Urgent help needed!! Personal response from Gladstone Solicitor

bethlm

Please can somebody give me some quick advice. I have received a letter before claim from Gladstone Solicitors in response to a parking charge for not displaying a permit in a car park patrolled by Link Parking. I sent the response letter on the sticky thread outlining that they had not compiled with the directive and hasn't supplied sufficient information in their letter before claim and the solicitor has now emailed me a personal reply which says the following!!

Ms E

I have picked up your email sent to the enquiries inbox. Please use my email directly in future.

It’s interesting that you ask us to refrain from sending a ‘generic FAQ letter in reply’, particularly in view of the fact you have copied a generic response taken from the internet, the content of which I sadly see time and time again.

You have been provided with sufficient information to enable you to give an account of the events as you understand them. In failing to provide us with your ‘side of the story’ you are blatantly disregarding the purpose of the pre-action rules. I would go as far as arguing that you are using the rules as a tactical device which is strictly prohibited.

If you genuinely dispute this debt then I would be happy to discuss with you the reasons why, however if you have simply typed in to google ‘how do I escape paying a parking charge?’ then I see no point in continuing with this pre-action exchange as it would seem legal proceedings are the only likely way this dispute will be resolved.

I need not remind you that if legal proceedings are issued the level of debt will increase as a when costs are incurred (which they will be), so at this stage, I would ask that in order to save everyone a lot of time and unnecessary effort you pay the debt.

Legal proceedings may now be issued without further notice.

Regards

Solicitor

How am I meant to respond to this????

Umkomaas

You could call their bluff - 'See you in court'. It's debatable whether they would pursue this to court, and even if they do, the paperwork to defend is probably no more onerous than getting into what's likely to be extended correspondence with Gladstone in arguing the toss about following the Practice Direction.

I recommend you read the following PePiPoo thread, whose originator is in the same position as you, but further along the road.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=94457

bethlm

Thank you for your reply, I have looked at that thread but he is not further ahead than me. I have also sent a similar letter as him in response to the letter before claim from gladstones but I have not had a reply from them which is the email in my original post. He does not mention he has had any response but I shall try posting my question on there as well.

HO87

Without a little more to go on - such as the content of the LBA that Gladstones sent it is very difficult to advise in more detail (I do not suggest that you post that here).

Please feel free to PM me. I have some experience of dealing with Gladstones albeit in relation to other PPC's.

BenefitMaster

bethlm wrote: »

you have copied a generic response taken from the internet, the content of which I sadly see time and time again.

The reason they are sad to see the generic responses is because they work and win, meaning Gladstones don't get their success fee.

Coupon-mad

I would reply and say you are not surprised to have received such a patronising and unhelpful reply which confirms everything you have researched about the industry and the ATAs. Say that it was your lawful choice not to engage with the so called 'appeals' process because this wasn't a fine, does not require a response under statute and your research has shown that the IAS is strangely anonymous and without merit as an 'independent' appeals service. You feel you would get a fairer hearing in court, as is your right, especially as the driver was not trespassing and was authorised to park there.

I would then add that, despite their dismissive words in addressing you like a naughty child, in fact researching on the internet is of course not a crime. It is perfectly legitimate, lawyers and Judges research issues and questions online every day - and that is your business, not theirs. 'See you in Court'.

bethlm

Thanks Coupon, I have deleted the posts. Do you think i give a background to the situation as he asked and the reason for non payment ie. No loss has been made etc?

Coupon-mad

Nope. Save it for court, write something based on what I said above which includes the fact the driver was authorised to be there.

bethlm

Ok thank you!