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@.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 28th Apr 17, 1:50 PM
    • 24Posts
    • 3Thanks
    SIP Court case help
    • #1
    • 28th Apr 17, 1:50 PM
    SIP Court case help 28th Apr 17 at 1:50 PM
    Hi There,

    I am after some advice or help with a court case I have coming up in June with SIP in manchester.

    Quick overview of the case:
    Last summer I parked at one of their car parks and parked on some cross hatch markings, the markings were worn out to the point of being barley visible, I was in no way blocking anything or anyone in and I have seen cars on them before. There are no other markings in the car park, it is just a load of baron rubble.

    I got a ticket, which on the back said I could appeal, and if the appeal was rejected I could pay £60. So appealed and explained the above. A week or so later I received a letter saying I owed £100, I replied saying I had appealed and resent the appeal. Again this was ignored and a new fine of £150 was sent. At this point I wrote to say they had ignored my appeals and so I was going to ignore them.

    In January I was contacted by Gladstones solicitors who had taken on their case and they wanted £240. Explained everything to them and we are now going to court in June.

    I have no idea what to do with preparing for a court case. I have tried to get free legal help but not had any luck with that so hoping someone here might be able to help me form my case or let me know what I need to do as it would be a nightmare to lose based on anything technical that I don't understand.

    I have applied for mediation, and willing to pay the £60 that was the original fine, but I feel I shouldn't really have to pay anything due to the hassle this is causing. Will have to take a day off work too which is an expense.

    I feel like I have followed all the instructions they offered with the appeal of the ticket, they just seem to hike up the fine at every opportunity and harass and try and scare me to pay up.

    Thanks in advance for any help people can offer.
Page 2
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 15th May 17, 11:27 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    I'm confused by para 14. I thought, as per CM's comment above, you were dropping the 'not the driver' arguments after previously admitting to being the driver?

    Have I misunderstood something?
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    I am the only one misunderstanding all this, thanks for pointing it out, any more help would be good

    Do the first points I added seem right?
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 17th May 17, 9:17 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Posting this again with point 14 removed, Is there anything I need to add, any help would be massively appreciated.

    1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    3) The hatched markings in the car park that are in question are severely faded, and due to the nature of the floor in the carpark are not very visible. The area where the hatched markings are does not block any through passage and so parking there would cause no inconvenience. I have attached photos to support this.

    4) The appeal process which was explained on the ticket was followed by the defendant but was not followed through by the prosecution and at no time was the £60 fine offered as described on the ticket.

    5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

    6) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

    7) This claim merely states: “parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

    8) 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. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    10) I believe the term 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.

    10) I 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.

    11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

    12) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    13. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. 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. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
    In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
    i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
    ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
    iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
    iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

    14) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

    15) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

    16. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.

    17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    18. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 17, 8:56 PM
    • 45,826 Posts
    • 58,826 Thanks
    3) The hatched markings in the car park that are in question are severely faded, and due to the nature of the floor in the carpark are not very visible. The area where the hatched markings are does not block any through passage and so parking there would cause no inconvenience. I have attached photos to support this, showing the fact that there are no signs at that spot, so no contractual charge was offered nor agreed, to pay any parking charge there. It appeared to be an unmarked area and certainly not a chargeable bay.

    Is my alteration correct? No sign at that corner/area by those faded lines? If so, add it and the rest looks like it covers the bases, based on my skim-read.

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 17th May 17, 9:20 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    That looks good to me

    Will update with notes to the images and scans I will be adding then repost on here.

    thanks loads for the help
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 19th May 17, 4:14 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    I went to the car park today to get some pics and it has been closed, just wondered if that is in anyway something that can help my case?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 19th May 17, 5:59 PM
    • 6,516 Posts
    • 5,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    Take heart, they are not the sharpest knives in the box
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 17, 9:38 PM
    • 45,826 Posts
    • 58,826 Thanks
    And take even more heart from this SIP Court report today:


    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 20th May 17, 1:28 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    that has given me some encouragement, it is bloody stressful and reading these posts help.
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

194Posts Today

1,215Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Just leaving Manchester after the funeral of my beloved grandma Gladys who passed away last night.

  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Follow Martin