Hi all, I'm having some issues with a parking fine i was given for parking outside of a bay but not into another bay but rather into a corner. I was driving the car and parked in this manner to avoid damage to my car which was door dinged the week prior, i am aware i look a bit silly now for parking on this angle rather than just slightly over the line into the corner of the carpark (not another space). However, I cannot in the right mind pay a 60-100 pound fine for doing this when i paid my all day tariff and didn't effect anyone else's parking or the capacity of the carpark, however they have now got Gladstone solicitors on me...
I'm just wondering if at this point I may just have to give up and pay the £170 fine or if anyone thinks this is worth fighting?
Thanks in advance.
the image for the carpark rules is slightly out of date but they wont provide me with a new image but the text is mostly the same, i will update Thursday when i get a new picture.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
You may want to redact your personal details on some of those documents unless you really do not care about identity theft.
The reminder Notice to Keeper (NtK) is useless for us. Only the original needs to be see, front and back.
You have not been “fined” anything.mGet that notion out of your head. You received a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver from an unregulated private parking company.
I wouldn’t worry too much about a claim being initiated by Gladstones as they are quite incompetent and will breach CPR 16.4(1)(a) which is likely to get the claim struck out at allocation stage if defended properly.
The £80 charge on the tariff sign is not adequately brought to the attention of the driver which is a breach of PoFA 2(2).
Did you appeal the Parking Charge Notice? If so, what exactly did you say in any appeals?
So, please redact anything of your personal information and show us the original NtK you received.
Thanks for getting back to me, ive updated the original images and added the replys they sent to my (somewhat rubbish) appeals...
I simply asked that they consider mitigating circumstances twice and both times they rejected, I've sent another more thought out appeal to gladstone solicitors which they will forward to their client which highlights a breach of proportionality and fairness under the SCoP as well as that they have failed to consider mitigating circumstances and that if they reject it again that they should be providing me with answers as to how they have considered the circumstances and some other stuff regarding the amount being claimed is hugely exaggerated.
apologies in advance I've not delt with anything like this before, this is my University carpark...
Why have you redacted all the dates and times? Leave ALL dates and times un-redacted!!!! You have shown two separate appeal rejection letters. Are you dealing with two separate PCNs?
You have not shown us the exact wording you used in your appeals. Did you also appeal to the useless IAS? Wha have you written to Gladstones?
You referenced photos of signs and had a different phot of the breach but you have now removed those. Unless you provide the required information and sop changing or removing it, we can't assist.
I am only dealing with one PCN, I appealed to them twice which is why there are two rejections, I don't have copies of my appeals, I mainly explained that I wasn't encroaching into another space but don't have them in writing. I have not written to the IAS and I am looking to write an appeal to Gladstones as they are acting on behalf of ES parking enforcement. I am asking for advice on how to move forward.
The images show the original NtK, the manor my vehicle was parked as well as the first page from Gladstones (I'll reply with the rest)
The image of the sign was an outdated version of the sign on the carpark as they won't provide me with a picture, but I will get one on Thursday when I am in Preston,
If you cant assist until I have the picture of the sign I can start from a clean slate later in the week, My apologies and thankyou for your help.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Attached are the rest of the images.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So... when you appealed and wrote to Gladstones, did you reveal the drivers identity? Hopefully not but only you will know whether you did, inadvertently or otherwise. The reason I ask is because the NtK is not PoFA compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver.
Did you, as the Keeper appealing and writing to Gladstones, only refer to the driver in the third party? Referring to the driver as "I did this or that" rather than "the driver did this or that" is inadvertently giving away the drivers identity if you are the Keeper appealing.
For now, just respond to the LoC with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 3rd March 2025, your ref: 104012.15737
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
Save as a PDF file and attach to an email addressed to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk and also CC in yourself.[/quote]
Okay thanks for the response, I did refer to myself in the first person in the previous appeals and when explaining the circumstances of the event but I guess I can only see what they say at this point.
Thanks again.
That's a pity as it would have been a slam dunk win if you hadn't identified the driver.
What the most likely outcome now is going to be that the claim is struck out at allocation stage as Gladstones are utterly incompetent when it comes to completing the Particulars of Claim. A bridge to cross when we come to it.
They’ve responded with another email declining my appeal that I copied over and I feel they’ve failed to address any of my points, what should I do now?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
They almost always decline appeals “after careful consideration” because they only want your money. They probably didn’t bother reading your appeal anyway, but you wrote it for the record.
Wait for a Letter of Claim and you will get help with the paperwork that follows. Per reply #8 above.
SO make formal complaint to the SRA about the incompetence of this firm of failed wannabes. They have not responded to your questions or even referred to them in their response. They are required to do so according to the Pre Action Protocol. I don't understand why people don't follow up on the failures by this firm of bottom-dwellers.
So, that's what you should do now and then wait and see if/when they issue a claim.
Agree x 1
View List