FINAL REMINDER - SIP LIMITED - Manchester

Hi everybody,

I hope this is okay, I am in need of a defence for a claim Gladstones are making regarding to a SIP Parking ticket a driver received in Manchester October 2016.
I was issued a court claim letter 02/05/17 and have 14 days to submit a defence but haven't heard anything back from my other thread I figured maybe it was too far down the list as it's an older post? Sorry if this isn't okay to repost.

Summary:
The driver paid for 3 hours parking, was held up half an hour with work and couldn't get back in time, thus receiving a ticket. The signage at this car park (as shown in google maps, Cable Street, Manchester) is really poor and the driver was parked where the silver Toyota can be seen here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4859901,-2.2340452,3a,75y,40.01h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jv4wnZjukjFIpl5dHaDdg!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

The driver was parked facing the road and there were no direct signs in front and the signs in the main car park were very scarce.
I'm not sure however if the case can be won on that basis as a ticket WAS purchased and that kind of suggests the driver saw and and accepted the terms?

I have drafted a defence against the Gladstones claim which I shall stick in a separate post below. But I don't have anything about the signs in there. I have until the 16th to submit this defence (14 days after the letters was dated).

Any help would be greatly received!
I did see recently that somebody had lost against SIP Parking and Gladstones so I'm a bit nervous now

Thanks in advance

My apologies Umkomaas, my mistake for seeing it in other forums and assumed thats what these forums were for 🙏🏼 Court Papers replied to yes
With that in mind, my defence draft is here, and hopefully somebody can help:

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 also failed to comply with the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4. 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 registered keeper has not admitted to being the driver and forensic evidence cannot be relied on in small claims court. 
3b. Case Reference: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

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.

5. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. 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.

7. Should the court deem the particulars of claim adequate, the Defendant intends to submit a part 18 request as the Claimant has failed to submit adequate evidence with which to defend the cases particulars over.

Apologies for the late reply, I have been away.

I like your point CM thank you.
Is there anything I can include regarding the fact the driver was late back after purchasing a ticket? Anything regarding the signs at the images I've linked above that would stand as to making the contract invalid?

Or is the above a good stead for a case?