Gladstones Letter Before Action

The business model of the PPCs involves rejecting any offers for anything less than the full amount, as far as I am aware.

If you offer £100 x2 and they reject it, no you don't lose the right to make another offer. However, if they issue proceedings in the meantime, added to the £160x2 will be £25 court issue fee and £50 solicitors costs (the max they are allowed to add for costs in a small claim).

These cases are defendable, as you know. However, as you also know they take time and dedication to defend properly and you also have to give up a day of your time to go to court. I understand entirely your wish to avoid all of this - whilst us forum regulars would like to see everyone defending because people who pay up are perpetuating the scam, you have to make the decision that is right for you.

At the heart of your dilemma is that you need to incentivise them to accept your offer. As you've started work on a letter picking holes in their case, why don't you:

1. Respond formally to the letter before claim with this letter, picking holes in their case and, importantly, asking questions. Eg what locus standi do they have to bring a claim - can they please produce a copy of the contract with the landowner which they claim gives them the authority to issue pcns and to pursue proceedings in their own name). Also, ask for a plan of the site showing where all signage was situated at the relevant time and a copy of the signage displayed at the time, and for details of how such signage was displayed (height of sign, size of sign, font used etc). Ask if they had advertisement consent from the Local Planning Authority to display the signs on the land in question at the time of your pcns [they are committing a criminal offence if they didn't].

2. Say that under POFA they are not entitled to claim from the RK in the Notices to Keeper any more than was due from the driver at that date (ie the £100). Say that this means that the NtKs (if they sought £160 rather than £100) are not valid under POFA which means that they have no legal basis for pursuing the RK.

3. Ask for an explanation of what the additional £60 represents and under what legal basis they claim to be entitled to that additional £60 per ticket.

4. BTW, were they writing you one letter each time about the two tickets, or separately, but now they have joined the two together? If so, then ifthey are entitled to charge admin costs to represent the costs of writing to you (although this is not accepted), then these should be halved in any event because there were not two sets of letters but only 1.

5. Have you checked that the date they sent the NtKs out is within the POFA time limits (between day 29 and day 56 after the original pcns)? If they are out of time, point this out and say that this also means that the NtKs are invalid under POFA and they have no legal basis to pursue the RK.

6. Ask for the date on which they obtained the RK's details from DVLA. Say that as you consider the NtKs are not valid under POFA that they have committed a breach of the Data Protection Act which gives you a claim to damages.

7. SiP is a member of IPC - have a look at their Code of Practice and see if you can find a few breaches of it (you are bound to be able to find some) and include these.

8. Point out that they are obliged to provide the information you are asking for pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and (c) and 12 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. And that they are obliged to respond to the points you have raised about the NtKs/POFA, the recoverability of additional charges and their breaches of the IPC CoP. Emphasise your wish to engage in a meaningful dialogue about the claim in order to try to better understand the claim, to narrow the issues and, hopefully, reach a settlement. Warn them that if they do not engage in meaningful correspondence with you about the claim and do not provide the information requested (all of which they would have to produce in any claim, so it is not putting them to any extra trouble or expense) then you will immediately ask the court to stay any claim they bring pursuant to paragraphs 13 and 15(b) of the Practice Direction and will rely on this correspondence.

Either then wait and see what their response is before you decide what offer to make, or with this letter send a letter headed "Without Prejudice Save as to Costs" and make your offer. You are better waiting if you think that the NtKs were served out of time (ie beyond day 56 after the original pcn) because this is really a killer point.

I don't know if SIP is an outfit that generally issues claims or if they are one of the PPCs that tends to go away. Other forum users will know the answer to that - you could also check on BMPA's website for this information. If they are one of the ones who tend not to issue proceedings, you are better off writing this letter and not making an offer and waiting to see what they do.

If you make no offer, worst case is £160 per ticket, plus £75 in court fees/costs. I think it's worth risking the extra £75 (as you say you're willing to pay the £160) to put up an "armchair" fight and to wait and see how they respond.

snorbit wrote: »

o if I offer say £100x2, can they say "thank you for your response, we reject this and have no option but to apply to the County Court". Then I either have to go to court or pay a settlement which would now include court fees.

If they say no, between that and them issuing you can offer the £160. Court fees are not incurred until the claim is actually issued.


I would put in a couple of hours of effort to write to them as I've suggested and wait and see what they do before you make an offer. Or if you really can't bear this any more, make the offer at the same time. Personally I think making the offer at the same time shows weakness and they are more likely than not to respond with two fingers and a demand for payment of £160 in full.


I've just checked the court fee. For a claim between £300 and £500 (which this is) it's £35 - so the maximum that can be added to this claim on top of the £160 per ticket is £35 plus £50 in costs. So £85 rather than the £75 I originally said in my post above. Plus a very small amount of interest (8% of £320 per annum at a daily rate).

snorbit wrote: »

I don't have a chequebook and won't be able to get one in time.

I do not want to risk having to pay more than £160. This is already extorionate. "Just" another £75 is not just "just" - it is extra that I want to avoid. It still seems they may choose to pursue this to court if I make an offer that they don't accept.

From what I have read, SIP is a company that does pursue these things to court.

My POFA letter focusses on the fact I am the hirer not the keeper. They did not include the necessary docs (e.g. hire agreement) when sending me their (supposed) "Notice to Hirer". I gave up on this approach once the Gladstones letter arrived.

Appreciate that. Was just trying to show you your bottom line.


The POFA point is one to run in your letter. POFA has to be complied with. It's not a suggestion or best practice, compliance with the 4 conditions is a requirement for keeper liability. If you want to settle for less than the £160, you must give them a reason to settle.

With your offer to settle I think


So, yes, separately. Put up a fight with these ones, followed by an offer to settle incorporating all 3. You say the same defences apply to the third ticket.