Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 17th Nov 17, 4:27 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Letter Before Claim - Gladstones
    • #1
    • 17th Nov 17, 4:27 PM
    Letter Before Claim - Gladstones 17th Nov 17 at 4:27 PM
    Hi Everyone,

    Recieved a parking ticket on the car window back in October 2016 from Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited.

    Chasing letters (surprisingly only a few) were incorrectly marked for attention they were conveniently ignored (name/initials are close to registered keeper, but not correct) which may or may not have been the best way to resolve the situation.

    Now 13 months later, Gladstones have issued a 'Letter Before Claim' which after reading the information on here seems to be a genuine solicitors letter (reference begins with a 1 etc)

    - Any advice regarding incorrect name?
    - Is there a standard template response, even though this will be my first correspondence back?

    Will attempt to post a copy of the letter in next post...
    Last edited by georgia_00; 17-11-2017 at 9:15 PM. Reason: Removed name
Page 3
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 16th Apr 18, 9:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Shall i state the length of time the car was parked?

    There is no time in/out, just 1 minute and 8 seconds worth of timestamped photo's.

    Is there a good argument there worth making/expanding on?

    I think i'm ready to submit this online tomorrow apart from that final point.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 10:17 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    I would remove this:
    (driver recalls approx 3-4 minutes)
    And remove this as it has no legs:
    4. Consumer Rights

    4.1 The signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

    Shall i state the length of time the car was parked?

    There is no time in/out, just 1 minute and 8 seconds worth of timestamped photo's.

    Is there a good argument there worth making/expanding on?
    Predatory enforcement, like in any Heath Parade PCM defence, here's one they recently discontinued, have a look at Heath Parade threads and plagiarise their defence wording too (you may have to pm the thread starter):
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 17th Apr 18, 1:07 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Coupon-Mad, many thanks. Have edited a few bits, and added a bit (section 5 penalty charges)


    1. Introduction

    1.1. This claim refers to a parking incident in an unmarked lay-by outside the Barham Park housing Estate, in Wembley. For all intents and purposes this !!!8216;bay!!!8217; appears to be part of the public highway.

    1.2. On the 29th October 2016 the vehicle was in said unmarked lay-by.

    1.3. Within a period of 1 minute and 8 seconds, going by the photographic evidence provided by PCM, a parking charge notice was applied to the vehicle.

    1.4. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

    1.5. The claimant refused to provide any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges, citing client confidentiality.

    2. No Contract Exists

    2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

    2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking for any other vehicles at any time'.

    2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of 100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract? It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding as they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists

    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

    3. Inadequate Signage/Predatory enforcement

    3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

    3.2 The IPC guidelines (1.15) state Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park, approach, and read any signs so as to make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. No specific time is given, although (15.2) specifies a minimum period of ten minutes for leaving the site. I do not consider the time given was adequate time for the driver to read and assess the signage on site. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses. Time is required to read and understand the signs.

    3.3 The writing is so small that any terms and conditions cannot be clearly read from a vehicle, even stopped adjacent to the sign. If it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the !!!8216;contravention!!!8217; according to the Claimant is already committed.

    4. Landowner Authority

    4.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the freeholder to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have such authority, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
    5.1 The charge of 100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying 100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay 100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    6. Additional Costs

    6.1 The Particulars of Claim include 60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

    6.2 The Particulars of Claim include 50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of 50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.


    I'm pretty happy to submit this now and would like to thank everyone.

    Coupon-Mad, i'd like to make a donation to a cause of your choice, I can't PM you, please let me know. Appreciate your guidance regardless of outcome.


    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Apr 18, 1:20 PM
    • 17,655 Posts
    • 27,911 Thanks
    You need to put in a header for your new section 5, to fit with the headers of other sections.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 18th Apr 18, 4:51 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Just an update - have recieved the expected below email from Gladstones

    We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Clients intention to proceed with the claim.

    Please find attached a copy of our Clients completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

    This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Clients opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

    You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.
    Last edited by georgia_00; 18-04-2018 at 5:01 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 19th Apr 18, 9:43 AM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    And you know to fill out N180 with a covering letter

    Keep on keeping on!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,132Posts Today

6,590Users online

Martin's Twitter