Free Traffic Legal Advice

Mr xyz
ABC
Zone A
70763121501Eco1269311A1344
301W10B2J00072
GS
GLADSTONES
SOLICITORS
Please quote our reference on all correspondence: 104477.5699
28th October 2025
TO PAY CALL GLADSTONES ON 0333 023 0049
Speak to us on 01565 755 088
WARNING:
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE - COURT PROCEEDINGS ARE IMMINENT
Dear Mr xyz,
Our Client: Amount Due: Vehicle Reg:
Euro Parking Services Limited
£160.00
P8650AB
We write further to our Letter before Claim dated the 25th April 2025.
We strongly recommend you consider the content carefully as it contains important legal information. The Pre-Action Protocol ('PAP') period has expired.
To ensure no further action is taken, you should make payment no later than 14 days from the date on
this letter.
In the event we do not receive payment within the time scale specified, our Client reserves all its rights, including the right to commence Court proceedings, without further reference to you, and further costs will be sought.
Yours Sincerely
Gladstones Solicitors
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Registered in England and Wales (07535449). Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (559050).
ר ח
adstoes Solicitors complies with Data Protection Legislation. A copy of our Privacy State and Arther infomican found ar gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
L ZTE Axon 30 Ultra 5G
Gladstones Solicitors
Unit B, 1st Floor 210 Cygnet Court
Centre Park
Warrington WA1 1PP
01565 755 088
Enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
AME150_271025_7076312_MACHINE\26931163203\1of2\







Hi everyone,

I'm hoping for some advice regarding a Letter before Claim I've received from Gladstones Solicitors, acting for Euro Parking Services Limited. The original charge was for £100, but with their added costs, they are now demanding £160.

Here’s a timeline of what’s happened:

1. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Euro Parking Services about six months ago. It was issued on private land (in front of a retail shop, not council land). The original charge was £60.
2. I spoke to the property landlord at the time, as the property was connected to the land. He assured me he would get it cancelled and, as a gesture, I paid him half of the original fine. However, he has not provided any proof of cancellation.
3. I heard nothing for months, but have now received this escalated Letter before Claim from Gladstones, who are acting as debt collectors.

The parking company does have some photographic evidence of the vehicle.

My main questions are:

· Given the significant delay of around six months since the initial PCN, is this a strong point in my favour? The Pre-Action Protocol stresses promptness, and this feels like they've let it sit.
· I was under the common misconception that private parking charges were unenforceable and that the aggressive letters were just intimidation. I now understand from reading more that firms like Gladstones do frequently use the small claims court, despite the relatively low amount.
· My initial instinct was to ignore this, believing that if they were serious, they would have filed a claim months ago. I also have an excellent credit history which I am extremely keen to protect, so I now realise ignoring this is too risky.

What is my best move here? Should I focus on the delay and the lack of proof from the landlord, or are there more solid defences I should be using in my response to Gladstones?

Any guidance or template language would be hugely appreciated. I can provide a redacted copy of the letter if helpful.

Thanks in advance for your help.

How does following sound if I post it to the debt collector solicitors?



[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Postcode]

[Date]

Gladstones Solicitors Limited
Unit B,1st Floor
210 Cygnet Court
Centre Park
Warrington
WA1 1PP

Subject: Formal Dispute of Letter Before Claim - Ref: 104477.5699 / Vehicle P8650AB

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim dated 28th October 2025, acting on behalf of Euro Parking Services Limited.

I formally dispute this claim in its entirety on multiple grounds.

1. Significant and Prejudicial Delay:
Your client's claim relates to an alleged event occurring approximately six months ago.The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims mandates that claimants must act promptly. This substantial and unexplained delay is prejudicial, hindering a detailed recollection of the event, and demonstrates a lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter. I reserve the right to bring this undue delay to the attention of the court.

2. Disproportionate Charge for a De Minimis Breach:
The charge is based on an alleged overstay of a mereone minute beyond the grace period. I contend that this is a de minimis (too trivial to be considered) breach and that the sum of £160 is therefore a grossly disproportionate penalty. It does not, and cannot, represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss suffered by the landowner for a vehicle being present for one additional minute. The charge is an unenforceable penalty clause.

3. Insufficient Signage:
I dispute that the signage at the location was adequate to form a fair,transparent, and binding contract, particularly in relation to the terms concerning such a minor overstay.

To comply with the Pre-Action Protocol and enable me to address this claim fully, I require the following information and documents:

· A complete and unredacted copy of all evidence, including all photographic evidence.
· A clear, dated copy of the "Notice to Keeper" sent for this charge.
· A detailed breakdown of how your client has complied with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
· Clear, dated photographs of the signage at the location, demonstrating its prominence, legibility, and the specific terms from the driver's perspective on the date of the event.
· A detailed justification of how the £160 charge constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of your client's loss, specifically in the context of a one-minute overstay.

Until this information is provided, I am unable to take any meaningful steps toward resolution. The burden remains on your client to prove its case.

Should your client choose to issue court proceedings without first providing this information and addressing the substantive points raised, I will defend the claim in full and seek to recover my costs, citing this letter as evidence of my reasonable attempts to adhere to the Pre-Action Protocol.

I await your response and the provision of the requested documents within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Signature]

[Your Printed Name]

---

Why This is So Effective

1. "De Minimis" Argument: Using the legal term de minimis (Latin for "about minimal things") shows a sophisticated understanding that some breaches are too trivial to enforce. A court is highly unlikely to look favourably on a £160 claim for a 1-minute overstay.
2. Focus on Proportionality: It directly challenges the core of their claim—that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is impossible to argue that the landowner suffered £160 of loss in 60 seconds.
3. Combined Defence:  three strong fronts:
   · Procedure: The 6-month delay.
   · Substance: The trivial nature of the breach.
   · Law: The charge being an unfair penalty.

 Action Plan

 title: "Gladstones LBC - 1 MINUTE Overstay & 6-Month Delay - Strong Defence?"
   · The experts will love this. A 1-minute overstay is a dream scenario for building a defence. They will confirm the strength of the de minimis argument.
 It is highly unlikely Gladstones will want to explain to a judge why they are pursuing a £160 claim for a 1-minute overstay after a 6-month delay.

I look forward for feedback on this proposed letter which I intend to send via recorded delivery possibly tomorrow unless there is a strong argument it will not be good enough. Cheers

Rubbish letter response. DO NOT send that unless you want to FUBAR this. I can assure you that any claim issued by Gladstone's will not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means you can expect it to be struck out.

If you're going to respond an LoC then send something like this:

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 places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

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 discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each 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 only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.

2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.

3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.

4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.

5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.


I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).

If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).

Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.

Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]

It would still be helpful to see the documents.