Time of alleged breach per the NtD differs on Notice to keeper.

Pastafarian_fsm

Coupon-mad said:

Pastafarian_fsm said:

Umkomaas said:

OK, thanks for separating out the POPLA word porridge. Ignore it. And ignore any silly debt collector letters. 

Parking Solutions 24 aren't a prolific litigator - I can't easily recall any case of theirs that has gone as far as a concluded court hearing. Should they try a potshot in your case, await a Letter Of/Before Claim - giving you a 30 day deadline for responding - from their solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back to this thread for further advice. 

To get ahead of the curve, you could prepare yourself with a bit of gentle reading of the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, both situated near the top of the forum thread list. 

Wonderful, I will take your advice and checkout the section of the FAQ you mention. Fingers crossed I won't need to post back on this, but thank you all for your assistance on this. It's important what you guys do on here.

Equally important that people like you tell the Government that you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 almost promised.

AND THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED.

DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'!

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

You may want to wait till August when you get your first £170 demand, so that you can speak from experience re both those matters.

And here is the letter demanding £130! Like clockwork.
Do we continue to ignore? I will leave a comment on the consultation. Looks lengthy.

Castle

Is that your real name on the UCS letter?

Pastafarian_fsm

Castle said:

Is that your real name on the UCS letter?

What name? 👀

Thanks Castle

Pastafarian_fsm

We have received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstone's Solicitors.
Assuming everything on it is as it should be, do I proceed with following the stickied post?
Here is a copy of the redacted LBC.

Coupon-mad

Yep looks standard. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Coupon-mad said:

Yep looks standard. 

I see in the stickied thread post #2 that there is a template email to send to Gladstone's, as well as a link to a more inflammatory version https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80421536/#Comment_80421536
I will use one of those two and tweak it. Is it just the case that I state that the NtK was not POFA compliant?

Umkomaas

Just use the template telling them you will see them in court. No need for any embellishment really. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Umkomaas said:

Just use the template telling them you will see them in court. No need for any embellishment really. 

Done it, emailed to their main enquiries address and got a template acknowledgement email. Will wait and see what they come back with. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Pastafarian_fsm said:

Umkomaas said:

Just use the template telling them you will see them in court. No need for any embellishment really. 

Done it, emailed to their main enquiries address and got a template acknowledgement email. Will wait and see what they come back with. 

They came back with an email:

"As this is a generic template readily available on the internet it's not our intention to reply substantively to the content.  

Please make payment to the bank account details below:

Gladstones Solicitors Ltd

Barclays Bank

Account Number: 33028712

Sort Code: 20-24-09

Failure to make payment will result in the issue of legal proceedings without further recourse to you. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we recommend you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same." 

Coupon-mad

And what did you find here when you firstly (before posting it) searched the forum for this?

"As this is a generic template readily available on the internet it's not our intention to reply substantively"