Well, it's been left too late to respond by post, so what would you suggest now? Gladstones don't have any e-mail address, but there doesn't seem to be any other option left now other than communicating via e-mail.

A specific temporary e-mail account was set up to communicate with them, so not bothered about receiving e-mails from anyone there. A letter wouldn't now get to them in time anyhow. Have re-added the redacted Gladstones letter as a pdf. The other file was just a low res photo of the sign on the entrance. Once Gladstones have been responded to and told that payment won't be forthcoming, what are they likely to do? Will further begging letters be sent, or will they go straight for court action? gladstones.pdf

Thanks for your replies. The 2 images I uploaded seem to have disappeared?? The alleged contravention was 21st November 2018 and the car was there for 18 minutes with the engine running the whole time and were not stopping anyone else from parking (I'm sure that's not relevant but whatever). The first letter received was dated 27th December 2018. That letter claimed it had been issued on 27th November. That letter was replied to via e-mail, referencing Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 - as they had failed to notify the registered keeper, the registered keeper was no longer required to name the driver. Even though they claimed they had sent a previous letter and that the internal appeal period had now gone, they treated the e-mail sent to them as an appeal, reverted back to the original lower claim of £60 and gave a POPLA code (which wasn't used) - which sounds like they are admitting that they hadn't sent the claimed first letter? Are they suppoed to be able to provide a POPLA code so late in the day? After that rejection e-mail and no payment made, a letter dated 18th Feb was received, asking for £155. They now have the letter from Gladstones, and have to respond by Monday.

Also, I have no idea if this is relevant whatsoever - the car park is named Blossom Street Car Park, but is actually located on The Crescent. In no way is it on Blossom Street - there is a cinema and various little shops plus a Taxi rank in between them and it is only accessible from the Crescent. It isn't an "official" car park for the cinema on Blossom Street or anything. I've attached 2 images. A redacted copy of the letter from Gladstones, and a photo of the signage (taken from elsewhere on the web). If you look on Google Maps, it isn't lit up, so you cannot read it in the dark. The "charge" for non-payment etc is presumably somewhere in the small print.

A relative has been receiving communications from Minster Baywatch, after they entered a car park for about 15 minutes late last year on Blossom Street in York. The car park was poorly lit in the evening so couldn't read any of the signage properly, and exited after deciding to park elsewhere. I don't think this is really relevant, but they didn't actually park up properly - the engine was always running.The first letter received claimed that they had ignored a previous letter. This is not the case and they have had no previous issues in regard to missing post. Assuming this to be a [problem] to instantly claim a higher price, they Googled the company and quickly found a post on another forum in the same timeframe where someone had received a letter claiming they had already gone past the time period in which they could appeal. As they hadn't received any communcation within 14 days of the alleged incident, they were advised to inform Minster Baywatch that they (MB) had failed to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and that they were no longer required to reveal the details of the driver. My relative, who was not the driver, did similar and received a response which did not acknowledge the lack of first letter and acted like they had appealed within what should have been the original timeframe and asked for the lower amount they quoted. My relative ignored this and one further letter, and didn't bother with POPLA.They have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. Could anyone please advise how to respond? Is there any point in referring to the failure to abide by Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 again? My relative took the response from Parking Minster and asking for the originally intended amount, to mean they knew they hadn't sent what should have been the first letter and had been essentially found out. If they had genuinely sent the first letter, why would Parking Minster row back so easily? Having since looked at signage at the car park online (I did try to link to a photo of it - but it wouldn't let me as a new user), it doesn't clearly state any possible fines as the writing is so small and also isn't lit up so you can't read it properly when it is dark anyway. There is nothing to state that the car park is patrolled via cameras instead of a parking attendant. But how could my relative refer to anything like that, if they're they were not there and are no disclosing who the driver was?I have read that many such companies are reluctant to take people to court as they are equally likely to lose if contested, yet conversely that Gladstones seem to take everyone to court? Is that right?Any advise would be much appreciated.