IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

FINAL REMINDER - SIP LIMITED - Manchester

1235712

Comments

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,646
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    To make it clear that you require evidence, you can say:
    The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;

    Your changes look OK to me and your order of points is fine, too. There is no right & wrong answer but cases are (to my memory of forum wins) most often won on 'unclear signage terms/no contract agreed' or 'no keeper liability' (if the defendant wasn't the driver and the PPC hasn't followed the POFA).

    You need a statement of truth & your signature and date at the end, and format the entire defence as 1.5 line-spaced in Times New Roman 12 font, as explained by bargepole in his thread linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, about how to structure/set out a defence.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • mlang88
    mlang88 Posts: 50 Forumite
    I work right by Cable Street in Manchester - would you like me to take pictures of the car park signage? (If you haven't already found some?) - I am also fighting a SIPS claim for a 'PCN' in a car park just next door to Cable Street (although mine has now gone to court).
  • thismakemesad
    thismakemesad Posts: 61 Forumite
    edited 26 May 2017 at 9:53AM
    mlang88 wrote: »
    I work right by Cable Street in Manchester - would you like me to take pictures of the car park signage? (If you haven't already found some?) - I am also fighting a SIPS claim for a 'PCN' in a car park just next door to Cable Street (although mine has now gone to court).

    That would be amazing help thank you!! If there are any opportunities to get pictures of the whole site that would be great!
    Sorry to hear yours has gone to court, have you got a link to a thread of your case? I would be interested to keep up with it and see how you get on. Good luck, and thank you for the kind request!
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    Before divulging your personal details via pms, do be aware the warnings on MSE about not giving your personal details out to anyone.


    (As well as the warnings on this forum not to contact posters with low posting histories/newbies/alter egos etc)
  • Quentin wrote: »
    Before divulging your personal details via pms, do be aware the warnings on MSE about not giving your personal details out to anyone.


    (As well as the warnings on this forum not to contact posters with low posting histories/newbies/alter egos etc)

    Is this a warning, or something I've already done? I'm nervous as can't remember what I did! haha
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,256
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Is this a warning, or something I've already done? I'm nervous as can't remember what I did! haha

    It's just a note of caution. It's no slight on the poster who offered help, but there have been cases in the past where PPC stooges have offered such private assistance - and it's ended in tears.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • With the great feedback above (really, thank you!) here is my defence as it currently stands.
    Please read in mind of the driver receiving a ticket for being 30 mins late back to the car park as a result of being held at work for unforeseen circumstances. However, I approaching in terms of signage and lack of contractual evidence. If anybody feels I could add something else, I have until Tuesday:


    It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.

    The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
    1b. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred the stated additional costs of £50 and it is to be put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. If they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs” and The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    1c. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
    1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
    1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.

    2. The Claimant has no right to claim relief from the keeper of the vehicle in question, as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4 which is the explicit and only mechanism by with a vehicles Keeper may be held liable for a driver parking their vehicle on private land. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper.
    2b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.

    3. The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

    4. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by SiP Parking Ltd, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    4b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and it was impossible to see any contractual information from the position of the vehicle.
    4c. With 4b. in mind, it is therefore my belief that the signs are forbidding and unable to set a contract and should instead be seen as to present a tort of trespass which only the landowner can action.
    4d. I would also like to state that the amount the claimant is bringing to claim is unfairly inflated and unrealistic of the costs implied by the claimant.

    5. After complying with the claimant’s Letter Before County Court Claim (response sent 26/04/17 and signed delivery on 27/04/17 09:24 by Greensmith) stating that The Keeper did not believe the Letter was fully compliant with the Practice direction as the Letter did not provide concise details about the matter and requested further information about the claim. The Claimant has failed to supply any evidence and as such, they are put to strict proof that they are the landowner or that they are authorised; The proper claimant is the landowner.
    5a. As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised;
    “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.
    5b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,646
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Bump for more views tonight.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Lamilad
    Lamilad Posts: 1,412
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    4c. With 4b. in mind, it is therefore my belief that the signs are forbidding and unable to set a contract and should instead be seen as to present a tort of trespass which only the landowner can action.
    If this was a pay display car park why would you think the signage was 'forbidding' .

    Is the offer to park limited to certain people i.e permit holders?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,646
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Lamilad wrote: »
    If this was a pay display car park why would you think the signage was 'forbidding' .

    Is the offer to park limited to certain people i.e permit holders?

    Good point, that doesn't make much sense.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards