Hi all, I am new to this group.
I received a PCN for “Obstructive Parking” on Regis Road NW5. My car was pictured as being stationary for just over five minutes in an area that was not marked by double yellow lines and was not a parking bay. From a non-technical point of view, the car was clearly not causing an obstruction — and if it had been, I was in the vehicle and could have moved if necessary.
The road is confusing because it is apparently a private road that is designated as a car park. The road has a local borough council street name at its entrance, is served by council traffic lights, and provides access to the local council recycling centre, the car pound, the Royal Mail sorting office, as well as a number of businesses. There are several signs on the road, which I didn’t read as I did not intend to park. The main sign near the entrance does say “Private Land”, but this sign is not obvious and is often obscured by vehicles leaving and waiting at the traffic lights.
I have appealed first to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd and then to POPLA. Both appeals were rejected.
I have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones.
This is my reply:
Dear Sirs,
Your ref: [insert reference number]
Proposed legal proceedings
Claimant: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
I refer to your letter of claim.
Please note that my address for service, for the time being, is as follows. Any previous address must be removed from your records:
[My address]
The alleged debt is fully disputed. No payment will be made, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. I request that you refer this matter back to your client. Based on the circumstances, any attempt to pursue a claim in respect of “obstructive parking” would have no merit and would not succeed.
If your client nevertheless chooses to issue proceedings, I will respond accordingly and seek recovery of any costs that the court may permit.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
I have posted on the MSE board about this as well.
Help, advice, and details of what might come next would be appreciated.
Do you have photos of the signage?
Yes, I will provide images shortly.
Has the driver been identified at this point?
The original NtK appears to be non PoFA compliant.
Would you be able to label these so that we don't have to open 24 links if we're looking for a particular one?
Has the driver been identified at this point?
The original NtK appears to be non PoFA compliant.
At this point I have been identified as the driver.
Is the original NtK not PoFA compliant
Yes, it does seem that the original PCN does not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). I wonder whether that would be enough to have the case dropped if it goes to court.
“The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The front entrance to the garage is actually boarded up and sealed, so it cannot be opened. There is only a door entrance at the side.
Is there any mileage in the argument that the “Private Road” signage is not prominent and is easily obscured? It seems that the whole road is designated as a car park, but it is also an access road and has all the characteristics of a public road.
Here is a copy of the "Letter Before Claim (the first link is the main letter).
https://ibb.co/wFY28PZ8https://ibb.co/JRdd8VmVhttps://ibb.co/5xFS78sZ
This is a known location for poor signage. Especially the signage as you turn into the road - the 'private road' sign is low down and does not face oncoming traffic as you turn into the road. This sign is often obstructed by either poorly parked vehicles or vehicles waiting at the junction.
Given the location, you'd never know you were turning into a private road.
Should I add that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) as there is no "period of parking" noted in my reply to the Letter Before Claim, from Gladstones or wait until an actual claim is started?
Once a Letter before claim has been sent, do Gladstones have to start the claim within a certain period? If PPS (London) decide to drop any potential legal action do the need to notify me?
Thanks all
Yes, it does seem that the original PCN does not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). I wonder whether that would be enough to have the case dropped if it goes to court.
The CPRs have nothing to do with the PCN. They are only relative to the judicial process once a claim has been filed.
CPR 16.4(1)(a) will refer to the actual Particulars of Claim (PoC) that the utter incompetents at Gladstones will submit in the claim. It is a technical point that will be the basis of any defence. All the other arguments about signage etc, will come in response to their hearsay Witness Statement (WS) much later, if the claim is not first struck out for the CPR 16.4(1)(a) failure.
You can respond to Gladrags LoC as follows:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). 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, proportionate resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012 liability.
2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site map showing sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client alleges were breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their own name.
5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the £70 add‑on.
These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under paragraph 6(b).
Your letter’s attempt at intimidation
I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.
To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit. Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless but improper.
Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported to:
• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct; and
• the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial practices.
If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the documents and information required under the PAPDC and Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions, including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of an application for costs.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web portal. I will respond only via email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Thank you. The help is much appreciated.
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List