Letter Before Claim from Gladstones (PPS), No Parking - Please Review My Response

oliniusz

Hi all,

I’m looking for feedback on a Letter Before Claim (LBC) I’ve drafted in response to a parking charge from Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. 

Quick Facts:

• When: Approximately 12 months ago
• Where: Industrial estate with multiple car garages
• What happened: I attended a garage for a pre-booked MOT. After leaving, I briefly stopped in my car to pay road tax online and set my navigation before departing. Never left the vehicle.
• Parking company: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (BPA member)
• Original PCN: £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days)
• Current demand: £170 via Gladstones Letter Before Claim
• Their evidence: Two photos from a distance taken seconds apart

Signage:

• Simple "No Parking" signs only (prohibitive, not contractual)
• Positioned at approximately 2.5m height on side wall
• Too small to read clearly from inside vehicle
• I have photos of the signage added below

My Evidence:

• MOT certificate from that day
• Receipt for £45 from the garage
• Photos showing inadequate signage
• Their own photos prove I was only there for seconds

My Defences:

1. Jopson - brief stop ≠ parking
2. No contract formed (prohibitive signage, not visible from vehicle)
3. Legitimate visitor with lawful reason to be there
4. Beavis test fails (no legitimate interest, charge disproportionate)
5. BPA Code breaches (grace period, signage standards, predatory tactics)
6. £70 cost uplift unjustified (Excel v Wilkinson)

My Draft Response to Gladstones:

Letter Before Claim Response

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref: [insert reference number]

Claimant: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

I write in response to your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date].

I confirm my address for service is:

[Insert correct address here]

Please ensure all previous addresses are erased from your records.

I deny any debt to your client in its entirety for the following reasons:

---

1. No Contract Formed

The signage at the site consisted only of prohibitive "No Parking" signs and is therefore incapable of creating a contract. Such signs tell drivers what not to do; they do not offer parking on contractual terms. At best, this would be a matter of alleged trespass, and only the landowner (not your client) would have standing to bring such a claim. PPS is not the landowner and has no such rights.

Furthermore, the signs were:

• Positioned at approximately 2.5m height on a side wall
• Too small to be clearly readable from within a vehicle
• Did not adequately display any charge amount, terms and conditions, or basis for liability
• Failed to meet the visibility and legibility requirements established in Vine v Waltham Forest [2000]

Photographic evidence of the inadequate signage is attached and will be produced if proceedings are commenced.

---

2. Brief Stop ≠ Parking

On [date], I attended [garage name] for a pre-booked MOT inspection, as evidenced by my MOT certificate and receipt for £45 (attached). On leaving the premises, I briefly stopped my vehicle without leaving the vehicle in order to pay my road tax online and set my navigation before departing.

Your client's own photographic evidence shows only two images taken seconds apart, which confirms my account and falls squarely within the principle established in Jopson v Homeguard [2016], where the Court held that brief stopping is not "parking."

I was a legitimate customer of a tenant business with lawful reason to be on the premises. No "parking" occurred.

---

3. Beavis Test Not Satisfied

Your client may seek to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]. That case is clearly distinguished:

• In Beavis, there was a clear offer of free parking for two hours with a charge for overstaying. Here, the signs were prohibitive and did not offer parking on any terms.
• Beavis concerned a busy retail car park with a legitimate interest in ensuring turnover of limited spaces for customers. No such interest exists here – I was a paying customer of a tenant business on an industrial estate.
• The Supreme Court in Beavis considered £85 reasonable in those specific circumstances. The original charge of £100 (now escalated to £170) for a short stop by a legitimate customer is manifestly disproportionate and fails the Beavis proportionality test.

---

4. Inflated and Unjustified Sums

The increase from £100 to £170 represents a £70 uplift which is arbitrary and unjustified. Such inflated cost add-ons have been condemned as an abuse of process in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson [2020] and numerous subsequent County Court judgments.

The Supreme Court in Beavis considered only the parking charge itself; no additional “debt recovery” fees were sanctioned. Please provide a detailed breakdown with evidence of costs genuinely and reasonably incurred, as required by the CPR Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

---

5. BPA Code of Practice Breaches

Your client is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is therefore bound by its Code of Practice. The conduct in this matter breaches multiple requirements:

• Clause 13 (Grace Periods): A mandatory grace period must be allowed for drivers to read signs and depart. A stop of less than one minute clearly falls within this period.
• Clause 19 (Signage): Signs must be clear, prominent and legible from a vehicle. At this site, the signs were too high and too small to be read.
• Clause 17 (Predatory Tactics): The operative’s conduct in immediately photographing a vehicle that had only momentarily stopped, rather than allowing any grace period, is predatory.
• Clause 7 (Written Authority): Operators must hold written authorisation from the landowner. I put your client to strict proof that such a contract exists.

Non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice renders this charge unfair, unreasonable, and unenforceable.

---

6. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Compliance

Under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, strict conditions must be met before a parking charge can be pursued against a keeper. Your client must prove:

• A compliant Notice to Keeper was issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention
• The Notice to Keeper contained all information required by Schedule 4
• The keeper was given the opportunity to identify the driver
• All procedural requirements were followed exactly

Please provide full evidence of compliance with PoFA Schedule 4, including:

• Copy of the Notice to Keeper with proof of posting date
• Evidence it was sent within the 14-day window
• Confirmation of compliance with all Schedule 4 requirements

I do not accept that your client has properly complied with PoFA, and this is an additional ground on which the claim will be defended.

---

7. Documents Required

If your client persists, please provide the following as required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims:

• A copy of the contract between PPS and the landowner granting authority to issue and enforce charges
• A full set of contemporaneous photographs relied upon, including metadata showing timestamps
• A site plan showing all signage locations, heights, and exact wording
• Evidence of compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 if keeper liability is alleged
• A detailed breakdown of the claimed £70 cost uplift

Until such documents are produced, the claim remains entirely without merit.

---

8. Delay

The delay of over 12 months before escalating to legal threats raises serious questions about the commercial viability of this claim.

---

9. Pattern of Conduct

I have become aware that your client’s enforcement tactics are not isolated to my vehicle. During my most recent MOT at the same garage earlier this year, the mechanic informed me that the staff at the premises have also been subject to parking charges and that similar threats of court action have been issued.

While I cannot verify the full details, this indicates a broader pattern of enforcement behaviour by your client that may be predatory or indiscriminate, further supporting my position that the alleged charge is unfair, unreasonable, and contrary to the spirit of the BPA Code of Practice.

---

For the avoidance of doubt, the alleged debt is denied in full on multiple independent grounds, each of which is fatal to your client's claim. Any court proceedings will be vigorously defended, and I will seek a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.

I also note that the actual court fee for a claim of this value is £35, not the inflated figures suggested in your letter.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

DE_612183

I wouldn't say you stopped to pay road tax, just to set your sat nav and ensure safety procedures followed.

jd576

That's an extremely cogent post.

Re contract formation, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 21 is also relevant I believe, in that when an onerous clause is incorporated into a contract, reasonable steps must be taken to bring it to attention before the contract is formed. This implies that where a contract is formed by conduct, there needs to be signage at the point of entry to the car park area highlighting the charges, otherwise a contract is not validly formed. 

oliniusz

Thank you! I've sort of wanted to keep my integrity but I also take the point. I think I can just state that:

On leaving the premises, I briefly stopped the vehicle, without leaving it, in order to safely set the navigation and complete essential tasks before departure.

Apart from that, would anybody kindly let me know if there are any other suggestions or remarks about my draft response? Do you think it’s solid enough to send back at this stage?  

oliniusz

jd576 said:

That's an extremely cogent post.

Re contract formation, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 21 is also relevant I believe, in that when an onerous clause is incorporated into a contract, reasonable steps must be taken to bring it to attention before the contract is formed. This implies that where a contract is formed by conduct, there needs to be signage at the point of entry to the car park area highlighting the charges, otherwise a contract is not validly formed. 

Thank you! I think I could adapt my first point:

---

1. No Contract Formed

The signage at the site consisted only of prohibitive "No Parking" signs and is therefore incapable of creating a contract. Such signs tell drivers what not to do; they do not offer parking on contractual terms. At best, this would be a matter of alleged trespass, and only the landowner (not your client) would have standing to bring such a claim. PPS is not the landowner and has no such rights.

Furthermore, the signs were:

• Positioned at approximately 2.5m height on a side wall
• Too small to be clearly readable from within a vehicle
• Did not adequately display any charge amount, terms and conditions, or basis for liability
• Failed to meet the visibility and legibility requirements established in Vine v Waltham Forest [2000]

Even if your client were to argue that a contract was formed by conduct, the onerous term (a £100+ charge) was not validly incorporated. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970], the Court held that particularly onerous terms must be brought fairly and prominently to the attention of the other party before the contract is made. Here, there was no clear signage at the point of entry, and the on-site signs were elevated and unreadable from a vehicle. No driver could reasonably have been aware of, let alone agreed to, any such term.

Photographic evidence of the inadequate signage is attached and will be produced if proceedings are commenced.

---

Car1980

Personally I wouldn't send my adversary my defence/witness statement so they have months to pick over it.

They're not going to avoid making a claim because they're bulk litigators. 

If you want to cause trouble and make more work for them, demand they produce a copy of the contract they are relying upon and which breach they are accusing the driver of. That way you can stick in a paragraph about unreasonable behaviour if they refuse. 

oliniusz

Car1980 said:

Personally I wouldn't send my adversary my defence/witness statement so they have months to pick over it.

They're not going to avoid making a claim because they're bulk litigators. 

If you want to cause trouble and make more work for them, demand they produce a copy of the contract they are relying upon and which breach they are accusing the driver of. That way you can stick in a paragraph about unreasonable behaviour if they refuse. 

Goodness me, I see. I expected them to realise it would make no sense to further engage.

Please advise all on that shortened LBC response, anything to change, am I good to send it?

Letter Before Claim Response

Your Ref: [insert reference number]
Claimant: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date].

I confirm my address for service is:

[Insert correct address here]

Please ensure all previous addresses are erased from your records.

---

Liability Denied

I deny any debt to your client in its entirety. The alleged claim is fundamentally misconceived and will be vigorously defended. The reasons include, but are not limited to:

• No valid contract was formed. The signage was prohibitive ("No Parking"), inadequately positioned at approximately 2.5m height, illegible from within a vehicle, and failed to meet the standards required by case law.

• No "parking" took place. The vehicle was briefly stationary for a short while only, without the driver leaving it, before departing. This is not parking under established case law.

• The charge is disproportionate and fails the test of fairness and legitimate interest established in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]. The driver was a legitimate customer of a tenant business with lawful reason to be on the premises. That case is clearly distinguished on the facts.

• The additional £70 add-on (from £100 to £170) is an abuse of process, condemned in Excel Parking v Wilkinson [2020] and numerous subsequent County Court judgments.

• Your client has not complied with the BPA Code of Practice, including requirements for signage standards, mandatory grace periods, and prohibition of predatory tactics.

• Strict compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 is required for keeper liability. It is not accepted that your client has achieved this.

Full details and supporting evidence will be set out in my Defence and Witness Statement should proceedings be issued.

---

Documents Required

To comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, you must provide the following before issuing any proceedings:

1. A copy of the contract between PPS and the landowner showing authority to issue and enforce charges

2. Identification of the exact contractual term allegedly breached and by whom

3. A complete set of contemporaneous photographs with metadata showing timestamps

4. A site plan showing the location, height, dimensions, and exact wording of all signage

5. A copy of the Notice to Keeper and evidence of full compliance with PoFA Schedule 4

6. A detailed breakdown of the £70 "debt recovery" uplift with evidence of actual costs incurred (invoices, time records, etc.)

Unless and until these documents are produced, the claim remains unsupported, fundamentally defective, and without merit.

---

Costs Warning

Should your client proceed without providing the above information, or issue proceedings on a fundamentally defective claim, this will constitute unreasonable conduct. I will bring this to the court's attention and seek an order for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I note that the actual court fee for a claim of this value is £35, not the inflated figures suggested in your letter.

---

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

oliniusz

Thank you all for the advice - not only here in my thread but throughout the forum. It has been a godsend.

oliniusz

Yeah, I think that's it. I believe it still contains the spirit of the Post #2 and additionally demands a copy of the contract I'd supposedly breached.

I will sleep on it and send it tomorrow morning.

jd576

I do tend to agree with @Car1980 that you might not want to include your entire defence in your response to their LOC and give them months to mull over it as well as a heads up to be particularly careful when constructing their particulars of claim (although I disagree about asking them which breach, since they may well forget to put it in or do it badly)

Coupon-mad

It won't matter what you say anyway, because they'll issue a claim then (as long as it is defended) they'll discontinue in 2026.