If you want me to bring all the information here into this thread I can
I have now revived a Letter before claim for this parking ticket.
I have drafted a response using Chat GPT after feeding the info into it. If you could verify what I will send is sufficient that would be great.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Letter Before Claim
Reference: [Insert Reference]
I dispute the alleged debt in full.
Your client’s own evidence confirms that the vehicle was present for approximately 44 seconds. This is fatal to any claim.
The Private Parking Code of Practice requires that a driver must be allowed a minimum consideration period of five minutes to read signage and decide whether to accept the terms. A duration of 44 seconds makes it impossible for any contract to have been formed. No reasonable person could locate, read, and accept contractual terms within that timeframe.
Accordingly, no contract was formed, no breach occurred, and no charge is payable.
Further, your client’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It fails to:
Specify the land with sufficient clarity (referring only to a broad industrial estate covering multiple roads and an incorrect postcode);
Specify any period of parking;
Properly identify the creditor.
As such, keeper liability does not apply.
In addition, the signage relied upon is prohibitive (“No Parking”) and therefore incapable of forming a contractual agreement.
Given the above, your client’s claim has no realistic prospect of success.
I require the matter to be placed on hold for 30 days and request full disclosure of all documents relied upon, including:
In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, please provide the following:
A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice and all correspondence
All photographic evidence relied upon
A precise site map identifying the exact location of the alleged contravention and clarification of the postcode discrepancy
Evidence of the alleged period of parking, including full observation logs
Copies of all signage in place at the time, including wording and locations
A full unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, including proof of authority to operate and litigate
Confirmation of the legal basis of the claim (contract or trespass)
A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for any additional charges
Until this information is provided, the claim is not properly particularised and I am unable to respond substantively.
Should your client proceed with litigation, I will robustly defend the claim and seek recovery of costs for unreasonable conduct.
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:
Quote: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:
A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper and all correspondence relied upon.
All photographs relied upon, in original sequence and with timestamps.
Full observation notes or warden logs.
A precise site plan identifying the exact alleged location, together with an explanation of the postcode discrepancy.
Copies of all signage relied upon, together with a plan showing where each sign was located at the material time.
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.
Confirmation of the legal basis of the proposed claim, namely whether it is alleged to sound in contract, trespass, or otherwise.
A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed, including the legal basis for each element over and above the principal parking charge.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Whilst noted, we do not accept your representations.
We remind you it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they comply with the parking regulations on site and thus, as it is abundantly clear you have failed to do so, we are satisfied the charges have been issued correctly and all sums owing are due in full.
Please see attached evidence pack along with the signage for the relevant land we trust the contents to be self-explanatory.
Accordingly, all sums owing are now due in full if legal action is to be avoided.
Please make payment to the bank account details below quoting 104534.300
Gladstones Solicitors Ltd
Barclays Bank
Account Number: 33028712
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Amount Due: £170.00
Failure to make payment will result in the issue of legal proceedings without further recourse to you. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we recommend you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same.
Kind Regards,
Charlotte
Legal Assistant
[cidig_logo_2.JPG@16042026.32046#sig_logo_2.JPG]
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
Unit B
1st Floor
210 Cygnet Court
Centre Park
Warrington
WA1 1PP
w : www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk<http://www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk>
t : 01565 755088
e : CharlotteR@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk<mailto:CharlotteR@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk>
@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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
@Stuart, you will not have to travel to Northampton. The CNBC is simply an administrative centre where these claims are initially processed. Once your defence has been submitted and you have completed a Directions Questionnaire (DQ), the case will be transferred to your local county court. That is still many months down the line.
For now, we need to consider the defence to the claim. With an issue date of 12 June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 15 July to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are defective because they fail to specify the contractual term allegedly breached. Merely asserting that there were "terms and conditions" on signage, and that the driver parked in breach of them, is not enough. Was the alleged term no parking at any time, no waiting, no stopping, no unloading, authorised vehicles only, permit required, no obstruction, or something else entirely? They do not say. They simply plead "terms and conditions" in the abstract and then assert breach. That is not proper pleading of a contractual cause of action.
A claimant suing in contract must identify the term relied upon, the act said to constitute the breach, and the basis on which the sum claimed became due. These PoC do none of that.
There are then further defects:
First, the location is still vague. "UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ" is a broad multi-road description, not a properly identified specific location.
Second, the wording "Defendant as driver and/or registered keeper" is classic Gladstones sludge. They have not properly pleaded whether the claim is pursued against the Defendant as driver, or as keeper under PoFA, or both in the alternative with a properly particularised basis for each. They just throw in "and/or" and hope for the best.
Third, the £70 add-on is still badly pleaded. They say it is for "contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions", but again they do not identify the actual term relied upon. So even if the principal claim were properly pleaded, the additional £70 is not.
Fourth, the PoC contain no proper facts about the alleged breach itself. They do not say what the vehicle was supposedly doing, for how long, where exactly, or in what way that conduct engaged the alleged term.
In short, this is the usual Gladstones template rubbish and it falls short of CPR 16.4(1)(a).
Until recently, I never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, I feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
Quote:1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any properly pleaded cause of action.
2. The Defendant is aware that the claim appears to concern a Parking Charge Notice said to have been issued by the Claimant in respect of a vehicle of which the Defendant is the registered keeper. Prior to proceedings, the Defendant responded to the Letter of Claim, disputed the alleged debt, sought clarification of the basis of the proposed claim, and requested the key documents and information said to be relied upon.
3. However, mere awareness that the claim concerns a parking charge does not cure defective pleading. The Defendant is not required to infer, reconstruct or guess the Claimant’s cause of action from prior correspondence or other material. The claim before the Court must stand or fall on the Particulars of Claim.
4. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and defective. They fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16 paragraph 7 because they do not set out the material facts relied upon with sufficient particularity to disclose a properly pleaded cause of action.
5. The Defendant relies upon Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) as binding authority that a claimant must plead the material facts necessary for a complete cause of action and that it is not for the defendant to tease out the claimant’s case.
6. The Defendant further relies upon the persuasive appellate County Court decisions in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan, HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023, and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande, HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024, both of which concerned parking claims struck out for failure properly to plead the contractual case, including the conduct said to amount to breach and the contractual term relied upon.
7. The present claim suffers from the same essential defects.
8. In particular, whilst the Claimant alleges that signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, the Particulars do not identify the actual contractual term allegedly breached.
9. Nor do the Particulars identify the conduct said to constitute that alleged breach. The pleading merely asserts, in generic terms, that the vehicle was parked in breach of terms and conditions, without stating the conduct relied upon.
10. The pleaded location, namely “UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ”, is also vague and inadequate, being a broad multi-road description rather than a properly identified specific site.
11. Further, the pleading that the Defendant is liable as “driver and/or registered keeper” is incoherent. The Claimant has not properly pleaded whether liability is said to arise as driver, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or both in the alternative with a properly particularised basis for each.
12. The additional £70 is also not properly pleaded. The Claimant merely refers to “contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions” without identifying the contractual term relied upon or the legal basis upon which such sum is said to be recoverable.
13. The claim for statutory interest is likewise inadequately pleaded, the Particulars failing clearly to state the relevant date from which interest is said to run or the proper basis of calculation.
14. The Defendant is therefore unable properly to plead to the merits of the claim because the Particulars do not state:
(a) the contractual term allegedly relied upon;
(b) the conduct said to amount to breach;
(c) the precise location of the alleged event;
(d) the basis upon which the Defendant is said to be liable as driver, keeper, or both;
(e) the legal basis of the additional £70; and
(f) the basis of the interest claimed.
15. The Defendant cannot fairly or properly answer a claim pleaded in that form without speculation as to the contractual case actually advanced. Any attempt to plead to the merits in detail would risk doing the Claimant’s job for it.
16. Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, denies that the Particulars disclose any properly pleaded cause of action, and denies that the Claimant has pleaded any basis upon which the Court can determine contractual liability against the Defendant.
17. The Claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by serving proper separate particulars but chose not to do so.
18. In the premises, the claim should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a).
19. Alternatively, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant reserves the right to seek permission to amend and/or supplement this Defence once the Claimant has properly particularised its case.
20. Pending proper particularisation, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Just for clarification I did also get a load of forms to fill out with this paperwork. Am I ignoring this response pack for the civil national business centre and purely submitting my defence via the instructions on the Dropbox link ?
I got an admission form N9A, defence and counterclaim form N9B and acknowledge of service
You ignore all those forms. You are submitting your defence through MCOL. I would hold off submitting your defence for about a week. You don’t want them sending more detailed PoC within 14 days of the claim.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Today I got the following email from Gladstone. Seems they want to do mediation now before court.
Dear Mr
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.
Please find attached evidence pack.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.
You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether you are willing to accept service of any further documents in this claim by email. If so, please confirm the correct email address for service. If you do not agree to email service, service will be made to the postal address we hold on file.
ig_logo_2.JPG@16042026.32046#sig_logo_2.JPG]