DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107561--------------------------------------------------
District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorrow)
DIR By: pg_003
Date: January 27, 2026, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I’d really appreciate some advice on this private
parking charge. I’ve read the house rules and have tried to keep
this factual and complete.
Parking Company
District Enforcement Limited
Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors
Location
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich, CW5
Alleged Contravention
No valid payment
Parking Event
19 June 2025
My status
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (V5C in my name).
I am not identifying the driver.
Background
On 19 June 2025, the driver parked at Bowers Row Pay & Display,
Nantwich. District Enforcement allege that no valid payment was
made.
I did not receive any parking correspondence at the time.
Address history (important)
I moved out of my previous address in June 2025, before any
parking correspondence was issued.
I updated my address with the DVLA several months later
(approximately 4–5 months after moving).
As a result, all early parking correspondence was sent to my old
address, which I had already vacated and therefore did not
receive.
Gladstones involvement
On 18 December 2025, I received a Letter Before Claim from
Gladstones (£160) at my current address.
The letter states that Gladstones:
previously wrote to an “alternate address”
carried out a trace to locate me
warned that if I did not confirm my address, proceedings might
be served at the original address
A redacted copy of the Letter Before Claim is uploaded.
My response to Gladstones (sent by email)
I responded within the Pre-Action Protocol timeframe and
disputed the debt in full.
My email stated (verbatim, redacted):
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in your
Letter Before Claim dated 18 December 2025.
I dispute the alleged debt in full.
This is the first correspondence I have received regarding this
Parking Charge Notice. I did not receive any prior notices
because all previous correspondence was sent to an address that
I had vacated before any notices were issued. I moved from that
address in June 2025, prior to the date of the alleged parking
event and prior to any Parking Charge Notice being served.
As a result, I was denied any opportunity to receive the Notice
to Keeper or to appeal the charge. I was not avoiding
correspondence; the failure of service rests entirely with your
client.
You now confirm in your letter that a trace has been carried out
and that you are uncertain as to the correct address. Please
take this letter as formal confirmation that the address to
which this correspondence has been sent is my correct address
for service. Any attempt to serve proceedings at a previous
address would be improper.
In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the
alleged debt is formally disputed and must be placed on hold.
Please provide the following documents and information:
Copies of the original Parking Charge Notice and all subsequent
notices
Evidence of the alleged parking contravention (including
photographs and timestamps)
A full statement of account explaining the sum claimed
Evidence of your client’s authority from the landowner to issue
and enforce parking charges
Evidence of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, including proof of service
Confirmation of the address to which each item of correspondence
was sent and the dates of posting
The additional £60 claimed for “debt recovery” is denied as an
unrecoverable sum and an abuse of process.
Until the above information is provided, the alleged debt
remains denied in full.
Gladstones’ reply and evidence pack
Gladstones replied 10 days later and stated (verbatim,
redacted):
We confirm our Client wrote to the address as confirmed by the
DVLA. Further, given the last V5C issued to this vehicle dates
back to 1 February 2025, if it is the case that you did not
receive the initial correspondence from our Client, it is likely
as a result of your failure to update your address with the
DVLA.
The amount due includes £60.00 claimed by our client for the
time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid
parking charge notice(s) pursuant to its ATA’s Code of Practice
and the Terms and Conditions of the Contract.
As the content of the Landowner Agreement is commercially
sensitive, a (redacted) copy will only be released at the
direction of the Court.
Payment is required on or before 28 January 2026 to avoid
further action.
They attached copies of the NTK and reminder letters.
Parking notices later disclosed to me
After I disputed the matter with Gladstones, they emailed me
copies of the earlier notices, which show they were all sent to
my old address:
Notice to Keeper dated 25 June 2025 – £100, offering £60 if paid
within 14 days
Reminder / Notice of Impending Court Action dated 17 July 2025 –
£100
Further Notice of Impending Court Action dated 1 August 2025 –
£160
Redacted copies of all notices are uploaded.
Current position (urgent)
No court claim has been issued
Matter remains at Letter Before Claim / Pre-Action stage
Gladstones are demanding payment by tomorrow
What I’m seeking advice on (urgent)
Does the NTK being sent to an address I had already vacated
defeat keeper liability under POFA, despite Gladstones relying
on DVLA data?
Do the photographs add anything meaningful to their case beyond
showing the vehicle was present?
Is the £60 add-on properly challengeable as an abuse of process?
Given payment is demanded tomorrow, is there anything further I
should or should not do at this stage?
All documents and photographs have been uploaded in redacted
form in line with forum rules.
Thanks very much for any guidance.
Here are the links to the letters:
HTML https://ibb.co/KzRYMBzm
HTML https://ibb.co/KzRYMBzm
HTML https://ibb.co/GQrSg3r8
HTML https://ibb.co/GQrSg3r8
HTML https://ibb.co/kg8jq2Yr
HTML https://ibb.co/kg8jq2Yr
HTML https://ibb.co/KzzZN4RV
HTML https://ibb.co/KzzZN4RV
Here is the google street view link:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/HBMKudd81EjAYwA86
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/HBMKudd81EjAYwA86
Here is a picture of the sign from goggle from 5 years ago:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/GSaxdvTT4kSbiGzw7
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/GSaxdvTT4kSbiGzw7
#Post#: 107562--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 27, 2026, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To comply with PoFA 2012, if the NtK is sent to the address
provided by the DVLA so as to be deemed to arrive within 14
days, this satisfies the 14 day requirement. The sender does not
have to care about that fact that you had moved and not updated
your V5C, which is your legal responsibility.
If you do nothing, in due course you will get a N1SDT claim
form, to which you have 5+14 days in which to respond, by filing
a defence or an Acknowledgment of Service, the latter giving you
a further 14 days before filing a defence.
If you search the forum, you will see that Gladstone’s
Particulars of Claim, as on the N1SDT, are generally woeful and
defended.
If Gladstone’s had served the N1SDT to your original address,
that would have been wrong, but they and the debt collectors
have correctly traced you at your new address when the NtK was
not responded to. Of course you can still use the lack of
service of the NtK as part of your defence.
#Post#: 107745--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: pg_003
Date: January 28, 2026, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, that’s helpful and I appreciate the clarification.
I understand the point on POFA and the DVLA address and won’t
labour that further.
What I’d really welcome some guidance on now is the additional
sums being claimed. In particular:
• the extra £60 added to the original parking charge
• the further solicitor fees and costs being mentioned at the
pre-action stage
From reading other threads it looks as though these are often
challenged or limited by the court, but I’d be grateful for any
clarity on how these are usually treated in practice with
Gladstones cases, and what a defendant should expect if it
reaches a hearing.
Thanks again.
#Post#: 113296--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: pg_003
Date: March 15, 2026, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have just received a N1SDT claim form and I am looking for
some guidance on how to respond to this.
Any help will be greatly appreciated with creating my defence.
Thanks, links to the letter are here:
HTML https://ibb.co/M5nBH8PG
HTML https://ibb.co/5X3Yxz6W
HTML https://ibb.co/pjFsk8R8
HTML https://ibb.co/bRDB2fDm
HTML https://ibb.co/6R5KYgMB
HTML https://ibb.co/WNSSS1BF
HTML https://ibb.co/rfd3nbPW
HTML https://ibb.co/S4GXKMkB
#Post#: 113298--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: Dave65
Date: March 15, 2026, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what was the issue at the car park?
Did the driver pay?
Has the driver proof of paying?
#Post#: 113299--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: pg_003
Date: March 15, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that the driver did not make a payment on
that occasion and they do not have any proof of payment.
The issue is that the original PCN and subsequent notices were
sent to an address I had already moved from in June 2025, so I
did not receive them and had no opportunity to respond or appeal
at the time.
The first correspondence I actually received was the Letter
Before Claim from Gladstones after they traced my current
address.
#Post#: 113300--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 15, 2026, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have until 4pm on 30 March to submit either AoS or defence,
if the former then you have until 4pm on 13 April to submit the
defence.
I suggest you look up other defence submissions to Gladstones
and modify to suit your precise circumstances and post here for
comment.
#Post#: 113301--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 15, 2026, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As already stated, it's not the parking operator's
responsibility to ensure that your DVLA Keeper Details are up to
date - you actually have a legal responsibility to do that - so
I wouldn't mention that in any defence point since you'll just
be giving the Claimant ammunition to fire back at you IF it goes
to a hearing.
In my opinion the NtK is not totally compliant.
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) states the following;
The notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
The legislation requires that the notice must warn the keeper
that, amongst other things, the parking operator's NtK is
required to meet all applicable conditions under schedule in
order to invoke PoFA keeper liability.
In this instance the operator's NtK does not contain the
required mandatory warning / wording.
I have highlighted the missing wording in the statute above.
#Post#: 113316--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: pg_003
Date: March 15, 2026, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Thank you for all the responses they have been very helpful. I
have now drafted my response.
I have used the template doing the rounds on the forum and
tailored it to my specific circumstances. The only points I have
added to the template wording are in paragraphs 3(c), 3(e), and
3(g), where I have included:
- The vagueness of the "no valid payment" allegation
- The unexplained £60 add-on
- The PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(f) non-compliance point
that InterCity125 kindly flagged. I have checked the NtK that
Gladstones emailed me and can confirm that the phrase "if all
the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met" does not
appear in it.
I am not identifying the driver.
Here is the draft:
---
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the Claimant asserts the Defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts). The alleged contravention is stated only as "no
valid payment" without identifying which contractual term this
is said to breach, what payment method was required, or why any
payment made was invalid;
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges. In particular, the sum claimed
includes £60 described as costs for "time/resources spent
facilitating recovery," the contractual and legal basis for
which is not explained;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the Claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
The Defendant is the registered keeper and does not identify the
driver. If the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to
Keeper dated 25 June 2025 does not contain the mandatory warning
required by paragraph 9(2)(f) of that Schedule, specifically the
phrase "if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are
met," and keeper liability therefore does not arise.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant's failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do
not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the
terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied
on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the Claimant asserts that the Defendant was in
breach of contract.
AND the Claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding
objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct
further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court's
resources to this claim (for example by ordering further
particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case
management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
---
Any comments before I submit would be very gratefully received,
particularly on whether the PoFA point in 3(g) is appropriately
worded, and whether the draft as a whole fits within the
122-line MCOL limit.
Thanks again to everyone who has helped on this thread.
#Post#: 114055--------------------------------------------------
Re: District Enforcement / Gladstones PCN – No Valid Payment –
Bowers Row Pay & Display, Nantwich (Payment demand tomorr
DIR By: pg_003
Date: March 23, 2026, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on my defence
as I am looking at submitting it before this weekend.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page