Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all, I’d really appreciate some advice on this private parking charge. I’ve read the house rules and have tried to keep this factual and complete.



Parking Company

District Enforcement Limited
Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors

Location

Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich, CW5

Alleged Contravention

No valid payment

Parking Event

19 June 2025

My status

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (V5C in my name).
I am not identifying the driver.

Background

On 19 June 2025, the driver parked at Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich. District Enforcement allege that no valid payment was made.

I did not receive any parking correspondence at the time.

Address history (important)

I moved out of my previous address in June 2025, before any parking correspondence was issued.

I updated my address with the DVLA several months later (approximately 4–5 months after moving).

As a result, all early parking correspondence was sent to my old address, which I had already vacated and therefore did not receive.



Gladstones involvement

On 18 December 2025, I received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones (£160) at my current address.

The letter states that Gladstones:

previously wrote to an “alternate address”

carried out a trace to locate me

warned that if I did not confirm my address, proceedings might be served at the original address

A redacted copy of the Letter Before Claim is uploaded.




My response to Gladstones (sent by email)

I responded within the Pre-Action Protocol timeframe and disputed the debt in full.
My email stated (verbatim, redacted):

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in your Letter Before Claim dated 18 December 2025.

I dispute the alleged debt in full.

This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this Parking Charge Notice. I did not receive any prior notices because all previous correspondence was sent to an address that I had vacated before any notices were issued. I moved from that address in June 2025, prior to the date of the alleged parking event and prior to any Parking Charge Notice being served.

As a result, I was denied any opportunity to receive the Notice to Keeper or to appeal the charge. I was not avoiding correspondence; the failure of service rests entirely with your client.

You now confirm in your letter that a trace has been carried out and that you are uncertain as to the correct address. Please take this letter as formal confirmation that the address to which this correspondence has been sent is my correct address for service. Any attempt to serve proceedings at a previous address would be improper.

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the alleged debt is formally disputed and must be placed on hold. Please provide the following documents and information:

Copies of the original Parking Charge Notice and all subsequent notices

Evidence of the alleged parking contravention (including photographs and timestamps)

A full statement of account explaining the sum claimed

Evidence of your client’s authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges

Evidence of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including proof of service

Confirmation of the address to which each item of correspondence was sent and the dates of posting

The additional £60 claimed for “debt recovery” is denied as an unrecoverable sum and an abuse of process.

Until the above information is provided, the alleged debt remains denied in full.





Gladstones’ reply and evidence pack

Gladstones replied 10 days later and stated (verbatim, redacted):

We confirm our Client wrote to the address as confirmed by the DVLA. Further, given the last V5C issued to this vehicle dates back to 1 February 2025, if it is the case that you did not receive the initial correspondence from our Client, it is likely as a result of your failure to update your address with the DVLA.

The amount due includes £60.00 claimed by our client for the time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice(s) pursuant to its ATA’s Code of Practice and the Terms and Conditions of the Contract.

As the content of the Landowner Agreement is commercially sensitive, a (redacted) copy will only be released at the direction of the Court.

Payment is required on or before 28 January 2026 to avoid further action.

They attached copies of the NTK and reminder letters.


Parking notices later disclosed to me

After I disputed the matter with Gladstones, they emailed me copies of the earlier notices, which show they were all sent to my old address:

Notice to Keeper dated 25 June 2025 – £100, offering £60 if paid within 14 days

Reminder / Notice of Impending Court Action dated 17 July 2025 – £100

Further Notice of Impending Court Action dated 1 August 2025 – £160

Redacted copies of all notices are uploaded.


Current position (urgent)

No court claim has been issued

Matter remains at Letter Before Claim / Pre-Action stage

Gladstones are demanding payment by tomorrow


What I’m seeking advice on (urgent)

Does the NTK being sent to an address I had already vacated defeat keeper liability under POFA, despite Gladstones relying on DVLA data?

Do the photographs add anything meaningful to their case beyond showing the vehicle was present?

Is the £60 add-on properly challengeable as an abuse of process?

Given payment is demanded tomorrow, is there anything further I should or should not do at this stage?


All documents and photographs have been uploaded in redacted form in line with forum rules.

Thanks very much for any guidance.

Here are the links to the letters:
https://ibb.co/KzRYMBzm
https://ibb.co/GQrSg3r8
https://ibb.co/kg8jq2Yr
https://ibb.co/KzzZN4RV

Here is the google street view link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HBMKudd81EjAYwA86

Here is a picture of the sign from goggle from 5 years ago:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GSaxdvTT4kSbiGzw7

Thanks, that’s helpful and I appreciate the clarification.

I understand the point on POFA and the DVLA address and won’t labour that further.

What I’d really welcome some guidance on now is the additional sums being claimed. In particular:

• the extra £60 added to the original parking charge
• the further solicitor fees and costs being mentioned at the pre-action stage

From reading other threads it looks as though these are often challenged or limited by the court, but I’d be grateful for any clarity on how these are usually treated in practice with Gladstones cases, and what a defendant should expect if it reaches a hearing.

Thanks again.

So, what was the issue at the car park?

Did the driver pay?
Has the driver proof of paying?

You have until 4pm on 30 March to submit either AoS or defence, if the former then you have until 4pm on 13 April to submit the defence.

I suggest you look up other defence submissions to Gladstones and modify to suit your precise circumstances and post here for comment.

Hi all,

Thank you for all the responses they have been very helpful. I have now drafted my response.

I have used the template doing the rounds on the forum and tailored it to my specific circumstances. The only points I have added to the template wording are in paragraphs 3(c), 3(e), and 3(g), where I have included:

- The vagueness of the "no valid payment" allegation
- The unexplained £60 add-on
- The PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(f) non-compliance point that InterCity125 kindly flagged. I have checked the NtK that Gladstones emailed me and can confirm that the phrase "if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met" does not appear in it.

I am not identifying the driver.

Here is the draft:

---

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the Claimant asserts the Defendant has breached the contract (or contracts). The alleged contravention is stated only as "no valid payment" without identifying which contractual term this is said to breach, what payment method was required, or why any payment made was invalid;

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges. In particular, the sum claimed includes £60 described as costs for "time/resources spent facilitating recovery," the contractual and legal basis for which is not explained;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the Claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity. The Defendant is the registered keeper and does not identify the driver. If the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to Keeper dated 25 June 2025 does not contain the mandatory warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of that Schedule, specifically the phrase "if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met," and keeper liability therefore does not arise.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant's failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the Claimant asserts that the Defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the Claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court's resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

---

Any comments before I submit would be very gratefully received, particularly on whether the PoFA point in 3(g) is appropriately worded, and whether the draft as a whole fits within the 122-line MCOL limit.

Thanks again to everyone who has helped on this thread.