Their two emails don’t fix the Protocol breaches and the “clients-only complaints procedure” line is simply their way of saying you can’t use the Legal Ombudsman. That’s broadly right (LoB is for clients), but it doesn’t shield them from (a) SRA scrutiny for conduct, or (b) court sanctions for PAP/PD non-compliance.
As they say they have issued a claim but you've not received it yet, I suggest you email Gladstone's back with the following:
Subject: Claim details request – Ref [xxx]
Dear Sirs,
Further to your email of [5 Nov 2025] stating that proceedings have been issued, please confirm by return the County Court claim number, the Issue Date, and method of service. I require this to ensure timely Acknowledgment of Service and to avoid any risk of default due to mis-service.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Whist you wait of the claim form to arrive, send to the SRA “Report a Solicitor” channel a complaint about Gladstone's. Attach the emails/letters as exhibits.
Subject: Conduct report — Gladstones Solicitors Ltd (Minster Baywatch Ltd matter) — Ref [their ref]
Dear Sirs,
I report concerns about the conduct of Gladstones Solicitors Ltd in pre-action debt litigation for Minster Baywatch Ltd (parking charge ref [xxx]) involving me as the proposed Defendant.
Summary of concerns
• Refusal to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims / PD-PACP: despite repeated, specific requests, Gladstones refused to provide key pre-action documents central to the dispute (original NtK; exact contractual clause(s) relied upon; landowner authority; transparent breakdown/basis of the £170 and VAT position).
• Premature escalation and attempts to shut down dialogue: statements that they “will not accept any further submissions”, and threats of immediate proceedings while Protocol issues remained unresolved.
• Inaccurate/defective communications: claiming to attach signage when none was attached (later rectified), and quantum inconsistency between the operator’s £155 and Gladstones’ £170 with no explanation.
• Landowner agreement withheld on the basis it is “commercially sensitive” and “only for court”, rather than providing an appropriately redacted version pre-action to enable informed engagement.
Why this may breach the SRA Standards/Principles
The above appears inconsistent with:
• the duty to uphold the proper administration of justice and act with integrity;
• the obligation to co-operate and not take unfair advantage of third parties;
• adherence to court rules/protocols governing pre-action conduct.
I appreciate that the Legal Ombudsman is for clients; I am not a client. This report concerns regulatory conduct, not service.
Chronology (abridged)
[Date]: I sent a Protocol-compliant request identifying the four key documents needed.
[Date(s)]: Gladstones replied with template assertions, refused further submissions, failed to provide the NtK/clauses/authority/breakdown, and initially omitted the promised signage attachment.
[Date]: They indicated they had (or would) issue proceedings notwithstanding unresolved Protocol failures.
Prejudice
Gladstones’ stance obstructed informed pre-action engagement, potentially increasing court time and costs, and risking default where service is uncertain.
Evidence enclosed
A1. My letter/email dated [date] (Protocol request)
A2. Gladstones’ replies dated [dates] (including “will not accept further submissions”)
A3. Later email with signage attachment and threat of issue
A4. Copies showing £155 vs £170 inconsistency (operator vs solicitor)
Requested outcome
Please assess whether the conduct meets the required standards for regulated solicitors engaged in pre-action litigation, and take any action you consider appropriate.
I confirm the information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address / email]
You respond with the following (and CC yourself):
Subject: Formal Complaint – Mishandling of Pre-Action Correspondence (Ref: [their reference])
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your email dated [date of Gladstones’ latest email].
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your firm’s complaints procedure.
Your correspondence fails to address the points raised in my letters of [dates]. You have:
1. Stated that a copy of the signage was attached when no such attachment was included.
2. Refused to provide key information requested under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, including the original Notice to Keeper, the contractual clause(s) relied upon, the landowner authority, and a breakdown of the £170 claimed.
3. Asserted that the landowner agreement will only be disclosed “at the direction of the Court”, contrary to paragraph 6(a) of the Practice Direction, which requires pre-action disclosure of documents essential to understanding each party’s position.
4. Claimed that you will “not accept any further submissions”, which is incompatible with your professional obligations under the SRA Standards and Regulations (Principles 2, 5 and 6) to act with integrity, uphold the proper administration of justice, and maintain public trust.
These actions amount to poor service and procedural non-compliance. Please therefore:
• acknowledge this complaint,
• confirm it will be handled in accordance with your published complaints policy, and
• issue your final written response within the time limit required (no later than eight weeks from today).
If I am not satisfied with your final response, I will escalate the matter to the Legal Ombudsman and reserve the right to refer the conduct issues to the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Address / email]
Based on what you’ve received, Gladstones’ “evidence pack” still fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and with the basic disclosure you reasonably requested.
Gap analysis (against the five items)
[indent[1. NtK confirming any PoFA 2012 liability — Not provided. A “demand for payment” is not a PoFA-compliant NtK. You’ve also identified conflicting sums (£155 from Mister Baywatch vs £170 from Gladstones) and missing first-notice issue date.
2. Photograph of the actual sign on the material date — Provided (date-stamped photo). Keep it, but you still need the contractual clause(s) relied upon (see 3).
3. Exact clause(s) relied upon — Not provided.
4. Landowner authority — Not provided by Gladstones. You note Mister Baywatch provided something to POPLA. Gladstones must disclose it now as part of pre-action exchange.
5. Breakdown of the charges; basis (consideration vs damages) and VAT on the £70 add-on — Not provided.[/indent]
You can respond to Gladstone's with the following:
Subject: Your Ref [ref] – Non-compliant pre-action disclosure
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your email of [date of their email]. I have reviewed the “Evidence Pack”. It does not remedy the deficiencies identified in my letter of [date of your LoC response], nor does it comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols.
For avoidance of doubt, please provide the following within 30 days so that I can take advice and provide a full Protocol-compliant response:
1. Notice to Keeper (PoFA 2012): A complete copy of the original Notice to Keeper relied upon to pursue the registered keeper, including the date of issue and all pages. Please also confirm expressly whether your client asserts keeper liability under Schedule 4 PoFA and, if so, identify the specific sub-paragraphs said to be complied with.
2. Contractual clause(s) relied upon: The exact wording of the terms and conditions allegedly forming the contract, and clear identification of the specific clause(s) said to have been breached.
3. Landowner authority: The written agreement (unredacted or with minimal justified redactions) between the landowner and your client that is said to confer authority (standing) to issue parking charges and to litigate in the client’s own name. You will be aware this is a key document squarely in issue.
4. Charges breakdown and legal basis: A breakdown of the sum claimed, identifying the principal amount, the legal characterisation of that principal (consideration or damages), and full particulars of any additional sums, including the £70 “debt recovery” add-on. Please state whether VAT is included or applicable to any part of the add-on, and if not, why not.
5. Quantum inconsistency: Please explain the discrepancy between the £155 demanded by Mister Baywatch and the £170 demanded by you, and identify the date and basis for any escalation between those figures.
Pending receipt of the above, your suggestion that I must pay £170 by 17 October 2025 is premature. The Protocol contemplates informed engagement, not payment demands absent key documents. If proceedings are issued without properly addressing these requests, I will apply for a stay under PD-PACP §§15(b)–(c) and for appropriate sanctions (see, inter alia, Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855).
For the avoidance of doubt, liability is denied. Kindly confirm by return that the matter is placed on hold for 30 days from service of a Protocol-compliant response to this request.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
You respond to the LoC with the following either by uploading it as a pdf to their portal or by email and CCing yourself:
Subject: Response to you Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Unknown Driver received the NtK addressed to them however on I appealed on the MB website and claimed to be the driver and gave my details - even though I’m neither the registered keeper nor was I the driver. (It was easier for me to appeal as the driver, unknown driver would have just paid). MB have me as the known driver but not registered keeper, register keeper is still unknown and appeal rejection from MB correspondence is addressed to me.
So, let me get this... You appealed as the driver in your name although the Keeper was the recipient of the NtK. How exactly did you do that? Unless the Keeper stated that they were not the driver and gave MB your name and address as the driver, it doesn't count. You cannot appeal anything in your name, driver or not, if you are not the person the NtK was addressed to!
The Keeper is NOT "still unknown". The Keeper is known because the NtK was addressed to them in the first place. However, I can only assume that MB simply recorded your name at the same address and rejected the appeal because they realised they had some low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree ready for the picking.
Luckily, there is a PPSCoP fail on the back of the NtK because they have wrongly stated on the back that the PCN can only be appealed within 28 days of the "issue" of the notice. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) states:
"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected;"
Something to throw at POPLA.