Fortunately, you are dealing with a firm of utter incompetents and you can guarantee that any claim issued will fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means that it is likely to be struck out.
Whilst it would be a push to try and drag this out to January 2026, it is feasibly possible especially as this firm is so incompetent. For example, their Letter of Claim (LoC) is deficient. As long as we know the date it was re-issued, a response pointing out their deficiencies should be sent to them on day 29 which will force them to reissue the LoC again, with a 30 day deadline as per the PAPDC and then, assuming they have issued it correctly, again, on the 29th day a 30 day debt advice hold can be requested. There's 3 months gone before they can even issue a claim.
An LoC that omits the identity of the Claimant is defective under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and potentially misleading. Under Paragraph 3.1(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC), the Letter of Claim must include:
"the full name and address of the creditor."
This means that Gladstones are obliged to state clearly who the creditor is (i.e., the private parking company pursuing the alleged debt). A vague reference to "our client" is non-compliant. It fails to identify who you are allegedly in dispute with and prevents you from verifying the claim or checking their authority (including contracts, signs, and ATA membership).
This omission could be grounds to delay the case or strike out any eventual claim if they issue proceedings based on a defective pre-action process.
Once we know the actual date of the re-issued LoC you received, we can calculate the very last day that you can respond with the following by email to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk and you CC in yourself:
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated [insert date], under reference [insert reference number, if provided].
It is astonishing that a firm of solicitors purporting to act professionally in civil recovery matters has issued a Letter of Claim without naming the Claimant. This is a clear and fundamental breach of Paragraph 3.1(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, which requires the full name and address of the creditor to be stated. It is not optional.
Without such basic information, I am unable to assess the nature of the alleged debt or respond meaningfully. It is unclear how your client expects a fair and transparent resolution when even this most essential detail has been omitted.
Please confirm whether you intend to withdraw this defective Letter of Claim and reissue it in compliance with the Protocol. Should you choose to proceed on the basis of this non-compliant letter, I will reserve the right to bring this procedural failure to the attention of the court.
Furthermore, should there be any repetition of such elementary errors, or any pattern of non-compliance with the pre-action protocol obligations, I will consider the matter appropriate for referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, given your professional obligations under the SRA Code of Conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
So, what is the date that this re-issued LoC was issued?