For the second claim they are threatening, Gladstones latest email essentially confirms that they are ignoring your detailed Protocol reply and intend to issue proceedings anyway. You have already sent a proper, detailed response under the Pre-Action Protocol, citing Henderson v Henderson, Johnson v Gore Wood, Aldi v WSP, CPR 3.4(2)(b) and CPR 27.14(2)(g), and you have clearly put them on notice that a second claim about the same parties, same site and contiguous period is an abuse of process and will give rise to cause of action estoppel.
At this point you do not need to send them anything further about claim 2. It is actually better to leave the correspondence exactly as it stands: your serious PAP reply, their “copy PCN, pay by X date” email, your Henderson/abuse letter, and now their confirmation that they will not reply substantively but will press on with legal proceedings. That sequence becomes strong exhibit material later when you ask the court to strike out the second claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse, and when you seek unreasonable behaviour costs if they drag you to a hearing despite clear warnings.
The action plan for claim 2 is therefore simple. Keep all their emails and letters safely filed. When the second claim form actually arrives, you can then show us the front page and PoC so that a suitable short defence can be drafted which expressly pleads the duplication and abuse of process. At that stage you can also decide whether to make an early N244 strike-out application or let the court deal with both claims together at allocation or at the final hearing.
Gladstones latest email does not weaken your position; it actually strengthens your argument that they have ridden roughshod over the Protocol in full knowledge of the issues. For now, your focus should be on getting the N180 for claim 1 completed and emailed, and on preserving every piece of correspondence relating to the second matter so it can be used against them when claim number 2 is received.
