Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 24th Feb 17, 3:14 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 21Thanks
    queenadreena
    SIP Parking
    • #1
    • 24th Feb 17, 3:14 PM
    SIP Parking 24th Feb 17 at 3:14 PM
    Hi all

    I've read up on the newbie thread so apologies if I've missed anything, but I've had 2 parking tickets from SIP as the Pay by Phone app didn't work - it appeared to register and complete but no text confirming the parking (don't always get them as my reception's pretty poor). As soon as I came back 2 days later I realised and paid for the remaining time the car was parked up. This was Nov 2016.

    I've appealed and been ignored. No dismissal of appeal, they're ignoring anything's been sent and saying it's too late to appeal now. I've responded to each notice to pay advising that the app is faulty (I bloody park there every week and pay every week without fail), and have also told them that the parking app is overcharging. If you park before 6pm and use the app to park for 24hrs, it'll round it up to 6pm the next day, stick the relevant hourly charge on top of the 24hrs charge and tells you in black and white that it's at no extra charge. I've used this in my letters to SIP. I've proof I've contacted them as I even sent the letter by email so I could show I'd been in contact.

    Would there be any point in contacting the landowner at this stage? (Turns out the landowner is actually the local council, but yet they've engaged SIP to run the sh*t show.....odd)
Page 2
    • murphys65
    • By murphys65 14th Jun 17, 9:55 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    murphys65
    Hiya!

    Did you manage to sort anything out with this?

    I'm in the same situation as I missed the deadline due to private parking appeals not getting back to me! It's so annoying
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 9:59 PM
    • 15,870 Posts
    • 24,596 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hiya!

    Did you manage to sort anything out with this?

    I'm in the same situation as I missed the deadline due to private parking appeals not getting back to me! It's so annoying
    Originally posted by murphys65
    'Set asides' are not sorted out overnight. The OP was only given the advice to help resolve this yesterday evening!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • murphys65
    • By murphys65 14th Jun 17, 10:07 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    murphys65
    Oh yes, didn't look at date!

    As I have missed my deadline due to private parking appeals not getting it sorted, even though I paid them, sent in info etc.

    Do I write to court manager to try to explain? I did acknowledge service but simply missed the defence.

    Any help would be appreciated
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 10:16 PM
    • 15,870 Posts
    • 24,596 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Oh yes, didn't look at date!

    As I have missed my deadline due to private parking appeals not getting it sorted, even though I paid them, sent in info etc.

    Do I write to court manager to try to explain? I did acknowledge service but simply missed the defence.

    Any help would be appreciated
    Originally posted by murphys65
    Please start your own new thread. We will not offer advice (especially when it gets potentially complex) on threads to anyone other than the original poster (OP). Otherwise there is a real danger of advice getting mixed up - which can lead to costly errors.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 28th Sep 17, 3:13 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    Update
    Hi all


    I spoke with a lawyer friend who has a passing interest in CCJs and he advised to give it a try at getting it set aside.


    Had my hearing with the judge yesterday and MY CCJ HAS BEEN SET ASIDE!!! She was satisfied that I'd tried to stop the thing getting to court, that I didn't understand my defence was still required although I'd written to the Court Business Centre, and that I had a reasonable chance of success.


    I've got to submit a defence statement within the next 14 days to court and Gladstones, then wait for court to get back to me with what happens next.


    Tonight and tomorrow will be mostly putting my stuff together. I'm so glad you folks are here.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 17, 10:59 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great stuff, now let's see your draft defence!

    Which Court was this nice Judge at?

    I am so happy that my post #20 was proved wrong in your case and you can now defend it as planned.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Fight the good fight
    • By Fight the good fight 29th Sep 17, 5:19 AM
    • 135 Posts
    • 165 Thanks
    Fight the good fight
    Out of interest Could the OP name the car park
    I Am Charlie
    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 29th Sep 17, 7:42 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    Thanks CM - it was at Manchester County Court. The judge was very thorough and very nice. I'm just trying to draft my defence and I'll post it as soon as it's done.

    Fight, I don't want to out myself in case SIP are reading these boards (I've read that they do) but it was Manchester City Centre.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 17, 7:54 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Manchester Court is known to be very good re the PPC scam in general, so you have a very good chance of defending and winning the case, and getting your £255 fee back as part of your costs at the hearing.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 3rd Oct 17, 9:24 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    First Draft - Any and All Help Appreciated
    I am XX XX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

    1. It is admitted that I was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of two Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXX when it was parked at XX. The PCNs stated the contravention as a) “Time Exceeded,” and b) "Invalid Ticket Displayed."

    3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
    a. There was a contract formed between SIP Parking Ltd and me on XX/2016.
    b. There was any agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified sums.
    e. That SIP Parking Ltd fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

    4. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of ''invalid ticket displayed'' occurred or can have occurred when using the PaybyPhone option, the failure of which was not communicated to me nor was it within my control. Even if a contract was potentially formed it was frustrated by the unexpected and uncommunicated failure of the Claimant's app, and it is trite law that no party can be held liable for breach to another under such circumstances of frustration of contract.
    b. There was any agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site. which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    f. The Pay by Phone app, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', complied with The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which says:

    ''Confirmation of distance contracts: 16.—(1) In the case of a distance contract the trader must give the consumer confirmation of the contract on a durable medium.
    (2) The confirmation must include all the information referred to in Schedule 2 unless the trader has already provided that information to the consumer on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of the distance contract.
    (3) If the contract is for the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium and the consumer has given the consent and acknowledgment referred to in regulation 37(1)(a) and (b), the confirmation must include confirmation of the consent and acknowledgement.''

    5. I further deny that I am liable for the purported debt.

    Rebuttal of Claim
    6. I made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.
    a. Payment for parking was made for one hour using the ticket machine onsite, allowing me time to uninstall and reinstall the PayByPhone mobile app. 48 hours was then purchased offsite via the mobile phone app.
    b. This is a distance contract which requires certain information to be supplied in advance.
    c. The service makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display.
    d. I followed the PayByPhone instructions exactly as shown on the app and as I have done numerous times before and since.
    d. This was a fully automated contract.
    e. The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such I believed the necessary payment had been made.
    f. I do not believe that the failure of the payment service to accept payment is my responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
    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.

    7. I did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    8. I deny that I would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
    a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

    9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist (please see photos enclosed)
    a. 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 International Parking Community (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 the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.
    c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.


    10. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 in their first invoice to £160 in their final invoice for each PCN. I believe that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
    a. 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”.
    b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. Furthermore, SIP Parking Ltd's solicitor, Gladstones, has increased this further from £320 to £413.60 on the court claim form, to £441.27 on the (now set-aside) CCJ. This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    c. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, to whit: the original £100 per PCN.

    Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
    11. SIP Parking Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    a. The Claimant is not the landowner as per a recent Land Registry search, and furthermore I have an email from the landowner stating that they do not contract with SIP Parking Ltd (please see correspondence enclosed)
    b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
    d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. 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 Parking Eye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    12. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable me to prepare a specific defence:
    ‘The driver of the vehicle registration XX incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/2016, XX/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XX Manchester. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £320.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.60 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.07 per day’

    13. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable me to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    14. I respectfully invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

    15. 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. This 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. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    16. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.

    17. I believe the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    18. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    19. I deny the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

    20. I invite the court to dismiss 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 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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 10:23 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of two Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXX when it was parked at XX. The PCNs stated the contravention as a) “Time Exceeded,” and b) "Invalid Ticket Displayed''



    Remove the line above as that's giving credence to the PCNs. Let them say/prove what the PCNs were about, no need for you to say so.

    And remove this awful repetition of the Claimant's case; I don't like this template example:

    3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
    a. There was a contract formed between SIP Parking Ltd and me on XX/2016.
    b. There was any agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified sums.
    e. That SIP Parking Ltd fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

    I researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC),
    No, they aren't, wrong company. And I don't mean the BPA!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-10-2017 at 10:28 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 4th Oct 17, 10:33 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    Thank you so much C-M!


    This has been driving me batty tbh. It's made me feel like a bear of very little brain!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 2:15 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Did you find the right company for the acronym IPC now?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 4th Oct 17, 7:49 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    International Parking Community which is United Trade and Industry Ltd with the same interested parties as Gladstones. D'OH!
    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 19th Oct 17, 8:41 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    UPDATE.

    I've received the DQ from Gladstones and they've requested that it's considered on paperwork without a hearing and I quote:

    "This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client's opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree <redacted> Notwithstanding this, our client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward"

    I'm obviously going to submit my DQ, I will be asking for a hearing at my local court. What, if anything, should I reply to Gladstones?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Oct 17, 8:46 PM
    • 16,882 Posts
    • 20,957 Thanks
    Redx
    all covered in the NEWBIES sticky thread , post #2

    have you read the BARGEPOLE walkthrough ? (it seems not)

    have you not read the hundreds of other GLADRAGS threads where its been discussed to death ?
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Oct 17, 9:38 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Here's a post I made earlier:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73286102#post73286102

    Luckily, Gladstones cases don't hold much weight! Keep the faith. Read the NEWBIES thread for a heads up of what happens next and how to complete the DQ (ignoring the version Gladstones foist on you).

    Please no post next, about them writing about how the case should be 'heard on the papers'!! Eeek!! If I read another post about that again from people who haven't simply searched or Googled those obvious keywords first, I will self-combust.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 23rd Nov 17, 8:23 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    My case with SIP Parking has been stayed pending the determination of the cases SIP Parking v Williams Dyer Electricals (UK) Ltd and SIP Parking Ltd v Acts 2 Ltd ("the landlord cases") on Feb 12 2018, on the issue of whether authority from the landlord to enter into contracts of parking with drivers complies with paragraph 2(1) of schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and/or common law.

    Not sure whether these are test cases that are v important to what happens moving forward with parking invoices, but thought you might like to know.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Nov 17, 2:29 PM
    • 51,652 Posts
    • 65,310 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    My case with SIP Parking has been stayed pending the determination of the cases SIP Parking v Williams Dyer Electricals (UK) Ltd and SIP Parking Ltd v Acts 2 Ltd ("the landlord cases") on Feb 12 2018, on the issue of whether authority from the landlord to enter into contracts of parking with drivers complies with paragraph 2(1) of schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and/or common law.

    Not sure whether these are test cases that are v important to what happens moving forward with parking invoices, but thought you might like to know.
    Originally posted by queenadreena
    Really important information, thankyou.

    Worth other people doing residential defences to refer to, especially if they'd rather have their case stayed until Spring.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • queenadreena
    • By queenadreena 24th Nov 17, 9:28 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    queenadreena
    If anyone needs the full case details to quote:

    SIP Parking Ltd v Williams Dyer Electricals (UK) Ltd D1GF2Q7F
    SIP Parking Ltd v Acts 2 Ltd D3GF53Y3

    It's District Judge Iyer dealing with both cases.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,095Posts Today

9,462Users online

Martin's Twitter