LBC - Private Parking Solutions - Gladstones

[pcnappeal]

Hi @b789

So glad to have found you here  Very grateful for your help and support so far on FTLA.

I've just had another Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. The original thread you were supporting this on is FTLA Thread.

They've asked me to respond or pay failing which they'll proceed to court so any advice is greatly appreciated.


  email.pdf (Size: 82.46 KB / Downloads: 4)
  Letter Before Claim_Redacted.pdf (Size: 1.69 MB / Downloads: 13)
  appeal response.pdf (Size: 741.43 KB / Downloads: 5)

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @pcnappeal. Unfortunately, I do not have access to FTLA, so I cannot properly review the history of this case unless you can provide a transcript of that thread.

In particular, I would need to see the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), the original appeal, any POPLA appeal and decision, and the first Letter of Claim (LoC) and any response made to that, if there has already been one. If PPS supplied an evidence pack to POPLA, I would also like to see that because I am very familiar with this location and the scam being operated there.

In the meantime, do not ignore this Letter of Claim and do not pay it. You should respond within the 30-day period stating that the debt is disputed in full.

I would suggest responding along the following lines:

The alleged debt is disputed in full.

Your client is put to strict proof of its cause of action and its entitlement to the sum claimed.

Please provide:

1. A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice/Notice to Keeper and all photographs relied upon;
   
2. Copies of all photographs showing the vehicle, signage and its position at the material time;
   
3. A site plan showing the precise location of the vehicle and every sign upon which your client relies;
   
4. A copy of the signage terms said to have formed a contract with the driver;
   
5. Evidence of your client's authority from the landholder to enter contracts with motorists and pursue parking charges in its own name at this location;
   
6. A copy of any contract or other document establishing the geographical extent of the land upon which your client was authorised to operate;
   
7. Copies of the appeal correspondence and any evidence supplied by your client to POPLA; and
   
8. A full explanation and legal basis for the additional £70 included within the £170 claimed.
   

The Letter of Claim is itself defective and fails to provide sufficient information and documentation to enable the recipient properly to understand and respond to the alleged claim. In particular, it does not adequately set out the factual and legal basis of the alleged liability or provide the documents upon which your client intends to rely.

If your client nevertheless proceeds to issue a claim without first remedying those defects and providing the information requested, the deficiencies in this Letter of Claim and your failure to comply properly with the applicable pre-action requirements will be specifically raised in the Defence.

They will also be relied upon as evidence of unreasonable conduct by both your firm and your client, including on the issue of costs and any application or submission made pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Pending provision of the above documents and information, the claim remains disputed.

I would use Gladstones' PAP reply facility, selecting that the whole debt is disputed, and retain a copy/screenshot of everything submitted.

Once you post the previous case history and documents here, we can make the response much more specific to what actually happened at Holloway Street.

[pcnappeal]

Thank you so much @b789

I thought I'd attached those but missed it. Attached the evidence pack Gladstones provided (no sitemap or agreements) and the FTLA transcript.

The attached FTLA transcript has most of the info you've requested. There was a Letter Before Claim in Nov 2025 and I responded with requesting the evidence pack. This is the second Letter Before Claim.

In summary the vehicle was never parked. As seen in the pictures, it's stopped momentarily on the road (the ignition is still on) and left in a few mins. It's also nowhere near any of the bays which have the parking sign above them.

Many thanks


  evidence_pack.pdf (Size: 1.1 MB / Downloads: 6)
  FTLA transcript.pdf (Size: 945.45 KB / Downloads: 2)

[b789]

Thank you for that. Looking at the transcript, the last communication you received was the LoC from Gladstones on or around 6th January 2026 with their "evidence" and a demand that you pay them by the 19th January.

You have now received another LoC dated 4th September for the same PCN. The "second NtK" you received was not an NtK but simply a reminder.

I would amend the earlier response to the second LoC to the following:

Subject: Response to Second Letter of Claim – Ref: [Gladstones reference]/PCN [PCN reference]

Dear Sirs,

The alleged debt is disputed in full.

This is now the second Letter of Claim issued by your firm in respect of the same Parking Charge Notice.

Your first Letter of Claim was responded to on 26 November 2025. That response expressly identified deficiencies in your pre-action correspondence and requested the key documents necessary to understand and properly evaluate your client's proposed claim.

In particular, you were asked to provide:

1. contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date and a contemporaneous site plan showing the location of those signs;
   
2. the precise contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached;
   
3. the written agreement or other evidence establishing your client's authority from the landholder to manage the relevant land, issue parking charges and pursue litigation in its own name; and
   
4. a proper breakdown and legal basis for the additional £70 added to the £100 parking charge.
   

Your subsequent response failed to remedy those deficiencies. The material supplied consisted substantially of copies of the notices and photographs relating to the vehicle. You did not provide the requested site plan, the landowner agreement or other evidence establishing your client's standing and authority, or the other key contractual material requested.

Despite that, your firm asserted that the limited material supplied was sufficient to commence proceedings. No proceedings followed.

You have now, approximately eight months later, issued a second Letter of Claim, again demanding £170, without first remedying the deficiencies previously identified or supplying the outstanding documents.

Issuing a second template Letter of Claim does not erase the previous pre-action history, nor does it provide your client with a fresh opportunity simply to disregard reasonable requests already made for documents central to the proposed claim.

The purpose of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims is to encourage early exchange of sufficient information to clarify the issues in dispute and, where possible, avoid proceedings. The Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols likewise requires parties to exchange sufficient information and relevant documents to enable each party to understand the other's position. The court may take substantive non-compliance into account both in case management and when considering costs.

Accordingly, the following material remains outstanding and must now be provided:

1. The contemporaneous site plan relied upon by your client, identifying the precise geographical extent of the land upon which Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd contends it was entitled to operate and the location of every sign upon which it intends to rely.

2. Contemporaneous photographs of the signage actually in place on 26 January 2025, together with evidence showing the location, orientation and relationship of those signs to the position of the vehicle.

3. The written agreement, contract or other documentary evidence establishing your client's authority from the landholder to manage the relevant land, enter into contracts with motorists, issue parking charges and pursue those charges through litigation in its own name.

4. Evidence defining the precise geographical extent of that authority.

5. The precise contractual term which your client alleges the driver accepted and subsequently breached.

6. A proper explanation of the contractual and legal basis for the additional £70 included within the £170 now demanded, this issue having already been expressly raised in response to your previous Letter of Claim.

7. Any other document upon which your client intends to rely in proceedings which has not already been supplied.

Your firm and your client have already been given a proper opportunity to comply with their pre-action obligations and to provide this material. The failure to do so cannot be cured simply by issuing another Letter of Claim months later.

If your client nevertheless elects to commence proceedings without first supplying the outstanding material and remedying these deficiencies, the entire pre-action history will be placed before the court. This will include:

• the deficiencies in the first Letter of Claim;
  
• the specific requests for documents made in response to it;
  
• your subsequent failure to provide those key documents;
  
• your assertion that the incomplete material supplied was nevertheless sufficient to commence litigation; and
  
• the subsequent issue of this second Letter of Claim without those deficiencies having been remedied.
  

Those matters will be specifically raised in the Defence and relied upon as evidence of unreasonable pre-action conduct by both your client and your firm.

The court is expressly entitled to take pre-action non-compliance into account, including where a party has failed to provide sufficient information to enable the objectives of the pre-action regime to be met. Available consequences include a stay for compliance and costs sanctions.

Furthermore, should the matter ultimately be allocated to the small claims track, this correspondence and the previous pre-action history will be relied upon in support of any application for costs arising from unreasonable behaviour pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

For the avoidance of doubt, the alleged debt remains disputed in full.

Your client should not commence proceedings until the outstanding documents and information identified above have been provided and there has been a proper opportunity to consider them.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Either email it to them or use their portal.

[pcnappeal]

Perfect. Thank you so much @b789

I'll get that sent across