Letter before claim

You could ring the Court and ask if the N180 is on the way or do they have a backlog?

Yes and yes, you your other questions. But the (up to) £750 will be specifically for a DPA breach.

Should I ring the court to find out if they have paid it by then?

Yes you could do that.

Another suggestion: there is nothing to stop you sending a pushy letter/email next week to Gladstones, telling them that your defence will be including the Jopson v Homeguard Appeal case and other relevant transcripts such as Pace v Mr N, which all support a defence relying partly on primacy of contract and the fact a parking firm cannot override existing implied grants under a lease which allow vehicles to pass and re-pass on site, including loading/unloading as part of that right.

State that the lease will also be provided in evidence and it is known that Link have already failed in similar cases at a residential car park at Overstone Court. As such, Gladstone have no cause of action. Finally, inform them that, when you prevail at any hearing if they decide not to discontinue, a claim for misuse of data is likely to be pursued against their client and the landholder with whom they contracted, with no regard to the rights and grants enjoyed by residents on site and their allowed visitors.

Even if you've already sent something, I would do it again, keep prodding and rattling their cage - and then after the ten days is past (a good few days after), ring the court and see if G's paid the hearing fee or not.

OK let's make it so this could be later twisted that way, after you've won. Set some foundations at this stage as well as saying the rest above:

Include in the letter the fact that this letter is an 'objection to processing' data (Section 10 of the DPA applies). The driver's name and address was only provided for the sole purpose of appealing the unfair charge and to inform the parking firm that the driver had a right to pass and re-pass, as was found in the Jopson case (a Gladstones case) HHJ Harris QC remarking that otherwise, life in a development of flats/houses would be 'unworkable'.

Since the parking operator knew this, but has thereafter disregarded the driver's rights under the lease, as soon as the fact was disclosed that the car was there in connection with a resident under their rights to pass and re-pass, the PCN should have been cancelled. To continue to then process data, ignoring the rights of way of the resident and their visitors was a matter of derogation from grant. As agents for the managing agent, Link was negligent and had no right to pursue the charge and/or continue to process the data supplied which informed them in no uncertain terms that the driver was not a trespasser.

So, finish by saying the purpose of this letter is to avoid wasting the court's time and to reinforce the defence from a driver whose rights under the lease have been disregarded and who has subsequently been bombarded with threats from a third party agent whose terms did not feature at all in the resident's AST, nor was his Tenancy Agreement varied to include the onerous terms later foisted on residents. And to warn their client that continuing to process data when they have no cause of action is opening them up to a claim against them and the landholder.

As such, you encourage the claim to be discontinued and the hearing vacated forthwith.

Don't make any offer in the letter. It can then feature in your WS about the facts of what happened and the efforts the defendant has made to resolve the dispute without wasting the court's time.