Advice please on a SIP ticket.

Perfo · 11 March 2017 at 6:24PM

Reply sent to HM money claim thing

The pay and display machine was out of order. I read the notices
posted in the car park and no alternative method of payment was
offered. I spoke to a parking attendant at the car park
and though he explained he wasn't responsible for this car park he
advised it would be OK to park there and sort it out later due to
the machine being out of service. As I was in the building
adjacent to the car park and under time pressure I took
photographs of the signs and out of service machine. I left a
large (A4) notice on the dash board of my car stating my contact
details, my location and the reason why I hadn't got a ticket and
I would be back in a few minutes. I got in to the office arrange
the people that were waiting for me and returned to the car
prepared to sort out the.
The machine was now working so I purchased a ticket.
I purchased a ticket that was way in excess of the time I would be
parking there to ensure there would be no financial loss to the
owners. However I still had a ticket stuck on my screen over the
notice that I'd left. My suspicions are the Parking attendant I
spoke to was indeed the one for this car park and waited until
I'd left to apply the ticket. I rang the owner and explained what
had happened and they stated I'd have to do it in writing, which I
did the next day. They disputed my reasons and stated there were
details of what to do if the machine was out of service on the
signs. I disputed this as I had pictures of the signs and it
didn't state anything of the sort. If there was a sign elsewhere
then it did not comply with the BCP requirements as I didn’t see
it and I made a point of looking and reading the signs available.
I have since found out the only sign referencing alternative
payments is a red sticker on the machine itself. It looks like
a small red stripe i.e. part of the look of the machine but if
you look carefully there is white very small print writing on it.
This in itself is an unwise thing to do as anyone can put
stickers anywhere and say ring this number with your credit card.
However I maintain the contractual side of the parking was
displayed on the bona fide signs and this sticker was not seen
and is not relevant. After my appeal I heard nothing from SIP
since April and thus I assumed my appeal had been successful. I
then get contacted in November out of the blue by a legal team
threatening court action. I have since found out that contrary to
the regulation concerning getting registered keeper details from
the DVLA that though SIP had written proof from me that I was the
driver they still (underhandedly) requested the RK details from
the DVLA. As the car was a hire car SIP then went after the hire
company then the firm I work for and then for no apparent reason
issued a noticed before court to another employee of the company
that had nothing to do with it. I believe that complaints are
going to be issued to the DVLA for falsely acquiring RK details
and the employee of the company that was randomly targeted is
also writing to the solicitor’s regulation authority.

I therefore state I have already paid for the parking so there is
no financial loss to the owner and I did everything reasonable on
the day to ensure there was no loss.
For the machine to be repaired and a ticket issued so quickly
after my leaving the car park It was either a large coincidence or
possible part of a regular con to bully money out of the public.
This is a small car park with perhaps 7 to 10 parking spaces so
can't be a very high earning site under normal circumstances.
By design the owners know very few people are going to see their
stickers. SIP’s unscrupulous behaviour including how the ticket was
issued and subsequent false representation to DVLA and harassment
of others has already caused enough distress.
My final point is since April my reasonable expectations are the
case was closed, in the very least it was still in appeal and
thus the amount being requested should be the original fee not
some inflated £232.86.
On top of this the monies I paid for the ticket to cover this
parking has been accepted by SIP. I haven't had a refund and thus
assume it was accepted to cover the parking.

Reasons for counter claim…
I am making a claim as the actual cost of parking and thus the gain loss of the owners has already been paid on the day. The company have accepted my payment and therefore cannot (in my opinion) claim again for the same loss.
The owners have employed underhanded methods to try and extract further money from me and for me to defend the claims I have to spend considerable time and effort. I believe it is only correct for me to claim for this time and effort (not to mention the stress) and thus I put in a claim for £100.
I claim the £25 court costs as I wouldn't have to apply to court if SIP had acted reasonably.
Therefore £125.00 is a reasonable and true cost to me following the actions of SIP.

Perfo · 11 March 2017 at 7:09PM

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: D

Between

SIP PARKING LTD
(Claimant)

-and-

Joe Blog
(Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. I was the driver of the vehicle in question, no. XXXXX. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked adjacent to XXX , on XX/XX/2016.

2. The rate charge for parking for the time I was expecting to be there is £5.00. I have always paid for parking on every occasion when it was possible to do so. However, after performing some research I discover that this ticket machine is subject to frequent malfunctions, in that it either will not accept coins, or it accepts payment but does not issue a ticket. On all such occasions, where I have been unable to pay for parking I have left a note prominently displayed inside the windscreen, and returned to the vehicle as soon as possible to pay the parking tariff.

3. On the material date, The machine stated it was out of service on the display. I noticed this after putting in coins and the coins being rejected, and as usual left a clear note inside the windscreen advising the Claimant’s operative of this fact. However, when I returned at lunchtime, a Parking Charge Notice, suggesting a penalty of £100 was payable by the driver, had been stuck on the windscreen, right in front of my note.

4. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Claimant, I researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors.. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

5. I submit that the alleged contract, created by the Claimant’s signage, is voidable under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and as held in Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126, for the reason that it became impossible for me to insert coins into the machine through no fault of mine, and over which I had no control. In the alternative, in Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes ‘reasonable endeavours’ to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

6. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

7. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, GS Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various costs, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report CSB to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

8. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

………………………………………………………. ………………………

Perfo · 11 March 2017 at 7:16PM

Interestingly enough... If you look at the red sticker (which I didn't see at the time) then it states it is the drivers responsibility to pay for parking before leaving the car park which I did. I don't enter in to the contract until I drive my car in to the car park therefore it must follow I don't 'leave' the car park until I've driven the car out. At least on the contractual signs it implies you pay for parking when you park until you leave and that is the car leaves not the person.

Coupon-mad · 12 March 2017 at 6:20PM

Your post 12 is your defence; you can't now send another one if you submitted that online via MCOL. And I don't think a counter-claim is a good idea, we don't suggest people do this because it is also half-baked:

I have put in a counter claim so as part of this court hearing I got sent a thing to fill in on line explaining why I though I deserved a counter claim.

If you haven't yet paid the £25 fee to counter-claim I would not, same as here, stop muddling yourself and concentrate on winning this case:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72221635#post72221635

BTW the case about the broken machine was a rare loss on here...just so you are aware it is not a silver bullet. Can work with some Judges but not others. So it seems to me you have already defended on MCOL, and must await the next stages as set out by bargepole in the links in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. DW, then later, WS and evidence (which IS when you can expand on that defence).

Perfo · 12 March 2017 at 8:04PM

I of course hope I never end up in this situation again , but needless to say I'm now a little wiser and would do more homework before firing off responses.
Thanks for the reply Coupon-Mad. Do you think I've shot myself in the foot with my defence then ? It has been submitted to MCOL.
Off to re-read Bargpoles advice...

Perfo · 12 March 2017 at 8:23PM

Reading the timings in Bargpole's thread. As I've been given a date and time of the hearing and a deadline (17th March) to hand in a copy. I am already at point 5, aren't I ? Thus there is only the WS left to submit ?
am I wrong here ?

BP also states my WS can be expanded here so could I combine my posts #12 and #13 to for the WS. They don't conflict and basically say the same thing anyway bar the additional bits about how corrupt the appeal system is...

Coupon-mad · 13 March 2017 at 12:04AM

Perfo wrote: »

I of course hope I never end up in this situation again , but needless to say I'm now a little wiser and would do more homework before firing off responses.
Thanks for the reply Coupon-Mad. Do you think I've shot myself in the foot with my defence then ? It has been submitted to MCOL.
Off to re-read Bargepoles advice...

Nope, you have said most of what was needed but in less legalese language. That's fine for that stage.

As I've been given a date and time of the hearing and a deadline (17th March) to hand in a copy. I am already at point 5, aren't I ? Thus there is only the WS left to submit ?

Aha, yes you are, so you need to file (and send a copy to the other side by email) of your Witness Statement, which is what happened when (facts) plus any supporting evidence, like photos etc.

BP also states my WS can be expanded here so could I combine my posts #12 and #13 to for the WS. They don't conflict

Yes you could. Then see what WS they file and if they are late tell the Judge in a letter to the court saying how you have been disadvantaged by them trying to re-plead their 'incoherent & sparse particulars of claim' at the last minute.

Perfo · 13 March 2017 at 10:50AM

Thanks, I'll get that combination doc formulated and get the docs emailed off tonight.

Is the fact GS still run and own the appeals process still true ?

Thanks for your assistance

Coupon-mad · 13 March 2017 at 2:26PM

Is the fact GS still run and own the appeals process still true ?

Yep, Hurley & Davies run the IPC Trade Body and are responsible for the 'IAS' (kangaroo court, most here would say) as well as Gladstones solicitors - so a potential conflict of interests in any reasonable person's mind.

Perfo · 13 March 2017 at 2:37PM

Well there's not many businessmen that manage to control the regulators and the appeals committee so hats of the them for that and a huge gasp of disbelief that it's allowable and in progress...

Advice please on a SIP ticket.

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free