06-06-2026, 01:58 PM
Hi all,
I previously posted this on FTLA, but understand b789 may now be more active here. My FTLA thread is here:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...?topicseen
This relates to a private parking charge from National Parking Management Ltd at Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7.
Summary:
* PCN: NPM207017
* Operator: National Parking Management Ltd
* Solicitor: Gladstones
* Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7
* Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised, no e-permit
* Date of alleged charge: 23/12/2025
* Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01, approx. 2 minutes 43 seconds
* Notice received: postal Notice to Keeper
* Keeper appeal rejected
* Driver has not been identified
* I am the registered keeper
* Letter Before Claim dated: 2 June 2026
* Amount now claimed: £170
* Estimated total if proceedings are issued: £255
Redacted Letter Before Claim:
Page 1: https://ibb.co/DHjWGvcM
Page 2: https://ibb.co/xqg4tG09
Page 3: https://ibb.co/JF2M6L6P
On FTLA I posted a draft PAPDC/document request response based on similar b789 templates I found. I have since had a reply suggesting that the response to a Letter of Claim should be simpler, and questioning the value of asking Gladstones for documents I already have, such as the Notice to Keeper.
I would appreciate guidance on the best response to Gladstones at this stage.
Would something shorter like the below be more suitable, or should I still use a fuller PAPDC/document request response?
---
Subject: Response to Letter Before Claim - PCN NPM207017
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter Before Claim dated 2 June 2026
PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Limited
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15
I deny any debt to your client.
The vehicle was present on site for less than three minutes. I deny that any contract was formed or breached. The signage at this location does not make any clear offer of parking, nor does it explain how a driver could obtain an e-permit. In the absence of a clear offer capable of acceptance, no contract can exist.
I also dispute the added £70. Please explain the legal basis on which this sum is claimed, whether it is said to be consideration, damages, debt recovery costs, or something else, and whether VAT is included.
Please also provide the documents and evidence on which your client intends to rely, including:
1. Actual photographs of the signs in place on the material date, not stock images.
2. A site plan showing the position of the signs.
3. The precise wording of the clause or clauses allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to enforce and litigate at this location.
5. Your client’s full basis for alleging keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. Copies of any video evidence relied upon.
I will not use your web portal. Please correspond by email or post.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking debt advice, but I deny the debt.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
---
Am I on the right track with this shorter response, or should the fuller PAPDC non-compliance template be used instead?
I previously posted this on FTLA, but understand b789 may now be more active here. My FTLA thread is here:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...?topicseen
This relates to a private parking charge from National Parking Management Ltd at Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7.
Summary:
* PCN: NPM207017
* Operator: National Parking Management Ltd
* Solicitor: Gladstones
* Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7
* Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised, no e-permit
* Date of alleged charge: 23/12/2025
* Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01, approx. 2 minutes 43 seconds
* Notice received: postal Notice to Keeper
* Keeper appeal rejected
* Driver has not been identified
* I am the registered keeper
* Letter Before Claim dated: 2 June 2026
* Amount now claimed: £170
* Estimated total if proceedings are issued: £255
Redacted Letter Before Claim:
Page 1: https://ibb.co/DHjWGvcM
Page 2: https://ibb.co/xqg4tG09
Page 3: https://ibb.co/JF2M6L6P
On FTLA I posted a draft PAPDC/document request response based on similar b789 templates I found. I have since had a reply suggesting that the response to a Letter of Claim should be simpler, and questioning the value of asking Gladstones for documents I already have, such as the Notice to Keeper.
I would appreciate guidance on the best response to Gladstones at this stage.
Would something shorter like the below be more suitable, or should I still use a fuller PAPDC/document request response?
---
Subject: Response to Letter Before Claim - PCN NPM207017
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter Before Claim dated 2 June 2026
PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Limited
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15
I deny any debt to your client.
The vehicle was present on site for less than three minutes. I deny that any contract was formed or breached. The signage at this location does not make any clear offer of parking, nor does it explain how a driver could obtain an e-permit. In the absence of a clear offer capable of acceptance, no contract can exist.
I also dispute the added £70. Please explain the legal basis on which this sum is claimed, whether it is said to be consideration, damages, debt recovery costs, or something else, and whether VAT is included.
Please also provide the documents and evidence on which your client intends to rely, including:
1. Actual photographs of the signs in place on the material date, not stock images.
2. A site plan showing the position of the signs.
3. The precise wording of the clause or clauses allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to enforce and litigate at this location.
5. Your client’s full basis for alleging keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. Copies of any video evidence relied upon.
I will not use your web portal. Please correspond by email or post.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking debt advice, but I deny the debt.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
---
Am I on the right track with this shorter response, or should the fuller PAPDC non-compliance template be used instead?
