Court papers received from SIP parking. - ** DISCONTINUED **

[esmerobbo]

I think the row of XXXXXXXX's under claimants solicitor should be striking through "claimants solicitor" which would make her the claimant.

[benny46]

I went to the car park last night to check the signage and it is pretty abysmal to say the least, on entering the car park there is the large pay and display sign.

 

Next to it the price list.

 

Then after parking you walk to the machine and displayed above the machine is this sign.

 

 

There was no evidence of any contractual sign until I eventually found one hidden behind a huge sign advertising the car park but I had to walk around the car park searching for this sign before I eventually spotted it by accident, only by searching for it would you notice it.

 

 

Can our defence start with a video evidence of not seeing the contractual notice sign because it is so well hidden and then go on to the charge being not a true reflection of losses incurred, also on the sign above the pay point says "you must pay for your parking using pay & display machine or phone & pay service before leaving the car park", that is confusing in itself because it could be construed to mean you pay for 2 hours, overstay but can still pay the extra before leaving the car park?

[esmerobbo]

The signs seem woefully inadequate Excel lost a case in Stockport because their signage was printed with a 13mm font, these signs even without them being hidden dont look to be anywhere near a large enough font.

[ericsbrother]

Cant be seen from drivers seat when entering car park so not going to impress. Use this as part of your evidence and look at cases where inadequate signage has been mentioned and quote case numbers. get court paperwork if not searchable later if necessary

[benny46]

I've just been back to the car park today and took a video and more stills of the site, on entering the car park there is not one contract notice on the whole of the right hand side and non on the walk to the payment machine, it is only on searching and walking round the site that I have found there are 3 in total, two hidden behind the large car park signs like the one pictured previously and one on the fencing at eye level, the problem with the eye level one was that it couldn't be seen because a large van was parked in front of it, the only way I have spotted it is because I went out looking for the signs.

There is no way you can see any of the signs unless you specifically go out looking for them.

The two signs that are behind the large car park signs are 6 foot 2 inches from the floor and eight foot to the top of the sign and the fonts are around 7mm.

[esmerobbo]

Hopefully yours will be along shortly!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411165-SIP-Parking-Issued-Court-Papers-Help/page2

[benny46]

Hopefully yours will be along shortly!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411165-SIP-Parking-Issued-Court-Papers-Help/page2

 

I'm still trying to find the correct previous cases to refer to in my defence, I want as much as possible but thanks for your link.

[ericsbrother]

Have you looked at the signage you have posted up here carefully? One of the signs states that the parking charge must be paid before leaving the car park. That is amobiguous as it could mean that ant fee due must be paid before you exit in your vehicle rather than just wandering off on foot leaving your vehicle there. therefore slapping a ticket on the vehicle is in breach of this condition so the company is misrepresenting their claim from the outset.

This doesnt alter the fact they cant be bothered to follow the protocols of the PoFA and then want to claim from you by using it as the reason for chasing the RK but will add doubt to what exactly the contract was and whether it was possible to breach it in the way expressed..

[benny46]

Have you looked at the signage you have posted up here carefully? One of the signs states that the parking charge must be paid before leaving the car park. That is amobiguous as it could mean that ant fee due must be paid before you exit in your vehicle rather than just wandering off on foot leaving your vehicle there. therefore slapping a ticket on the vehicle is in breach of this condition so the company is misrepresenting their claim from the outset.

This doesnt alter the fact they cant be bothered to follow the protocols of the PoFA and then want to claim from you by using it as the reason for chasing the RK but will add doubt to what exactly the contract was and whether it was possible to breach it in the way expressed..

 

Yes I have and I thought exactly the same, it is ambiguous and can be read two ways, also there is a sign saying the vehicle can be clamped and towed away, this is illegal and therefore the contract they are saying I have entered into is also illegal, I just need a little time this weekend to formulate my defence and I will post it up here first.

[lookinforinfo]

I don't know if you have looked at other threads on the Forum but in case you haven't here is a recent thread that ended in victory for the Member. Alter the wording to suit your own way of speaking and add any further points you have to further strengthen your case.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?392661-SIP-PCN-Notice-to-Owner-issued-**Notice-of-Discontinuance-received**/page3

[benny46]

When I put my defence down and fill in the online forms and part of my defence involves pictures of the signage do I have to send off the pictures or attach them online?

[esmerobbo]

The last case discontinued by SIP the OP over on MSE has posted the reply he got back from the BPA.

 

"I received an email from BPA today : "I have received a response from SIP Parking with reference to your complaint. The Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled. They have now amended their process so that they do not pursue these PCNs under POFA unless they are within the 56-day requirement." - so was that the trigger ?? "

 

It may be worth firing an email off to SIP stating that you believe they have made a commitment to the BPA AOS compliance team that they will not pursue under POFA if they are not within POFA's time scale. To avoid themselves and you any further expense and any counterclaim do they wish to discontinue this claim.

[odds]

If you rely on that defence you will loose tbh

 

Really ?

The timescales to pursue anyone else but the driver of the vehicle for any kind of payment are very clearly laid out in POFA 2012. If they are using the POFA 2012 in order to make a claim against a Registered Keeper then they would have to stick to the guidelines. If claims were allowed to be made outside these limits you could be getting claims against you from god knows when.

 

Adding other info as suggested would obviously help, but to be honest the failure to issue an NTK in time should stop any claim stone dead in reality.

 

Make the BPA aware of the claim being made and inform DVLA with a formal complaint.

 

Pete

[ericsbrother]

no, put in a bare bones defence and say that other evidence will be submitted in the prescribed time. You can use the words bare bones and it will be understood. You really already have that, timed out for chasing RK, thus no contract to breach as claim is against wrong entity. No loss shown by Co. Insufficient or misleading signage, etc. Abuse of process. No proof of express permission from landlord to allow SIP to make claims for damages in their own name and all other points raised on this posting and the others about SIP in particular but parking in general.

The big one is the no liability under PoFA as timed out

[lookinforinfo]

You should use their failings as listed by Ericsbrother to complain to the DVLA and ask why they are continuing to provide information to SIP when they are pursuing unlawful claims against the registered

keeper and have not even established whether they were the driver at the time. And not for the first time.

[odds]

Send copies of all the documents to the BPA making it a formal complaint against one of its members, then send the same to the DVLA as a formal complaint stating a misuse of your personal data to coerce payment when not entitled to do so. Please follow up the complaints, the more complaints to DVLA regarding the misuse of Data the better.

 

DVLA email : [email protected]

[benny46]

Firstly this is what I intend to submit as a defence, can you look through it, make sure my wording is correct and check the relevant Paragraphs I have refered to in POFA are correct, is there anything I have missed or anything I should add?

 

We shall be defending due to the following discrepancies by the claimant.

Firstly the signage.

 

Under POFA 2012 guidelines the registered keeper should be advised within 56 days (Paragraph 8 sub paragraph 5) via an NTO, the parking charge notice was issued on XX/XX/2013 but the NTO was not sent until XX/XX/2013 which is 89 days as such there is no liability under POFA as the timescales have been exceeded.

 

There is no signage outside the car park intimating I am entering into a contract, it took 2 separate visits to the car park after the court papers were received to actually find the 3 signs, 2 of which are hidden behind larger signs and are at a height of 8 foot with 7mm fonts and the third at eye level is unable to be seen if a vehicle is parked in front of it, photographs will be supplied.

 

On the signage at the Pay and Display machine it states you are entering into a contract and the sign that is displayed states " You MUST pay for your parking using Pay and Display machine OR Phone and Pay service BEFORE leaving the car park" this intimates that after overstaying I can pay before leaving the car park.

 

On the signage at the Pay & Display machine it states " By entering and remaining on the property, you have agreed to the conditions and contracted with SIP Car Parks to be legally bound by them. SIP reserves the right to clamp and tow away any offending vehicles. CLAMP FEE: £90 + TOW TRUCK CALL OUT FEE: £50 TOW AWAY FEE: £250 + DAILY STORAGE FEE: £35".

As it is illegal for a private car park operator to clamp and tow away this makes the contract entered into illegal as you cannot contractually agree to an illegal act.

 

On the signage at the Pay & Display machine it states "Failure to acknowlege the above will result in the issue of a £90 parking charge OR your vehicle being clamped and towed away". SIP Parking Limited have issued a parking charge of £100 which is above what is stated on the signage at the Pay and Display machine.

 

The seperate Contractual notice signs which are away from the Pay and Display machines state a £100 parking charge will be issued contradicting the signage at the Pay and Display machine which states a £90 parking charge will be issued.

 

The signage is totally confusing with different signs showing different Fee's for the same parking charge, have illegal conditions attached and intimate you can pay before leaving.

 

Secondly the losses incurred.

SIP have not shown how the losses incurred amount to a £90 or £100 depending on which sign you read for an initial fee of £1 for one hour which was overstayed by 9 minutes, the losses are one sixth of an hour at most which is 17pence, how do they come to a fee of £90 when the actual loss is 17 pence.

 

Thirdly

SIP have not shown whether they have express permission from the landlord or owner of the land to make claims for damages in their own name and if they do have this permission how are the damages caused to the Landlord or owner calculated.

[benny46]

I sent the above, I have now received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track which I have completed and intend posting tomorrow.

One question, on the N149A notice it states I must complete form N180 which I have done and serve copies on all other parties, does that mean I have to send a photocopy to SIP?

[ericsbrother]

Yes, one copy to SIP and one to the court that has been allocated (or back to Northampton/Wigan if no allocation yet).

[benny46]

Right, between me completing and forwarding the form N180 to the Court and SIP, SIP have sent a notice of discontinuance, it was dated the 6th Jan 2014 and sent to the original address and not the address I had put down as a correspondance address.

Obviously due to the Christmas period their Solicitor or whoever it is that reads the defence statements must have been on holiday and on reading the defence has decided to discontinue.

 

So a big thanks to all that helped on this thread, your advice was invaluable, I will be sending official complaints to the DVLA and the BPA, I will post here later in the week.

 

Its a shame we can't claim for time lost in formulating a defence, two visits to the car park to check the details, postage costs and so forth, they seem to get away with charging £35 per letter but not us.

[havinastella]

Right, between me completing and forwarding the form N180 to the Court and SIP, SIP have sent a notice of discontinuance, it was dated the 6th Jan 2014 and sent to the original address and not the address I had put down as a correspondance address.

Obviously due to the Christmas period their Solicitor or whoever it is that reads the defence statements must have been on holiday and on reading the defence has decided to discontinue.

 

So a big thanks to all that helped on this thread, your advice was invaluable, I will be sending official complaints to the DVLA and the BPA, I will post here later in the week.

 

Its a shame we can't claim for time lost in formulating a defence, two visits to the car park to check the details, postage costs and so forth, they seem to get away with charging £35 per letter but not us.

 

As they discontinued, you can claim your costs!

[benny46]

As they discontinued, you can claim your costs!

 

Has it been done before for this type of claim, I would love to have a go, as I have stated I was acting on behalf of my neighbour who originally got the "ticket" and I have been twice to the car park, completed two form N180, made a call to the court for advice and spent hours on the internet formulating a defence.

What could I claim for?

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Well done, you must be very pleased. Thank you for letting us know, I've amended your thread title.

 

HB

[dw190]

Has it been done before for this type of claim, I would love to have a go, as I have stated I was acting on behalf of my neighbour who originally got the "ticket" and I have been twice to the car park, completed two form N180, made a call to the court for advice and spent hours on the internet formulating a defence.

What could I claim for?

 

If you send a claim for genuine expenses they should pay. Send it to their representative (solicitor) that way it will cost them even more for their solicitor handling it. Copy it to the Court.

[f16]

I love it !!!! Benny46 Please for everyone of the Site team, all the members but most of all for yourself and the good of mankind Nail them like they tried to nail you.