Jump to content


charliej

SIP windscreen PCN - Gunn St - outside lines/wrong reg number - appeal failed - 7 days to respond

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 909 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I spent a few days in Manchester last months and parked at SIP Gunn Street.

 

Unfortunately I parked slightly over the line of the bay

(there was a pillar on the other side, I am only slightly over the line looking at the pictures

-from what I recal I was only on the line but their photos show otherwise).

 

I received a PCN on the windscreen and appealed it on their website

(from reading posts on the forum I now understand that I should have ignored it)

 

My appeal and their response is below

- is there anything else I can defend?

 

Not sure if it means anything but I did notice from their photo the the ticket I got from the machine has the wrong number plate on (I must have mistyped) and so does not match the number plate on the PCN

 

I thought maybe there could be some technicality there?

I really don't want to have to give them £100 right now :/

ironically the ticket was issued on my birthday too!

they say I have 7 days to respond

 

You completed the appeal on 10/06/2017 14:52:14.

 

I am appealing this charge notice on the basis that the claimed amount is disproportionate to any potential loss of earnings for SIP, that the rationality for the implementation of the charge is unfair and that the signage could be considered to be ambiguous.

 

On a personal note I feel that SIP have applied this charge in a cynical ploy to extort funds from me over and above that of the value of my the "purchase" from them.

 

1) the cost of my stay was £8.20

- I did not overstay in the carpark,

I did not prevent anyone else from using other spaces in the car park.

 

In issuing this notice of £100 (with various discount incentives to pay them immediately) SIP are suggesting that £100 is fair retribution.

 

To reiterate the manor in which I parked did not prevent any other potential customer from using surrounding spaces, if this was the case I still feel that £100 is disproportionate but could in some respect understand the reasoning behind it. From my point of view the charge has been issued without a valid reason.

 

2)SIP issued this charge on the basis that I was "Not in Marked Bay".

To clarify I parked in a space which had a large concrete pillar to the left of the space.

 

Naturally I parked slightly to the right in order to minimise the risk of impacting the pillar with the left side of the vehicle and to allow my partner to exit the vehicle more easily.

 

My vehicle was not parked extremely to the right and did not intrude into the next parking bar, my right wheel did rest slightly upon the surface of the line but at no point exceeded the outer confines of the bay.

 

3) the signage states (in very small writing considering that it can be reasonably assumed that the sign would be viewed from within the vehicle possibly whilst in transit)

"if the car park or road has marked parking bays then you must park fully within the confines of the marked bay".

To return to my previous point at no point did my vehicle exceed the outer confines of the bay.

 

4) To clarify I feel that the manor in which the notice was issued was dishonest and cynical.

I have caused no loss of earnings yet SIP are attempting to effectively increase the cost of my stay tenfold. This is not treating customers fairly and goes beyond the presumed contract of purchase.

 

I'd also note that when I returned to my vehicle I was greeted by people sleeping in the stairwell and the stairwell itself had been used as a bathroom (and I do not mean a urinal).

 

Although this could be considered incidental I'd stress that SIP are attempting to extract an unfair amount based on incidental circumstances.

 

I could argue that SIP did not provide secure (and indeed sanitary) storage for my vehicle.

 

I also do not feel that they gave due attention to my appeal

- they offered no explanation other than restating that my vehicle was "not in Marked bay".

I do not feel that they addressed any of my concerns or arguments.

I also asked that they provide evidence (copies of their photographs) for my review, I have not received this (I was hoping to submit with my appeal but was informed by SIP that I only have 15 days to challenge their assessment of the situation. Again I feel that this is an unfair, cynical ploy.

 

==============================

 

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 12/06/2017 12:07:33.

 

The Operator Reported That...

 

The appellant was the driver.

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.

The ticket was issued on 16/05/2017.

The charge is based in Contract.

 

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

 

The terms on the signage are explicitly clear that a vehicle in addition to having a valid parking session must also "park fully within the confines of a marked bay" by failing to adhere to the above terms the driver agrees to pay a parking charge of £100.00.

 

As can be seen from the photographs the vehicle was not parked in the confines of a bay thus the PCN was issued in line with the contractual signage.

 

I will address the other points raised by the appellant;

1) The amount is a contractual amount ergo loss is irrelevant

 

2) The vehicle is clearly not in a marked bay, and as can be seen there is sufficient room for the vehicle in question to have parked correctly and still been not even close to the pillar;

 

3) The signs are designed to be easily noticed (bright yellow) to then advise a person once they have parked and exited their vehicle that they can read the content of the contractual terms. It is not expected nor advised to do so while the driver is in the vehicle especially whilst moving.

 

4) The appellants belief on the fairness is irrelevant as the information was provided and agreed to upon the driver leaving the vehicle, further no dishonesty was involved in this matter everything has been very transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you tell us where on their paperwork they use the word 'fine' please


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your mistake was appealing in the first place,

now you have allowed SIP to circumvent the law on keeper liability and chase you as the driver.

Even the error of the numberplate is now negated

 

Why did you appeal before coming here and then ask us what we think Is it an unfair cynical ploy by SIP? YES and you fell for it.

 

What to do about this?

Well, it depends on how far you want to take this as you now have to do all of the running instead of them having to prove their claim.

 

Signage is critical

so get pictures of the signs at the entrance,

any that are different in the car park

and also the wording of the ticket machine as this is where the contract is crystallised.

 

 

Do not contact the parking co at this juncture and buy yourself a plaster for the self inflicted gunshot wound to your foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be kicking myself for months about this.

 

 

I live quite far from Manchester so it will be difficult getting pictures

I do have one on my phone from the day I'll see if I can upload it.

 

Having now made contact with them is there any telecasting chance of appealing this?

 

 

I think I may just have to bite the bullet and give them the money.

It's so disgusting that they can change so much,

I thought they would be reasonable when I appealed it

- will never ever be using them again

 

I'll check when I get home but not sure it says fine.

All I have from them is the actual ticket they put on my windscreen no letters etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you it doesn't say FINE anywhere

its a speculative invoice.

 

 

hey..no need to pay this

doesn't mean just because you cant run very fast not

we cant put you in a wheelbarrow to get you away quick.

 

 

plenty to argue about

not got a mate relation friend near there

or are there any other threads here

or on prankster with the photos already>

 

 

can you fill this out too please:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not so fast on being keen to hand over the money,

there is another thread on here about parking at Gunn St in a thread that started off about Gt Ancoat st

 

 

look at that and you will see images of a couple of their signs that dont actually offer a contract,

hence needing to see the signage inside the car park and particularly the wording on the ticket machine itself.

 

 

ultimately it is accepting what that says when you feed the machine that forms the contract,

everything else is just sales patter so no mention of the exact breach you are accused of and it didnt happen.

 

I will drop that poster a reminder that I need to see more piccies as he has gone off the radar recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a recent ruling that said the white lines formed part of the bay?


Illegitimi non carborundum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much,

I have a picture of the sign inside that I took on the day,

also of the one SIP submitted to IAS

(+ a picture of the ticket I had in my windscreen and of the PCB itself).

I'll upload them all today, just need to figure out how to convert to PDF

 

Incidentally I'm looking at the letter SIP sent me to say my appeal had been declined and it is dated 01/01/2010 - can we do anything with that?

 

Here's the letter with the 2010 date

docs1.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
pdf's merged and redacted properly 12Mb<2Mb reduction - dx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement? 16/05/17

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] Yes

I appealed on the SIP website 27/05/17.

As it was an online form I do not have a copy but it was along the same lines as my IAS appeal.

 

In response to my initial appeal I received the letter I have uploaded in the PDF (Attached to an email)

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload

 

My IAS appeal:

 

I am appealing this charge notice on the basis that the claimed amount is disproportionate to any potential loss of earnings for SIP, that the rationality for the implementation of the charge is unfair and that the signage could be considered to be ambiguous. On a personal note I feel that SIP have applied this charge in a cynical ploy to extort funds from me over and above that of the value of my the "purchase" from them.

 

1) the cost of my stay was £8.20 - I did not overstay in the carpark,

I did not prevent anyone else from using other spaces in the car park.

In issuing this notice of £100 (with various discount incentives to pay them immediately) SIP are suggesting that £100 is fair retribution. To reiterate the manor in which I parked did not prevent any other potential customer from using surrounding spaces, if this was the case I still feel that £100 is disproportionate but could in some respect understand the reasoning behind it. From my point of view the charge has been issued without a valid reason.

 

2)SIP issued this charge on the basis that I was "Not in Marked Bay". To clarify I parked in a space which had a large concrete pillar to the left of the space. Naturally I parked slightly to the right in order to minimise the risk of impacting the pillar with the left side of the vehicle and to allow my partner to exit the vehicle more easily. My vehicle was not parked extremely to the right and did not intrude into the next parking bar, my right wheel did rest slightly upon the surface of the line but at no point exceeded the outer confines of the bay.

 

3) the signage states (in very small writing considering that it can be reasonably assumed that the sign would be viewed from within the vehicle possibly whilst in transit) "if the car park or road has marked parking bays then you must park fully within the confines of the marked bay". To return to my previous point at no point did my vehicle exceed the outer confines of the bay.

 

4) To clarify I feel that the manor in which the notice was issued was dishonest and cynical. I have caused no loss of earnings yet SIP are attempting to effectively increase the cost of my stay tenfold. This is not treating customers fairly and goes beyond the presumed contract of purchase.

 

I'd also note that when I returned to my vehicle I was greeted by people sleeping in the stairwell and the stairwell itself had been used as a bathroom (and I do not mean a urinal). Although this could be considered incidental I'd stress that SIP are attempting to extract an unfair amount based on incidental circumstances. I could argue that SIP did not provide secure (and indeed sanitary) storage for my vehicle.

 

I also do not feel that they gave due attention to my appeal - they offered no explanation other than restating that my vehicle was "not in Marked bay". I do not feel that they addressed any of my concerns or arguments.

 

I also asked that they provide evidence (copies of their photographs) for my review, I have not received this (I was hoping to submit with my appeal but was informed by SIP that I only have 15 days to challenge their assessment of the situation. Again I feel that this is an unfair, cynical ploy.

 

has there been a response? Yes

Their response:

 

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 12/06/2017 12:07:33.

 

The Operator Reported That...

 

The appellant was the driver.

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.

The ticket was issued on 16/05/2017.

The charge is based in Contract.

 

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

 

The terms on the signage are explicitly clear that a vehicle in addition to having a valid parking session must also "park fully within the confines of a marked bay" by failing to adhere to the above terms the driver agrees to pay a parking charge of £100.00.

 

As can be seen from the photographs the vehicle was not parked in the confines of a bay thus the PCN was issued in line with the contractual signage.

 

I will address the other points raised by the appellant;

1) The amount is a contractual amount ergo loss is irrelevant

 

2) The vehicle is clearly not in a marked bay, and as can be seen there is sufficient room for the vehicle in question to have parked correctly and still been not even close to the pillar;

 

3) The signs are designed to be easily noticed (bright yellow) to then advise a person once they have parked and exited their vehicle that they can read the content of the contractual terms. It is not expected nor advised to do so while the diver is in the vehicle especially whilst moving.

 

4) The appellants belief on the fairness is irrelevant as the information was provided and agreed to upon the driver leaving the vehicle, further no dishonesty was involved in this matter everything has been very transparent.

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

Yes [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company? SIP

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? SIP, Gunn Street Manchester M4 5DN ......................... ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

waste of time appealing to the IAS, you have now just emboldened then to acually pursue you.

 

As for their letter dated 2010

it will help you when they sue you but other than that not much use on its own

 

their resposne regarding offer and acceptance is untrue and you cant tell what is being offered from a moving vehicle.

 

 

You could argue that you had just pulled over to read their signage and then decided to park properly afterwards and that has as much legitimacy as their spiel.

 

They can only make a profit by chiselling the motorist so that is why they jump on these tiny infractions.

 

 

No definition of what is a marked bay in off street parking anyway

it all boils down to adequacy of signage (not the sign you show but the one on the ticket machine) and the accretion of other factors.

Edited by dx100uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a business I'd like to be in.

 

 

I've been looking at going up to Manchester but with fuel costs and the time it would take its isn't realistic.

 

 

What would you recommend as my next course of action?

 

 

I only have a few days left to reply,

I gather from responses that as I've now effectively addmitted I was driving etc there isn't much I can do without going for pictures of the meter.

 

If there's no argument I'd still sooner make them wait and hope they give up or at least incur some costs themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you ignore their timelines

they are of no importance.

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple, you dont reply. Why shoot yourself in the other foot by playing their game. Make them do all the running, it buys you more time as well as costing them money and you nothing.

 

I have asked the other person to post up the images as he lives in Manchester and will ahve to get them for his defence anyway. trouble is quite often people go quite and then come back here complaining they have lost becasue they didnt either follow the advice given in a number of threads or just give up.

 

this si what the parking co's want, they cant win defended claims so if everyone defended the parking co's would be out of business or even more unlikely have to create a system that stays inside the law and operates fairly.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...