SIP/Gladstones claimform - overstay PCN. Walmer Street Car Park Manchester

[DragonFly1967]

Reading that, I don't think that the contract is out of date (unfortunately).

 

It does state that it is for 12 months, but further states that the contract then continues on a 12 month rolling basis unless cancelled.

 

I'm confused by the P&D ticket displayed. It says "Wilmslow Road", yet both you and Gladrags in their WS are saying "Walmer Street".

 

Where exactly were you parked?

Where did you purchase the ticket?

Do SIP 'manage' a car park on Wilmslow Road?

Where is Wilmslow Road in relation to Walmer Street?

[DragonFly1967]

I think that we're going to need to see absolutely everything that you've received if there's any hope of helping you with this. You need to cover over things like names, case numbers, vehicle registrations and anything else that identifies you before you upload it as a multi page PDF. (ideally in the correct order)

[DragonFly1967]

Hmm. So Wilmslow street and Walmer road are shown (I'm assuming that that sheet forms part of their witness statement) by SIP/Gladrags as two separate sites, and indeed have separate site numbers, meaning that they are distinct. That may be one area to explore once we've seen everything else.

 

As a word of caution, the PPC's and "solicitors" (I use the term loosely) have a bit of a habit of 'popping in' to threads like this to see what's being said. In some cases, forum posts have even been referred to in court. So please be careful as to what you say and what is shown in any attachments that you upload. They *might* try to use it against you.

 

You can say things like "my car was parked", but never say "I was parked" or "I did this, or that".

 

The driver of the vehicle parked my car at XYZ car park. Well, you get the idea I'm sure

 

Because you've left it so late, there's a good chance that, unfortunately, you might lose the case in court. We'll do our best for you, however it's going to be difficult. But, you still might be able to get it thrown out, or any award reduced, if you can show that they've not done things correctly or are trying it on in other ways.

 

For example...

 

Was there a PCN (not the P&D one) on the vehicle when the driver returned to the car?

Have they shown a PCN attached to the vehicle in any pictures that they are entering as 'evidence'?

 

And then we get on to any 'additional fees' that they're trying to claim from you.

 

Whilst the driver may have (or may not, depending on your point of view) agreed to any signs in the car park setting out terms & conditions including any "recovery fees", the vehicle keeper may not have been a party to that agreement. So, if they are suing you as the driver, they *might* be able to charge the extra amount. But if they're suing you as the keeper, then they most certainly can't.

 

Their Particulars of claim probably say something along the lines of "the defendant, being the driver and/or keeper of the vehicle". Well, which is it? They can't have it both ways and they have to state who they are suing and why. Not just throw lots of balls in the air in the hope of hitting one.

[DragonFly1967]

As it's a hire/lease vehicle, does the hire/lease company specifically exclude any other driver, or can anyone drive it given the proper insurance and your permission?

 

So. Without naming anyone.

 

Are there other people that are insured to drive the vehicle?

Are there any other people that could drive your vehicle under their own insurance policy?

Could they have had access to the vehicle at that time?

 

If the answer to any of the 3 questions above is yes. Then they can only sue you as the hirer and not as the driver, as they would not be able to prove (on balance) that the driver and the hirer were one and the same person.

 

Therefore, according to their own sign that they have submitted as evidence...

 

Under the white box.

 

By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms:

 

And as we've now established that according to their sign "you" means 'the driver', it cannot also mean the keeper (or hirer)...

 

You agree to pay consideration in the form of a 'parking charge' in the sum of £100.

 

You will be liable for additional parking charges.

 

Failure to pay the charge may result in the vehicle's keeper details being obtained from DVLA. 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.

 

Those are their own words. Where on their sign does it say that the keeper (or in your case, hirer) will be liable for a single penny?

[DragonFly1967]

You can. But DO NOT BE TEMPTED to lie to the judge. That could end very badly for you indeed! Contempt of court could cost you a great deal more than a parking ticket

 

If you can't remember who was driving but you're as sure as you can be, given the obvious passage of time, that it wasn't you. Then say so. Only the driver is liable, their own signs say so, so feel free to use that against them.

[DragonFly1967]

These are in the uploaded doc lfi

 

Definitely worth looking in to the rest of your suggestions though. Having left it until past the 11th hour, the OP is going to need all the ammunition that they can get hold of to fight these bandits off.

[DragonFly1967]

7 In any case the signage at Walmer St made an offer that day of all day parking for £2. the driver at the time accepted these terms so there can never be such a thing as an overstay as the conditions accepted did not include such terms as implied by other signage that did not form part of the contract accepted at the time and the driver paid the prescribed fee and was thus entitled to park and peaceably enjoy the use of the facilities offered for the time that the car park was open that day.

 

Do you have a picture of that sign. Offering all day parking for £2?

 

Although, not relevant to your case exactly, the signage you have posted raises an interesting dilemma for SIP.

 

Monday to Thursday. 12 hours parking is £6. No maximum stay detailed.

Friday, Saturday & Sunday (Maximum stay 4 hours).

 

So, what happens if a driver arrives at their carpark on a Thursday night and pays for 12 hours parking at 23:59

[DragonFly1967]

One interesting (if very pedantic) point is at the very start of this addition where they've tried to be clever and have used words that they quite clearly don't understand.

 

4. ... this statement was served ... therefore should not be omitted to these proceedings.

 

What they've meant to say is "should not be admitted", but they haven't. They've used a word that has the exact opposite meaning.

 

Omit. Leave out or exclude

Admit. Allow. Accept as valid

 

So they've said that you can use your defence statement then.

 

Though, I would suggest that you do agree that this reply is omitted, as per the last line of Para 4.