Uxbridge Industrial Estate

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @Stuart. I have now had a chance to review the thread that you originally started over on FTLA. I can see the usual fob off from the DVLA and the utterly embarrassing assessment by POPLA.

You should not be overly concerned by the arrival of a Letter of Claim (LoC) from Gladstones. Any claim they issue is almost certainly going to be defective because Gladstones never seem capable of complying properly with CPR 16.4(1)(a). They habitually churn out vague, generic, incoherent particulars that fail to set out the facts on which the claimant relies. That is not a maybe. That is what they do. It is their standard business model. They issue first and appear to hope that proper particulars can somehow be invented later. That is not compliant pleading and it is not how litigation is supposed to work. They are utterly incompetent.

On top of that, the LoC itself is not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). It does not properly set out the basis of the alleged debt with the required clarity, nor does it provide the necessary documents and information to enable a proper understanding of the claim. The purpose of the response is therefore not to beg Gladstones to reconsider. It is to put them firmly on notice that their pre-action conduct is deficient, that their client’s case appears fundamentally weak on the merits, and that if they are foolish enough to issue proceedings anyway, those failures will be pleaded and relied upon.

There is absolutely no need to ask for a 30 day hold. That is only relevant where a defendant is actually seeking debt advice. If that is not the position, then asking for a hold is pointless. Why ChatGPT included it is a mystery. It should not be there.

The suggested response should be as follows:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Letter of Claim
Reference: [insert reference]

I am the registered keeper. I dispute the alleged debt in full. There is no admission as to the identity of the driver.

Your client’s own evidence appears to show only an approximately 44-second observation. That is wholly insufficient to establish that any driver had a fair opportunity to locate, read, understand and accept any alleged contractual terms before leaving. On that basis, no contract could have been formed, no contractual liability arose, and no sum is owed.

Further, your client’s Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. In particular, it failed to specify the land with sufficient clarity, failed to specify any period of parking, and failed properly to identify the creditor.

The location given was a broad industrial estate reference spanning multiple roads and an incorrect postcode, rather than a properly specified location. The notice also relied only on a single time rather than any actual period of parking. In addition, the wording did not clearly identify the creditor as required.

Further, the signage relied upon is prohibitive in nature, stating in substance that parking, waiting, loading and unloading are not permitted. Such wording is not an offer capable of contractual acceptance. If your client’s case is instead put on the basis of trespass, then your client is required to prove full landowner authority to pursue such a cause of action in its own name.

This letter also constitutes a formal request for documents and information. I require the following:

1. A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper and all correspondence relied upon.
   
2. All photographs relied upon, in original sequence and with timestamps.
   
3. Full observation notes or warden logs.
   
4. A precise site plan identifying the exact alleged location, together with an explanation of the postcode discrepancy.
   
5. Copies of all signage relied upon, together with a plan showing where each sign was located at the material time.
   
6. A full unredacted copy of the contract or chain of authority showing that your client had authority at the material time to operate on the relevant land and to issue and pursue charges in its own name.
   
7. Confirmation of the legal basis of the proposed claim, namely whether it is alleged to sound in contract, trespass, or otherwise.
   
8. A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed, including the legal basis for each element over and above the principal parking charge.
   
9. If your client intends to rely on keeper liability, a full explanation as to how it is said that the Notice to Keeper complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
   

Until that information is provided, the matter is not sufficiently particularised for any meaningful substantive response.

If your client issues proceedings without first providing the documents and clarification requested, that conduct will be drawn to the court’s attention on the question of pre-action compliance, case management, and costs.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

In all likelihood, Gladstones will issue the claim anyway. That is what they do. When it arrives, a suitable defence can then be produced. For now, responding to the LoC is largely posturing, but it is still necessary posturing. The point is to create a clear paper trail showing that Gladstones were told in advance that their LoC was not PAPDC compliant, that the proposed claim was weak, that key documents were requested, and that they were warned their conduct would be relied upon if they pressed ahead regardless.

If they then go on to issue one of their usual defective claims, and later try to bluster their way to a hearing, that paper trail will come back to haunt them. It will show that they were expressly warned of the defects and chose to proceed anyway. That is the sort of unreasonable conduct that can be put squarely before the court later on.

So, for now, get that response sent and then sit tight for the inevitable next step. I will help you with this right through to the end of the matter. On the facts as presented, the underlying position remains very poor for them in any event. A sign that merely forbids stopping, parking, waiting, loading or unloading is not making any contractual offer at all. It offers nothing for consideration, nothing capable of acceptance, and therefore nothing from which any contract can arise. If there is no offer, there can be no acceptance, no consideration, and no contract. That point does not go away, and if Gladstones are foolish enough to issue a claim, we will deal with it properly when it arrives.