.e., the tiny one on the building behind the trees and green space, not obvious at all. The font size is too small to be able to signify it relates to the car park. So motorists cannot be expected to read a sign that they did not see because of its distance from the car park and because it is obscured by a tree which had a lot more leaves on it when the PCN was issued compared to the picture they showed as evidence (there is only one taken by them in winter 2019 when tree leaves already fell off)."

What can we do next?

=====
First reply from 11th Feb below, which had the wrong parking company - Alliance Parking:

"
We write in relation to the above matter.

Moorside Legal acts on behalf of Alliance Parking as an external debt recovery agent for legal action. Communication between Moorside Legal and Alliance Parking typically relates to case progression, operational instructions, and status updates. These exchanges concern the management of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a business‑to‑business standpoint.

Because this communication does not contain your personal data nor does it identify you directly or indirectly, it does not fall within the scope of personal data as defined under the UK GDPR.

Under the UK GDPR, organisations are required to disclose personal data, not operational records or internal communications. Any correspondence between Moorside Legal and Alliance Parking that relates purely to process, case management, or administrative instructions is considered business information, not personal data.

As required under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and in line with ICO guidance, the purposes for which we process your personal data are to manage and enforce parking terms and conditions. The categories of personal data we hold include vehicle registration details, keeper details obtained from the DVLA, and correspondence history.

Please be advised that the help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is not monitored. Accordingly, we advise that you register on our Customer Portal using the link below:
? https://portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
Should you choose not to utilise the Portal, please direct all future correspondence to dpo@apn.co.uk.

Our Privacy Policy outlines where we collect personal data from and the lawful basis on which we may process it. You can read more about how and why we hold and process your personal data via the following link:  https://moorsidelegal.co.uk/privacy-policy/

If you need any assistance, feel free to contact us on 0330 822 9950.

Please see the attached PCN, which was correctly issued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This legislation allows us to hold the registered keeper liable for the full outstanding balance if driver details are not provided.

To view the supporting photographic evidence, kindly visit the link below and quote reference ******:
?  https://www.pay-my-pcn.co.uk/live-3sc-user/

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 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.

You have already made representation to our client, who have responded accordingly. We cannot overturn their decision.

In our client’s letter notifying you of the rejection of your appeal, you were advised of the option to escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudication Service administered by our client’s Accredited Trade Association. As your appeal was also rejected at that stage, we must inform you that all avenues of appeal have now been exhausted.

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.

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.

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.

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, nor could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.


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


You can make payment in the following ways: 
• Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
• portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
• https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay


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. 
"

=====
Second one from 17th Feb that they realised the inaccuracy and tried to rectify with the correct company - Parking Control Management UK Limited:

"
We write in relation to the above matter.

Please kindly disregard our previous email, as it contained inaccuracies. We apologise for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused.

Moorside Legal acts on behalf of Parking Control Management UK Limited as an external debt recovery agent for legal action. Communication between Moorside Legal and Parking Control Management UK Limited typically relates to case progression, operational instructions, and status updates. These exchanges concern the management of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a business‑to‑business standpoint.

Because this communication does not contain your personal data nor does it identify you directly or indirectly, it does not fall within the scope of personal data as defined under the UK GDPR.

Under the UK GDPR, organisations are required to disclose personal data, not operational records or internal communications. Any correspondence between Moorside Legal and Parking Control Management UK Limited that relates purely to process, case management, or administrative instructions is considered business information, not personal data.

As required under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and in line with ICO guidance, the purposes for which we process your personal data are to manage and enforce parking terms and conditions. The categories of personal data we hold include vehicle registration details, keeper details obtained from the DVLA, and correspondence history.

Please be advised that the help@moorsidelegal.co.uk mailbox is not monitored. Accordingly, we advise that you register on our Customer Portal using the link below:

? https://portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk

Should you choose not to utilise the Portal, please direct all future correspondence to dpo@apn.co.uk.

Our Privacy Policy outlines where we collect personal data from and the lawful basis on which we may process it. You can read more about how and why we hold and process your personal data via the following link:  https://moorsidelegal.co.uk/privacy-policy/

If you need any assistance, feel free to contact us on 0330 822 9950.

Please see the attached PCN, which was correctly issued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This legislation allows us to hold the registered keeper liable for the full outstanding balance if driver details are not provided.

To view the supporting photographic evidence, kindly visit the link below and quote reference ******:

? https://www.pay-my-pcn.co.uk/live-3sc-user/

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 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.

You have already made representation to our client, who have responded accordingly. We cannot overturn their decision.

In our client’s letter notifying you of the rejection of your appeal, you were advised of the option to escalate the matter to an Independent Adjudication Service administered by our client’s Accredited Trade Association. As your appeal was also rejected at that stage, we must inform you that all avenues of appeal have now been exhausted.

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.

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.

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.

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, nor could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.


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


You can make payment in the following ways: 
• Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00);
• portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portal
• https://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay


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. 
"

Hi Everyone.
I'm carrying this thread over from FTLA

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...k-croydon/

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Control Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 01 May 1925. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as valley Leisure park, London, CR0 4YA.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Unsure

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

Assessor summary of your case.

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. • No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. • Signage incapable of forming a contract. • No evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs at the car park which state failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 parking charge…All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays. The appellant explains the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012 as it does not state the period of parking. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. The appellant advises there is no evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period. The operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. The Code also stipulates the consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises. In this case, the vehicle was captured on site parked not parked correctly within the markings of a bay. A consideration period is to allow drivers to decide whether or not to park. The images show the driver not at the vehicle nor at any signage. As such, I am satisfied the consideration period ended, and the driver did not park in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant states the signage is incapable of forming a contract. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. The appellant explains there is no evidence of landowner authority. Within the motorist’s comments, the appellant advises the contract is heavily redacted and does not Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The parking operator has provided a signed contract which shows the operator has landowner authority for the site from the landowner. Although the Single Code outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked outside the markings of the bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Tuesday, 10 February 2026, deemed service Sunday, 15 February 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Sunday, 01 March 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Sunday, 15 March 2026.

Additional notes provided:
The years in the above forms were not working properly. I could only type 26 for the year instead of 2026.
I have edited these manually now.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I hope this form was filed out ok.


Kind Regards

If ever a bottom dwelling firm of ex-clampers deserved their cummupance…

The CMA has imposed a £473,000 penalty on Euro Car Parks for failing to respond to a notice that legally required the company to provide information.

• The penalty is the first issued under the CMA’s new fining powers
  
• Information notices are often used to gather evidence as part of assessing whether the CMA should open an investigation – it is a legal obligation to comply with such notices, they are not optional
  
• The CMA has not opened an investigation into whether Euro Car Parks has infringed consumer protection law and no assumption should be made that the business has done so
  

Quote:We are an evidence-based authority, and information notices are essential tools that help us understand the facts and get to the bottom of potential infringements of the law. It is a legal obligation to comply with them – they are not optional.

This is the first time we’ve used our new powers to fine a company for failing to respond to such a notice – and it sends a clear message: firms that don’t reply to our requests or refuse to comply risk facing penalties like this one.

Hello,

I started a thread in a different forum but would like to continue it here, since the responsiveness in the other forum dried up.

NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool

I don't think there is anything to do until DCB Legal reply.

Thanks

Hello again b789. 

You might remember me from ftla. 

Thought you should see this to forestall the same thing happening to other enquirers:

https://ibb.co/27wKL96Y

The gamble didn't pay off this time, but it was worth a punt - just about.

Dear team

I’m hoping you can help please - my mum received a court letter last year and i received some very helpful advise on how to respond. Link here - link

however:
1. still no response on the court case since the transfer to my local court 
2. we’ve received another letter - a new claim around the same time but for different parking tickets. 

should i:
- chase the court to find the latest on the existing claim? 
- for the new claim, follow the same process as i did for the existing claim?


new claim:

https://ibb.co/zTCMXPdv
https://ibb.co/qLwGKmKd
https://ibb.co/9HDVyrxk

Hi, firstly, thank you for all your advice to date on the FTLA site, where you have previously advised me I believe. I have just made a donation to this site to say thank you for the time you have spent advising me.

I am the owner of a vehicle which received three CNs from VCS in July 2024 for stopping three times in 13 minutes at Bristol airport. 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...l-airport/

The court date is 24th February and I would be grateful for any advice as to anything else I should be prepared for on the day. I have submitted my witness statement and it can be seen in the attached link. I have received advice on the other site but would appreciate your views if you would like to offer them as you have been kindly advising me from the beginning.

The WS from the claimant is here in Documents One, two and three:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folde...vvHQMCIAWi

I was supposed to submit my WS by 20th January but did not do so until 2nd February.

Many thanks

Hi, I had unresolved issue from another forum which the link to is here: *click*

PCN was received in London, Beckton Retail Park on 27/05/2024.

I have done everything that was advised by @b789 and received this on the 30th of January: https://ibb.co/hxfV4qLg

I am seeking help for my next steps.