DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99942--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does seem that the original PCN does not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a). I wonder whether that would be enough to have the
case dropped if it goes to court.
“The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The front entrance to the garage is actually boarded up and
sealed, so it cannot be opened. There is only a door entrance at
the side.
Is there any mileage in the argument that the “Private Road”
signage is not prominent and is easily obscured? It seems that
the whole road is designated as a car park, but it is also an
access road and has all the characteristics of a public road.
Here is a copy of the "Letter Before Claim (the first link is
the main letter).
HTML https://ibb.co/wFY28PZ8
HTML https://ibb.co/JRdd8VmV
HTML https://ibb.co/5xFS78sZ
#Post#: 99945--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 26, 2025, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a known location for poor signage. Especially the
signage as you turn into the road - the 'private road' sign is
low down and does not face oncoming traffic as you turn into the
road. This sign is often obstructed by either poorly parked
vehicles or vehicles waiting at the junction.
Given the location, you'd never know you were turning into a
private road.
#Post#: 100001--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 27, 2025, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Should I add that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) as
there is no "period of parking" noted in my reply to the Letter
Before Claim, from Gladstones or wait until an actual claim is
started?
Once a Letter before claim has been sent, do Gladstones have to
start the claim within a certain period? If PPS (London) decide
to drop any potential legal action do the need to notify me?
Thanks all
#Post#: 100045--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: b789
Date: November 27, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: KTMan link ---
>
> Yes, it does seem that the original PCN does not comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a). I wonder whether that would be enough to have
the case dropped if it goes to court.
>
--- End Quote ---
The CPRs have nothing to do with the PCN. They are only relative
to the judicial process once a claim has been filed.
CPR 16.4(1)(a) will refer to the actual Particulars of Claim
(PoC) that the utter incompetents at Gladstones will submit in
the claim. It is a technical point that will be the basis of any
defence. All the other arguments about signage etc, will come in
response to their hearsay Witness Statement (WS) much later, if
the claim is not first struck out for the CPR 16.4(1)(a)
failure.
You can respond to Gladrags LoC as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [reference
number]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client
intends to rely upon. It is therefore non‑compliant with
the Pre‑Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC). As a
supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with
paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and
paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These
provisions exist to facilitate informed, proportionate
resolution, and I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre‑Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), require each party to exchange sufficient
information to understand the other’s position. Part 6 clarifies
that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the
issues in dispute. Your template letter refers to a “contract”
yet encloses none. That omission undermines the very basis upon
which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to
engage in any form of meaningful pre‑litigation dialogue
while you refuse to furnish the documents you purport to
enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with paragraph 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and
submit a full response within 30 days. Accordingly, please now
provide:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and the
full notice chain relied upon to assert any alleged PoFA 2012
liability.
> 2. An actual photograph of the sign(s) in situ on the material
date (not stock images), together with a contemporaneous site
map showing sign locations.
> 3. The precise wording of the contractual term(s) your client
alleges were breached.
> 4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner
evidencing authority to manage, enforce and litigate in their
own name.
> 5. A clear breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether
the principal amount is alleged consideration or damages, and
clarifying the legal basis and VAT position of the Ł70
add‑on.[/indent]
>
> These documents are required under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of
the Practice Direction to enable me to meet my obligation under
paragraph 6(b).
>
> Your letter’s attempt at intimidation
>
> I also note that your accompanying schedule manages to refer
to a “CCJ” four times, in what is clearly intended as a coercive
device rather than legitimate legal information. The repetition
is telling: it demonstrates not confidence in your client’s
position, but reliance on fear as a substitute for substance.
>
> To be clear: I am fully aware that a County Court Judgment
only arises after your client wins a claim (which is unlikely on
the facts), and even then, any judgment paid within one calendar
month is removed from the register and has no impact on credit.
Your overuse of the term “CCJ” is therefore not only pointless
but improper.
>
> Your firm is on notice that this conduct will now be reported
to:
> [indent]• the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for use of
misleading and oppressive tactics contrary to the SRA Code of
Conduct; and
> • the Competition and Markets Authority, under the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, given the statutory
prohibition on coercive and misleading commercial
practices.[/indent]
>
> If you proceed to issue a claim without first providing the
documents and information required under the PAPDC and
Pre‑Action Conduct, I will draw your non‑compliance
to the Court’s attention and seek appropriate sanctions,
including a stay and case‑management orders pursuant to
paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction. Any unreasonable
conduct by you or your client will be relied upon in support of
an application for costs.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I will not engage with any web
portal. I will respond only via email or post.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100085--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 27, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. The help is much appreciated.
#Post#: 104740--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: January 6, 2026, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent the response above and have now received an email reply
from Gladstones.
They have said "we do not accept your representations and all
sums owing are due in full." and "Our Client is therefore
satisfied the case against you should proceed unless the debt
owing of Ł170.00 is discharged in full". They have attached "the
Evidence Pack" Which is copies of the original
claims/ticket/images from PPS (london) ltd. The email was sent
by a legal assistant.
Do I need to do anything at this point? Do I just have to wait?
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page