"Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5

I sent the response above and have now received an email reply from Gladstones.

They have said "we do not accept your representations and all sums owing are due in full." and "Our Client is therefore satisfied the case against you should proceed unless the debt owing of £170.00 is discharged in full". They have attached "the Evidence Pack" Which is copies of the original claims/ticket/images from PPS (london) ltd. The email was sent by a legal assistant.

Do I need to do anything at this point? Do I just have to wait?

Thanks 

I have now received this. Do I need to do anything? -


We write further to our previous correspondence and note we have not received payment of the Amount Due/ Debt. This email is to remind you to contact us at your earliest convenience to resolve this matter.
Our client wishes to resolve this matter amicably and without the need for costly Court proceedings. However, owing to your lack of payment, considers it has no other choice than to issue Court proceedings in the event the Amount Due/ Debt remains outstanding.
We invite you to make payment in accordance with our previous correspondence. Our team is ready to try to work with you to resolve this matter without the need for Court proceedings and it is important you contact us upon receipt of this email.
If you have already made payment or contacted us in relation to this matter, then please ignore this email and accept our apologies.
Please do not reply to this message. This email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox.
Yours sincerely
Gladstones Solicitors Limited

Ignore this.

It's basically a debt letter.

I have now received a second "letter before claim" identical to the first.

First one received Nov 25.

Second received Sept 26.

How should I reply to this one?

You do not ignore this but reply outlining your reason or reasons for disputing the claim. It will be up to them to take action at this stage.

How is this? -


I refer to your Letter Before Claim dated 4 September 2026. This letter constitutes my response to that Letter Before Claim.

The sum of £170 is disputed in full. I do not admit any liability and will not make payment.

The alleged contravention of “Obstructive Parking” is disputed. Please identify the precise contractual term relied upon and explain the factual basis on which you allege that the vehicle was causing an obstruction.

I also dispute that the terms relied upon were sufficiently clear and prominent to form a contractual agreement. The location has the characteristics of an ordinary access road rather than a clearly designated car park, and the signage indicating the private-land restrictions is readily capable of being obstructed. I reserve my position on the adequacy and prominence of the signage and whether the alleged terms were sufficiently brought to the driver's attention.

I also reserve my position concerning keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper does not specify a defined period of parking, as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). It gives an incident time of 09:51 and refers instead to the period “immediately preceded” the incident time. I therefore reserve my position that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) and that keeper liability under Schedule 4 is not established.

The additional £70 is also disputed. Please provide the contractual and/or legal basis for this sum and explain how the amount claimed has been calculated.

I note that the site-specific agreement supplied in the previous appeal material dates from 2016. Please confirm that this is the agreement upon which your client relies and that it remained in force and authorised your client to issue parking charges at the location on 20 September 2024.

If your client intends to proceed with a claim, I will defend it and rely upon the evidence and legal arguments available to me.

Yours faithfully,

I would start with a couple of sentences outlining that this is response to a second LBC and that no response was received from your previous letter.

Point out that you feel that this is an abuse of process and that you will be bringing this to the attention of the Court if the matter were to reach that stage.

Ask them to expressly explain why a second LBC has been issued.

InterCity125 Thanks for the reply. It is much appreciated.

I did actually receive a reply to the first letter of claim. Please see my post at January 06, 2026, 12:26:48 pm

Here is a new version -


I refer to your Letter Before Claim dated 4 September 2026. This letter constitutes my response to that Letter Before Claim.

I note that this is the second Letter Before Claim issued in relation to this matter. I reserve my position as to the appropriateness of issuing a further Letter Before Claim rather than addressing and progressing the matter following the previous correspondence. Should proceedings be issued, I reserve the right to bring the history of this matter and the conduct of the pre-action process to the attention of the Court.

The sum of £170 is disputed in full. I do not admit any liability and will not make payment.

The alleged contravention of “Obstructive Parking” is disputed. Please identify the precise contractual term relied upon and explain the factual basis on which you allege that the vehicle was causing an obstruction.

I also dispute that the terms relied upon were sufficiently clear and prominent to form a contractual agreement. The location has the characteristics of an ordinary access road rather than a clearly designated car park, and the signage indicating the private-land restrictions is readily capable of being obstructed. I reserve my position on the adequacy and prominence of the signage and whether the alleged terms were sufficiently brought to the driver's attention.

I also reserve my position concerning keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper does not specify a defined period of parking, as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). It gives an incident time of 09:51 and refers instead to the period “immediately preceded” the incident time. I therefore reserve my position that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) and that keeper liability under Schedule 4 is not established.

The additional £70 is also disputed. Please provide the contractual and/or legal basis for this sum and explain how the amount claimed has been calculated.

I note that the site-specific agreement supplied in the previous appeal material dates from 2016. Please confirm that this is the agreement upon which your client relies and that it remained in force and authorised your client to issue parking charges at the location on 20 September 2024.

If your client intends to proceed with a claim, I will defend it and rely upon the evidence and legal arguments available to me.

Yours faithfully,