Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Still looking for any help in responding to a POPLA pls. Thanks in advance

READ their summary.

First para. Lines 14-17 etc.

They claim that a NO STOPPING SIGN creates a No Waiting AND no loading restriction.

IN LAW IT CANNOT.

That's it, IMO.

You still haven’t posted anything, see http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ if you have overlooked it to date.

You can’t “appeal” to Gladstones. A Letter of Claim needs only a short reply in which you can essentially say

the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of the claim are disputed

per https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1

It’s just a paper trail. Gladstones won’t reply. It’s not an appeal at this stage, and it’s not worth boiling the ocean in details at this point.

Gladstones is not interested in any more. The claimant can accept an appeal and cancel, but now that they’ve invoked a legal process they won’t. Gladstones will likely issue a county court claim on behalf of the claimant, to which you can file a defence along the lines you’ve already stated.

I have requested all of the information off them as its been lost in my emails due to how long its all taken, the most recent appeal that was sent to gladstone that never got a response went as follows...


Your Ref. xxxxxxxxxxx
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: ES Parking enforcement Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.
The alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').
I wish to formally dispute the validity of the parking charge notice (PCN) issued to me. The circumstances surrounding the alleged violation stem from my parking position, which was partly not in a designated parking space, but rather an area that is neither marked nor coned off. I parked at an angle to avoid potential damage from the vehicle parked closely next to mine due to the small nature of the spaces. Importantly, my vehicle did not obstruct any designated parking spaces or pathways for pedestrians; it was positioned in a manner that allowed full access for other users of the car park. As such, I believe that my parking did not impact the overall capacity of the car park or hinder other motorists and pedestrians. I respectfully request that you consider these mitigating circumstances when reviewing my case. I maintain that I acted reasonably under the circumstances to protect my vehicle, and the issuance of the PCN in this instance is unjustified.
I am writing to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 28/11/2024 for the vehicle with registration number BL11DYG, As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I make this appeal on the following grounds:
1. Breach of Proportionality and Fairness Under the SCoP

The Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear principles for parking enforcement, requiring charges to be:
Proportionate: Parking charges must be justified by the impact of the alleged contravention.
Fair and Transparent: There must be no penalty element where the alleged breach does not interfere with the legitimate management of the site.

Application to This Case:
No Obstruction: The vehicle was partially parked in an adjacent bay that was coned off and unavailable for use. This did not obstruct other users or interfere with the operation of the site.
No Loss to the Landowner: As the coned-off bay was not in active use, there was no financial or operational loss to the landowner.

Issuing a PCN under these circumstances is unreasonable, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of fairness and proportionality outlined in the SCoP.

2. Failure to Consider Mitigating Circumstances

The SCoP requires operators to consider mitigating circumstances when issuing and reviewing parking charges. In this case:
The area my car encroached into was not another bay and there was no signage which indicated it should be kept clear, eliminating any potential impact on other users.
The vehicle’s position did not cause any obstruction or hinder the effective management of the site.

The lack of any material impact on the landowner or other users further undermines the justification for this PCN.

Conclusion

On these grounds, I request the cancellation of this PCN for the following reasons:
•   The issuance of the PCN is contrary to the SCoP principles of proportionality and fairness, given the absence of obstruction and loss.
•   That the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".


Further Requests if the Appeal Is Rejected

Should you choose to reject this appeal, I request the following:
•   An explanation of how the operator has considered the mitigating circumstances in line with the SCoP.
•   Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
•   With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
Failure to adequately address these points will leave me no choice but to escalate this matter to the independent appeals service.
Should I be expected to attend court, I will have to book off a days unpaid work which I will expected to be reimbursed for by yourselves depending on the outcome of the event.
 
Kind regards,
Daniel Smith.

appologies if this is no use to you as of right now, id imagine ES parking will take their time getting me my documents so is there something i should send in the meantime to gladstones?

Makes sense, thanks @Incandescent