SIP/Gladstones claimform - 2 PCN's - Rockingham Street Sheffield

[Robfromsheff]

Now received a 21 page email stating their case. Here's the first section, what next?

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

THE CONTRACT

 

The Claimant is a Parking Operator managing the land at Rockingham Street, Sheffield (“the

Land”).

 

2. The Claimant installed signs (i.e. the “Contract”) on the Land that set out its terms of parking. A

copy of the Contract is attached to these Particulars of Claim marked ‘Document 1’.

 

3. The Claimant entered into a Contract with the driver of the vehicle with Registration Number

XYZ (“the Vehicle”). A schedule is set out below;

 

PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION

 

No Ticket Displayed

Not In Marked Bay

 

4. Through the act of parking as described above, pursuant to the Contract, the driver accepted the

Claimant’s terms and was issued with a Parking Charge Notice for the sum set out in the Contract

(‘the Relevant Charge’).

 

5. The driver failed to pay the Relevant Charge within 28 days (‘the Relevant Period’) or indeed at

all. The Relevant Charge now forms the substantive element of this claim.

 

6. In addition to the Relevant Charge the Claimant claims £60.00 in general damages as a pre-

determined and nominal contribution to its actual losses suffered as a result of the Relevant

 

Charge not being paid within the Relevant Period.

[dx100uk]

Redact it all to one PDF please

[Robfromsheff]

Hopefully adequately redacted

edited_POC2.pdf

[Robfromsheff]

The absence of advice, reply seems to indicate that this is a no hope situation?

[honeybee13]

The absence of advice, reply seems to indicate that this is a no hope situation?

 

Hello there.

 

I wouldn't assume that, Rob. It's holiday season, it could be that not all the forum regulars are here atm. Please bear with us.

 

HB

[Robfromsheff]

Thanks Holly, that was my wife's response too funnily enough

[honeybee13]

She must be a very perceptive woman.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Rob. they have more chance of being struck by lightning than winning against you. I am just about to drive up to Oxford from London for a lunch appointment. I will get back to you after that.

In the meantime you could take a look at POFA S4 [5] which should make things clearer for you.

 

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

[ericsbrother]

have you read the copy of the supposed contract, ie their sign?

 

The second ticket is for not parking correctly in a marked bay

- there is no such contractual condition so there can be no breach of contract for not doing so. That kills 50% of their claim.

 

As they are suing you as the keeper then all of their waffle about other charges do not apply as you are only liable for the actual original charge of £60/100.

 

If they were suing you as the driver then these charges, if expressed clearly in the contract offered by the signs may well be applicable BUT they don't have any on the sign so that is cobblers as well.

 

So, lookinforinfo has hit the nail on the head with his comments.

 

You said in an earlier post "defence struck out"

- explain please as this usually means a walkover on technical grounds

( ie you failed to submit a valid defence and the plaintiff demanded summary judgement).

 

You then go on to say THEY have to provide a full POC so this indicates they were given a case management order to comply with or lose by failing to comply.

 

They have failed to show any sort of contract with the landowner that gives them the right to be there.

 

I presume you asked for that, if not then you make a big fuss about them not showing " Locus Standi" by producing a contract with the Landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

Also state that they don't have planning permission for their signage and other equipment under the Town and country Planning Act 2007

(generally courts only consider this as an additional reason

- namely "performance" as it is a criminal offence to leave the signs there without PP so you cannot enter into a criminal compact.

 

The parking co's argue they have "deemed consent" but this is incorrect

but many councils and judges don't interpret the various categories correctly

so you have to lead them to the correct part and say why it is so.

[Robfromsheff]

Thanks everyone for your replies,

sometimes the officially worded documents knock you back a bit.

 

Everything as it was, they have no right to demand their money as can be stated in this thread.

 

Just a couple of points.

 

The defence struck out was a paraphrase which is my I put the full redacted letter on here.

 

Thanks everbody.

[ericsbrother]

defence struck out?

You are the defendant so are you actually saying the judge struck out the claim for showing no cause of action or your defence was so crap you lost without saying a word? I am assuming the former but that is not what you have actually said.

 

As a general comment it amazes me how many people get as far as court,

defeat the spurious claim but can tell you nothing about their time there or what the judge said.

 

Now apart from helping us enormously what we can then avoid is having to give the same advice 3 times to the same person becuse they have again acquired more tickets and still havent worked out what to do.

 

I hope that I am correct in offering my congratulations on your result though.

If that is correct the kindly post up the claim number so it can be referred to.

 

 

SIP got another mauling recently so there is a pattern emerging and it may make our lives easier to refer them to their own errors at an earlier stage to get them to pull out of these spurious actions

[Robfromsheff]

I'm a bit concerned now about the deference issue.

I assume that it was my defence that was thrown out.

 

 

I tried to keep it brief and to the point looking at the forums.

I therefore assumed it wasn't good enough and thrown out.

 

 

However they've had to submit a POC and I've got a chance to defend again, so it's still ongoing.

They say either party can request a hearing.

Do I add this to my defence or wait?

 

A bit confused now after the last post from ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

post up the letter you got from court but it does look like they failed to show a cause for action on the POC

- courts are getting fed up with their rubbish paperwork and are throwing out a few cases.

 

Generally this means that they have to start again within a certain time scale to keep this running or possibly start agin and risk being clobbered for being a vexatious litigant when they know they are a hopeless cause.

 

You have to read everything carefully and not just guess at the meaning of things.

You must also acquaint yourself with a lot more information about parking, court procedure etc.

 

saying that you try to keep it brief smacks like saying I havent bothered doing my homework.

You MUST, no-one else can do what you need to do

- we can advise as best we can but we cant read your letters or hear your phone calls.

 

What else have you received from anyone that you havent told us about?

[dx100uk]

lets see the letter you got please

rather than trying to interpret your interpretation of it ...upload pdf

[Robfromsheff]

Haven't received anything that I haven't stated in this thread. I posted their POC, just re-written my defence denying liability. This is the document I was referring to. About to submit my defence, do I request a hearing. Sorry for any confusion.

judgement.pdf

[dx100uk]

after you get the amended poc

post it up here and we'll deal with the correct defence you need to file.

 

 

dx

[Robfromsheff]

I've only ever had one POC which I posted on the 9th,which arrived as a result of the letter I've just posted. Unsure of what's going on, could there be an error on the court letter?

[dx100uk]

post 28 refers.

 

so you have until 23rd to send yours now.

 

whats the date of the hearing.

[Robfromsheff]

No date, the letter says both parties can request one which I'll add to my defence.

[ericsbrother]

you have to submit a proper defence denying the claim in it entirelty because........

 

Now post up your defence for us to read as it has clealry caused you a massive problem so far and we dont want you to lose becuase tyou keep using the wrong teminology rather than a lack of substance

[Robfromsheff]

I categorically deny the claim in it’s entirety that I owe money to SIP.

 

My defence is that there is no legal basis for the Claimant in their Particulars of Claim that I owe them any money. I would also like to state at that I am the registered keeper but have evidence that I was not the driver on any of the occasions referred to.

 

I submitted a CPR 31.14 request to the claimant on 5th May 2017 (attached/enclosed) and have not received any reply to such request.

 

They state that the “contract” was entered into, but they have failed to provide any proof of planning permission granted for signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 which invalidates their right to have such signage in place. In fact it is illegal to have signs in place without the requisite planning permission. Even if the contract did have any validity it states that “Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which the driver will be liable”. This demonstrates that their claim is also flawed, as it shows a level of incompetence by contradicting their supposed Particular of Claim by saying that I have responsibility for extra costs stated as (2), (3) and (4).

 

Furthermore in the CPR 31.14 I requested the contract between SIP Parking Ltd and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. As this has not been provided yet again it means there is no legal basis.

 

Therefore as there is no legal justification of any contract, or right for them to pursue this on behalf of the landowner I reiterate that I deny owing any money to SIP.

 

Regards

[dx100uk]

2 line defence in many many claimform threads here already

 

 

you don't mention owing money..its not a debt.

[ericsbrother]

OK the short defence MUST be done in full when it gets to making your witness statement

so make sure it includes anything you want to go into later.

 

 

You cant start a new defence angle later, just add to the bullet points made here

[Robfromsheff]

Things have moved on. Got a court date in November and today a copy of their 32 page witness statement. It includes a copy of their parking enforcement agreement as well as all historical letter, photos etc. What to do now? Also an email a few weeks ago saying they want to hear it on evidence only i. e. not go to court as it's straight forward.

[honeybee13]

Did you reply to the email? We recommend that people attend.

 

Others will be along with advice about the court form.

 

HB