Free Traffic Legal Advice

Presumably you are the registered keeper? The PCN clearly says the driver is liable. There is nothing to say you have to name the driver.

The debt collectors letters can be safely ignored, they are click-bit to bully you into paying.Don't reply to anything until others have been along to give you better advice.

Dear Gladstones Solicitors,

Re: Letter of Claim dated 11th October 2024

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being, assuming you don’t faff about and delay any claim, is as follows, and any older address you may hold must be erased from your records:

[MY ADDRESS]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called “extorting money from motorists.” Don’t send me your usual blather about that.

I also wish to highlight that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which is essential for holding the keeper liable when the driver has not been identified. The NtK does not accurately state the “period of parking” as required by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b). Only a single time of 12:44 is mentioned, and the evidential photos provided lack date and timestamps, failing to establish a specific “period of parking.” Therefore, as the driver has not been identified, I, as the keeper, cannot be held liable for the charge.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]

Subject: Response to Letter of Claim dated [17th January 2025]

Dear Gladstones Solicitors,

Re: Letter of Claim dated [17th January 2025]

I acknowledge receipt of yet another Letter of Claim.

Your firm failed to properly respond to my previous letter dated [date of previous response], in which I raised fundamental issues regarding your client's defective Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the unlawful £70 add-on. Instead of addressing these points, you issued a much delayed and inadequate response that failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP). Now, rather than progressing with your initial Letter of Claim, you have issued a fresh one—without explanation—demonstrating either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to frustrate due process.

To be clear:

1. Your client’s NtK does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, meaning they cannot hold the registered keeper liable. The alleged ‘time of the charge’ does not satisfy PoFA’s requirement to state a period of parking. As a supposed firm of professional legal representatives, you may wish to look up Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], in which the appeal court found that failing to specify a period of parking invalidates Keeper liability under PoFA, as it does not meet the mandatory statutory requirements.

Your assertion that a period of parking is “not applicable” because parking was allegedly not permitted is legally baseless and contrary to established case law. However, given Gladstones’ reputation, I suspect your firm lacks either the capability or inclination to conduct proper legal research, instead relying on boilerplate responses that ignore key legal principles.

2. The £70 add-on is unlawful, unrecoverable, and an abuse of process. The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] does not assist your client in this regard, and the Government has explicitly condemned these excessive charges as “extorting money from motorists.” The attempt to pass off this amount as a legitimate debt recovery cost is misleading, as courts have repeatedly dismissed such claims. The fact that your response merely quoted the outdated IPC Code of Practice, rather than any actual legal authority, only serves to highlight the weakness of your position.

3. Your response regarding the nature of the charge was contradictory and legally incoherent. Your client cannot simultaneously claim the sum as a contractual charge (where it would be VAT applicable) and as damages for breach of contract (where it would not be). Your failure to provide a clear legal basis for the alleged charge only reinforces the impression that your firm is attempting to dress up an unenforceable penalty as something more palatable to the courts.

Since you have now issued a new LoC, I require the following:

• A full explanation of why a second LoC has been issued instead of proceeding with the first one.

• Confirmation that your client will not attempt to claim the unlawful £70.

• A properly compliant response to my original PAP request, addressing each point properly instead of providing vague and legally dubious justifications.

Failure to provide a satisfactory response will be noted and brought to the court’s attention should you proceed with issuing a claim. Any such claim will be robustly defended, and I will seek to have it struck out as an abuse of process.

I suggest you take proper legal advice before sending me any further boilerplate threats.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Subject: Re: Alleged PCN – Reference [XXXX]

Dear Gladstones Solicitors,

I note your latest email dated [insert date], received more than three months after your second Letter of Claim dated 17th January 2025.

It is regrettable – albeit unsurprising – that you have chosen not to address any of the legally valid points raised in my detailed and properly framed response. Instead, you have responded with vague threats, an arbitrary deadline, and the legally meaningless statement that the matter is now “post-litigation,” despite the fact that no claim has been issued.

To be absolutely clear for the record:

• You failed to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I raised specific and reasonable questions regarding the alleged charge, the misapplication of the £70 add-on, and your client’s defective Notice to Keeper. These have not been answered.
• The matter cannot be considered “post-litigation” when no claim has been filed, nor have any Particulars of Claim been served.
• Your refusal to accept further submissions is not only discourteous, it is a clear breach of the spirit and letter of the PAP and CPR 1.1, which require parties to engage in good faith and attempt to resolve disputes without court involvement.

These points are directly relevant to whether any claim has merit and must be addressed before any proceedings are issued.

Your refusal to engage, combined with your vague and baseless “post-litigation” claim (despite no proceedings being issued), suggests a deliberate attempt to intimidate and frustrate the proper process. If you continue to disregard your professional and procedural obligations, I will have no hesitation in submitting a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), citing breaches of the SRA Code of Conduct and misuse of the pre-action process, particularly:

• Paragraph 1.2: acting with integrity
• Paragraph 2.2: not misleading or taking unfair advantage
• Paragraph 3.1: ensuring proper standard of client service, including compliance with protocols
• Paragraph 1.4: not abusing their position by threatening litigation improperly

Should your client issue proceedings, I will not only defend the claim in full but will also bring your conduct to the court’s attention as unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g), particularly your repeated failure to engage with substantive points and your abuse of the pre-action process.

As always, I remain open to a proper and reasoned response, should you ever wish to comply with your professional obligations.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]