04-20-2026, 07:11 PM
@Stuart, that is exactly the sort of stock rubbish response that was expected. Gladstones have not engaged properly with the substance of the dispute at all. They have simply brushed everything aside with generic assertions, demanded payment again, and threatened proceedings. That is not a meaningful response to the issues raised. It is just more paper for the file.
The important point is that you have now done what was necessary. You responded to the Letter of Claim, set out why the alleged debt is disputed, and required them to engage with the defects in their client’s case. Their reply does not cure those defects. It merely reinforces the point that they are not interested in proper pre-action engagement and are instead intent on pushing on regardless.
Nothing in that response changes the underlying position. A fleeting presence of around 44 seconds is still hopeless as evidence of any genuine parking period and hopeless as evidence that any driver had a fair opportunity to read and accept terms. If the signage is prohibitive, then it offers nothing for consideration and nothing capable of acceptance. No offer means no acceptance, no consideration, and no contract. Their usual mantra that it is “the responsibility of the driver to ensure they comply” does not answer that. It just sidesteps the legal point.
Likewise, the PoFA defects do not disappear just because Gladstones say they “do not accept” your representations. If the Notice to Keeper failed properly to specify the land, failed to specify any period of parking, and failed properly to identify the creditor, then keeper liability does not arise. They can bluster all they like, but that does not repair a defective notice.
So, in practical terms, the next step is simple. Do not enter into pointless back-and-forth with them now. In all likelihood they will issue a claim, because that is what Gladstones do. If and when the claim arrives, bring it straight back here and a suitable defence can then be produced. Their claim will almost certainly be the usual vague Gladstones rubbish, and that is when their failure to comply properly with CPR 16.4(1)(a), together with their poor pre-action conduct, can be put to proper use.
For now, just keep their latest response and the evidence pack safely. It all adds to the paper trail showing that they were given every opportunity to engage properly and chose not to. I will help you with this right through to the end of the matter.
The important point is that you have now done what was necessary. You responded to the Letter of Claim, set out why the alleged debt is disputed, and required them to engage with the defects in their client’s case. Their reply does not cure those defects. It merely reinforces the point that they are not interested in proper pre-action engagement and are instead intent on pushing on regardless.
Nothing in that response changes the underlying position. A fleeting presence of around 44 seconds is still hopeless as evidence of any genuine parking period and hopeless as evidence that any driver had a fair opportunity to read and accept terms. If the signage is prohibitive, then it offers nothing for consideration and nothing capable of acceptance. No offer means no acceptance, no consideration, and no contract. Their usual mantra that it is “the responsibility of the driver to ensure they comply” does not answer that. It just sidesteps the legal point.
Likewise, the PoFA defects do not disappear just because Gladstones say they “do not accept” your representations. If the Notice to Keeper failed properly to specify the land, failed to specify any period of parking, and failed properly to identify the creditor, then keeper liability does not arise. They can bluster all they like, but that does not repair a defective notice.
So, in practical terms, the next step is simple. Do not enter into pointless back-and-forth with them now. In all likelihood they will issue a claim, because that is what Gladstones do. If and when the claim arrives, bring it straight back here and a suitable defence can then be produced. Their claim will almost certainly be the usual vague Gladstones rubbish, and that is when their failure to comply properly with CPR 16.4(1)(a), together with their poor pre-action conduct, can be put to proper use.
For now, just keep their latest response and the evidence pack safely. It all adds to the paper trail showing that they were given every opportunity to engage properly and chose not to. I will help you with this right through to the end of the matter.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
