Free Traffic Legal Advice

Update - Letter Before Claim received from Gladstones

I have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors, dated 2 June 2026.

Details:

PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Ltd
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15
Date of charge: 23/12/2025
Amount claimed: £170
Estimated total if proceedings are issued: £255

The letter gives 30 days to respond and refers to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Redacted Letter Before Claim images:

Page 1: https://ibb.co/DHjWGvcM
Page 2: https://ibb.co/xqg4tG09
Page 3: https://ibb.co/JF2M6L6P

I had previously seen this stage referred to on here as a “Letter of Claim”, but this letter is headed “Letter Before Claim”. I assume this is the same stage because it gives 30 days and refers to the PAPDC.

I searched the forum and found these similar threads where b789 recommended responding with a PAPDC/document request template:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/letter-before-claim-recieved/
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/letter-before-claim-received-from-moorside-legal/

The Gladstones letter says I can respond via their website, which requires a login, or request a paper version of the Information Sheet and Reply Form. It does not appear to say I must use the portal. I would prefer not to use their web portal and to respond by email, CCing myself, or by post with proof of posting if email is not suitable.

This is what I am thinking of sending. I’d appreciate an expert view before I send it:

---

Subject: Response to Letter Before Claim - Ref [Gladstones reference] / PCN NPM207017

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter Before Claim dated 2 June 2026
Your reference: [Gladstones reference]
PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Limited
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15
Vehicle registration: [redacted]

I deny any debt to your client.

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply 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 exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution.

Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very documents and evidence you purport to rely upon.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and any notice chain relied upon to assert keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

2. Copies of all photographs and video evidence relied upon.

3. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being actual photographs of the signs in place on the material date, not stock images, together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

4. The precise wording of the clause or clauses allegedly breached.

5. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing and authority to enforce and to litigate at this location.

6. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.

7. Your client’s full basis for alleging that the registered keeper is liable for the charge.

I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs, including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders.

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please ensure that your and your client’s records have the correct address for service and erase any other addresses you may hold for the keeper. My current address for service is:

[full address]

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal. I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[my name]

---

Am I on the right track with this wording and method of response? I’d really appreciate a view from one of the regulars, as I’ve drafted this as a layman browsing similar posts on this website.

Hi all,

I’m looking for advice regarding a private parking charge from National Parking Management (NPM).

Here are my pictures from their "evidence" as well as the Notice to Keeper Parking Charge:

Notice to Keeper and stills from camera

I’ve read the forum guide and have also reviewed an existing FTLA thread relating to the same location, which appears very similar to my own case:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/13-15-woodgrange-road-e7-vehicle-not-pre-authorised-(no-e-permit)/30/

Background

Parking company: National Parking Management (NPM)

Location: Woodgrange Road, 13–15, London E7

Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised (no e-permit)

Contravention date: 23 December 2025

Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01 (approximately 2 minutes 43 seconds)

Notice received: Postal Notice to Keeper

Date of sending: 30 December 2025

Amount demanded: £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days)

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I am not identifying the driver.

Short duration / CCTV stills

The Notice to Keeper relies on CCTV still images. These images show the driver exiting the vehicle and then returning to it within approximately 2.5 minutes, after which the vehicle leaves the site.

I cannot say with certainty what the driver was doing during that brief period. It may have been to check signage, or it may not – I simply do not know and do not wish to speculate. The only fact I can state is that the vehicle was on site for less than 3 minutes before leaving.

Signage

From what I have seen, signage at this location refers to vehicles needing to be registered with a valid NPM e-permit. I have not yet fully assessed the signage or whether it clearly explains how a driver could obtain such a permit. I will try to obtain photos of the signage and add a Google Street View link if helpful.

Current position

No appeal has yet been submitted

I have not contacted NPM beyond receipt of the Notice to Keeper

I have not yet assessed whether the Notice to Keeper fully complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Advice sought

I would welcome guidance on:

Whether the recommended next step is to submit a simple keeper appeal to NPM

Whether, given NPM are IPC members, there is any value in using the IAS, or whether it is better avoided

Whether any obvious issues stand out at this stage, particularly given the very short duration alleged

I have uploaded fully redacted copies of the Notice to Keeper (all pages) showing dates and times only:

https://ibb.co/album/20rrBX

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Given this appears to be the same location and very similar circumstances, I’d welcome any views from b789 or DWMB2 if they have time.

I'm in the same position I was there less than 3 minutes and they've given me £100 fine.

Hi all,

I’ve received a Moving Traffic Penalty Charge Notice from London Borough of Newham for allegedly “Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)” — contravention code 52M.

Details:

PCN number: PN77444424

Vehicle Reg: EA12 NHZ

Contravention date/time: 27/09/2025 at 07:50

Location: Browning Road E12 (North Side)

Webcode: 193AT741

Front of PCN:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/k7SZxXq

Council video:
https://streamable.com/9hzo21

Side-angle photo of the signage:
https://i.postimg.cc/dVktGtqJ/1-FMA-MYL-10313.webp

My account of what happened

I was driving along Browning Road (North Side) early in the morning.
The signage for the restriction is facing the oncoming traffic, making it extremely difficult to see from my approach angle. By the time the signs become visible, it’s already too late to turn off safely without stopping abruptly or causing an obstruction.

From my dash-level view (see video), you can see the restricted-vehicle signs are placed side-on, not in a direct line of sight for drivers coming from my direction. The council’s camera angle also exaggerates visibility compared to what a driver actually sees.

The side-view photo above clearly shows how the signs are angled — they face traffic coming from the opposite side, not towards vehicles from my lane.

Supporting reference

There’s an article about this exact location highlighting confusion and poor signage placement:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/east-london-street-council-made-27244595

The article confirms that many motorists have been caught out because of how unclear and misleading the restriction signage is.

What I’m hoping for

Please could someone help me check:

1) Whether the signage at this location complies with the legal placement and visibility requirements for a motor vehicle restriction.

2) If there’s a known history of successful appeals for this location (Browning Road E12 North Side).

3) Any previous tribunal cases or template representations I could refer to.

Thanks very much for your time.
Ahmedyali

Hi all,

I've received a PCN from TfL for stopping where prohibited on a red route (Code 46), enforced via CCTV.

I've linked all images of the PCN and accompanying papers (> imgur LINK <). I'm still within the representation period and would appreciate any advice on how best to approach the following:

Location: Outside 93–95A Upper Clapton Road, E5
Date and time of alleged contravention: 07/07/2025 at 08:53
Enforcement method: CCTV
Date of PCN: 14 July 2025

I'm aware that earlier cases (e.g. Commercial Plant Services Ltd v TfL) challenged the use of postal PCNs for red route contraventions, but I understand this may have changed following the High Court decision in [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin).

Could anyone clarify the current position?

Can the CCTV enforcement method still be challenged in Code 46 cases like mine?

If not, are there updated or alternative grounds I should consider (e.g. signage, loading activity, exemptions)?

I read cp8759’s comment that there are newer appeal points that work better (final post in this thread: link) – could anyone explain what those are and if they apply in my case?

I also checked Google Street View and can see that the signage at that location clearly states loading is only permitted between 10am and 4pm. Since I stopped at 08:53, I was outside the permitted hours.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Hi sorry should have clarified, I redacted for the purposes of posting online, but will include real names as addressed on NTO and my legal name as wife is transferring authority

Wife'f legal name ??

This might just be your choice of words and that no substantive difference exists, however, for the avoidance of doubt..

The name and address to be used are those in the NTO because these are registered keeper's.

Hi,

Received Notice to Owner two weeks ago, apologies for the late response. Need help formulating a representation - first time I'm attempting.

[Are you the registered keeper and is the address on the V5C up to date?][/quote]

No, I am the second driver on the car, my wife is the registered keeper, and yes, her address on the VC5 is up to date. Will this be an issue?

Attached is the picture of the Notice to Owner, all 4 sides.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]