Gladstones Letter Before Claim - NPM PCN - No e-Permit - Woodgrange Road E7

[b789]

@armz247, irrespective of what you put in your response to the Letter of Claim (LoC), the utter incompetents at Gladstones are going to issue a county court claim, no matter what. 
Knowing how incompetent the staff are at Gladstones, if/when they issue the county court claim, you can guarantee that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) will be the usual vague, template wording which fails to properly plead the cause of action. That can be dealt with if and when the claim arrives.

However, the purpose of replying to Gladstones is not to persuade them. The purpose is to create a clean pre-action paper trail showing that the debt was disputed, that the core issues were identified, that key documents were requested, and that any later claim was issued despite obvious weaknesses. The general pre-action direction expects a defendant’s response to say whether the claim is accepted and, if not, the reasons why and which facts are disputed. For an individual facing a debt claim, the Debt PAP is also relevant and provides that proceedings should not be started less than 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply Form, or 30 days after documents requested by the debtor are provided.

A long response is fine if every paragraph serves a pre-action purpose. But the usual copy-and-paste LoC replies are often counterproductive because they ask for documents already held, include irrelevant points from other cases, overstate weak arguments, and give Gladstones a chance to say the debtor has sent a generic template rather than engaging with the facts. It also dilutes the best points.

These are the best points to make in this case:

1. The alleged stop was under three minutes.
   
2. The evidence is at night.
   
3. The sign appears unlit.
   
4. The vehicle was stopped just beyond the sign, not deep inside a clearly marked car park.
   
5. The sign appears to say “E-Permit Holders Only”, which is prohibitive rather than contractual.
   
6. There is no obvious offer of parking to non-permit holders.
   
7. The £70 add-on is disputed as an unrecoverable invented debt recovery sum.
   
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of landowner authority, signage, contractual terms and the legal basis of the charge.
   

That is all they need at LoC stage. Any detailed evidence analysis, PPSCoP breaches, photographs, timeline, and case law belong in the defence and witness statement if/when they issue the claim.

Only ask for documents which they are likely to rely on and which matter to the dispute: the full unedited video, all stills, the contemporaneous signage pack, a site plan showing sign positions, the landowner contract or chain of authority, and the basis for the added £70.

A suitable response should probably be no more than a page. Something along these lines would be proportionate:

Dear Sirs,

Re: National Parking Management Limited
PCN: NPM207017
Your reference: 104542.2148

I dispute the debt in full. No admission is made as to liability, and your client is put to strict proof of its cause of action.

The alleged contravention is denied. Your client’s own evidence appears to show no more than a brief stop of less than three minutes at night, immediately beyond an unlit and inadequately positioned sign at the entrance to a cul-de-sac. The sign was not prominent, was not lit, and the alleged contractual terms were not capable of being read and accepted by a motorist before any alleged contract could be formed.

Further, the visible wording appears to be “E-Permit Holders Only”. That is prohibitive wording. It does not make any contractual offer to non-permit holders to park for £100. Your client is therefore put to strict proof that any contract was offered, that the terms were adequately brought to the driver’s attention, and that the driver accepted those terms.

The additional £70 is also disputed. It is not a genuine contractual sum owed by the motorist and appears to be an unrecoverable debt recovery enhancement added to inflate the claim.

Please provide the following documents before any claim is issued:

1. The full unedited CCTV/video footage from which the still images were extracted.
   
2. Confirmation that the still images already disclosed are the complete set of still images relied upon, and copies of any additional stills not already disclosed.
   
3. Legible contemporaneous photographs or the signage artwork showing the exact contractual terms displayed on 23 December 2025.
   
4. A site plan showing the exact location of every sign relied upon.
   
5. Evidence that the entrance sign was illuminated, or otherwise readable from a driver’s approach and stopping position, at the material time of night.
   
6. The contract or chain of authority showing National Parking Management Limited’s authority to issue charges and litigate in its own name at this location.
   
7. A full explanation of the legal basis for the additional £70.
   

For the avoidance of doubt, no payment will be made. If your client nevertheless issues proceedings, the claim will be robustly defended and this response will be relied upon when the court considers conduct and costs.

Yours faithfully,

That keeps the response tight. It does not try to write the defence early. It does not get dragged into irrelevant template material. It preserves the main arguments and forces Gladstones either to engage with them or ignore them, which is usually useful later.