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.

Hi, I am coming from another forum of the unresolved issue about a UKPC PCN at Friern Barnet Retail Park.

The link to the original thread is here: *click*


I have appealed the PCN and used a template provided by @b789 saying I am not obliged to provide the driver's details and below is the response I have received from them.


This my last reply on the original thread: 

"Hi, I have received this email on the 8th of January and didn't notice it until now.

It went to spam for some reason, which is the reason why I missed this email. https://ibb.co/8DcpPtLV "

Hi there

I posted on another forum about this and got some great advice but the thread seems to have gone 'cold' with no replies, but there have been some developments. Here's the current situation:

PCN issued in March 2025 - I am the keeper but wasn't the driver at the time. 
I ignored all the correspondence until suddenly I received a notice of Simple Procedure from the Sherriff Court. 
I disputed their claim and attended a case management discussion call last month. 
The solicitor (Pollock Fairbridge) did not attend the call but gave notice that they were unavailable. 
The Sherriff suggested I just pay the original principal sum of £100 to get this settled, but I said I'd prefer not to as I was not the driver and therefore not liable. 
The Sherriff warned that if we didn't settle, this could go to an evidential hearing. 
Another case management discussion has been scheduled for March 'to give both parties time to come to an agreement'. 

I emailed PF to ask them to withdraw the claim as I was not the driver. I received the following response:

Thank you for your email.
If you wish to settle this claim then our client will accept the principal sum, being £160.00.
If we are unable to agree settlement then our client has instructed that we continue with the claim. At the next Case Management Discussion we will seek an Evidential Hearing.
In the meantime, we attach a List of Evidence which we are lodging with Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

...Do I just double down and let them get to evidential hearing (would that involve legal costs?) 

I genuinely was not in the car at the time, so I don't see how they can provide evidence that I was? 

The 'evidence' they attached is copies of their correspondence (demands for money) and a photo of the car - no signs in the photo. And a copy of the wording in the car park on signage. 

I'm actually fuming, as their response is so snotty and describes the £160 as the 'principal sum' when actually that's the combination of their 'fine' plus a £60 'debt recovery fee' 

Any thoughts welcome!