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
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 28th Apr 17, 1:50 PM
    • 61Posts
    • 38Thanks
    lafferdog
    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
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    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
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    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
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,188 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    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.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 17th May 17, 9:20 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    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
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    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
    • 7,384 Posts
    • 6,427 Thanks
    The Deep
    Take heart, they are not the sharpest knives in the box


    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70211430
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 17, 9:38 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,188 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And take even more heart from this SIP Court report today:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5652565

    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.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 20th May 17, 1:28 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    that has given me some encouragement, it is bloody stressful and reading these posts help.
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 10:20 AM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    ok so the time has come to submit my defence.
    I havent received anything from Gladstones and deadline is next week, so hoping they might have left it too late.

    Am I right in thinking I just send a copy to Gladstones and a copy to court?

    Here it is anyway, would really appreciate a thumbs up or advice from anyone before I send on tuesday

    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 (photos attached), 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.

    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 (copy of ticket with this highlighted).

    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) 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.

    8) 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.

    9) 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.

    10) 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.

    11) 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.

    12) 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.

    13) 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.

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

    15) 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.

    16) 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.

    17) 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 11th Jun 17, 3:23 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,188 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    a court case I have coming up in June with SIP in manchester.
    As it is Manchester, you have every chance, as their Judges seem to have sussed parking firms, more than some other courts (e.g. Swansea being dreadful at the moment, and Liverpool & Wigan not great either).

    But, it's not 'defence' time (and you can't introduce new things you didn't have in your first defence). It's Witness Statement (WS) and evidence time, although you said the deadline was next week yet in another post you said the actual hearing was this Thursday? Have you filed your WS in time?

    That reads more like a defence or skeleton argument (the latter is something you can put together before the hearing but is separate).

    If you have not filed WS, have a look at the NEWBIES thread post #2. It's just the facts, not the legal arguments. Show us first, and tell us what evidence you will be filing too so we can make sure you aren't missing anything.

    Have you received their WS and evidence, from Gladstones? You MUST file a WS, and I'm concerned about the timeline here.

    This was your defence at the start, so what have you filed since this?

    On the xx xx xx I returned to my car to find a ticket issued for parking on the hatched area of the car park. When I left the car I wasn't sure if the hatched area was in use or valid as it was so worn out and parking there wouldn't have caused any obstruction. I asked a couple of other people parking if they thought it was ok to park there and they agreed it looked fine and they had seen cars park there before.

    Further to that there are no markings anywhere in the car park so I assumed they were redundant and not in use. Wrong to assume maybe, but that was the impression I had.

    The ticket offered the opportunity to appeal which I did straight away with photos of the area in question. Around 10 days later I received a letter saying I now owed £100, and there was no acknowledgement of my appeal letter, so I wrote back to say I had appealed and resent the original appeal letter.

    On the xx xx xx I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors saying I then owed £150. I was away on holiday for 10 days after this, and then returned to find the Claim Form I am responding to now.

    From my point of view I appealed the ticket which I honestly felt was not fair, I have attached images of the hatched area, which I noticed has recently been repainted. If I was to have had my appeal rejected and offered the £60 that is part of their process I would have paid it. However, my letters were ignored and it was escalated to where it is now despite effort on my part to follow their process. The time and effort this has caused me now feels like it out weights any inconvenience I caused leaving my car where I did which is why I would like to dispute the whole amount.

    I have attached all my letters of correspondence and the photos that I took that show the worn out hatched area and that there are no other markings anywhere in the carpark which made me think it was fine to park there.
    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.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 8:41 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    HI,

    My hearing is next month, i read the submission of defence date as that. I submitted my witness statement a while ago, which I have pasted here previously.

    So i am right that this is what I submit as my defence?

    sorry for any confusion.
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 8:49 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    Reading the letter again I am not sure what I am meant to be sending now. I posted a witness statement on here and someone said I needed to be making a defence instead. So The letter is a notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing) and requests a properly formatted Witness Statement which is due in a couple of days. Is what I have posted above not right then?

    This I submitted a while ago, it was February I think.


    On the xx xx xx I returned to my car to find a ticket issued for parking on the hatched area of the car park. When I left the car I wasn't sure if the hatched area was in use or valid as it was so worn out and parking there wouldn't have caused any obstruction. I asked a couple of other people parking if they thought it was ok to park there and they agreed it looked fine and they had seen cars park there before.

    Further to that there are no markings anywhere in the car park so I assumed they were redundant and not in use. Wrong to assume maybe, but that was the impression I had.

    The ticket offered the opportunity to appeal which I did straight away with photos of the area in question. Around 10 days later I received a letter saying I now owed £100, and there was no acknowledgement of my appeal letter, so I wrote back to say I had appealed and resent the original appeal letter.

    On the xx xx xx I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors saying I then owed £150. I was away on holiday for 10 days after this, and then returned to find the Claim Form I am responding to now.

    From my point of view I appealed the ticket which I honestly felt was not fair, I have attached images of the hatched area, which I noticed has recently been repainted. If I was to have had my appeal rejected and offered the £60 that is part of their process I would have paid it. However, my letters were ignored and it was escalated to where it is now despite effort on my part to follow their process. The time and effort this has caused me now feels like it out weights any inconvenience I caused leaving my car where I did which is why I would like to dispute the whole amount.

    I have attached all my letters of correspondence and the photos that I took that show the worn out hatched area and that there are no other markings anywhere in the carpark which made me think it was fine to park there.
    Last edited by lafferdog; 11-06-2017 at 8:51 PM.
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 8:53 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    Sorry, I have not received anything from Gladstones yet.

    Hope you can help, I thought I was ready to send it off
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jun 17, 8:55 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,188 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I submitted my witness statement a while ago, which I have pasted here previously.
    No, as far as I can see, you submitted a defence ages ago, when you got the claim. No evidence at that stage, just the brief defence that you showed us.

    You were later sent a court date, and in that letter it will have said the date by which you and the claim had to exchange Witness Statements (WS). Usually not less than 14 days before the hearing.

    You MUST file a WS, even if late, and it is easy because the WS is merely the facts as known to you (nothing legalese, nothing special), and your evidence. Such as photos of unclear signs, proof that you had a right to park, or whatever.

    Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. It shows you examples of WS.

    You MUST draw one up tonight and get it to the court tomorrow with your evidence, and email a copy to the other side, to stay ahead of the game. Don't worry that it's late, just do it.

    UNLESS you are saying you have already filed (1) a defence AND LATER (2) a WS and your evidence? Reads to me that you have not yet done (2).

    I say again, don't worry that it's late. Just do it and show us! Tell us what your evidence is.
    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.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 9:16 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    I have till the 15th to submit and the hearing is in July.

    so I think I am at this stage?
    4. Local court then confirms small claims allocation and sends out an order with a timetable for exchanging witness statements and documents, Lists of Documents, the final hearing and who is to file the court bundle for the final hearing and when.


    Is this more like a witness statement?

    well here is where I am up to, hope this helps.



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

    • I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. xxxx xxx. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked on a hatched are of Islington Wharf Car Park in Manchester, on xx xx xxxx.


    • I returned to my car to find a ticket issued for parking on the hatched area of the car park. When I left the car I wasn't sure if the hatched area was in use or valid as it was so worn out and parking there wouldn't have caused any obstruction. Further to that there are no markings anywhere in the car park so it looked like they were redundant and not in use.

    • There was no signage near or around the faded hatched area to make it clear that it was an area not to be parked on.

    • The ticket offered the opportunity to appeal which I did straight away with photos of the area in question. Around 10 days later I received a letter saying I now owed £100, and there was no acknowledgement of my appeal letter, so I wrote back to say I had appealed and resent the original appeal letter. On xxxxxx I received another letter from SIP saying I now owed £150, I resent the appeal as there was still no acknowledgement of it.

    • On the 25th of January I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors saying I then owed £250. This whole thing has caused a lot of stress and worry, as well as taken up much of my time including the day off work I will need to take to go to court.

    I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jun 17, 9:24 PM
    • 16,570 Posts
    • 20,730 Thanks
    Redx
    are you sure the letter demanding £150 was from SIP ?

    letters demanding that much are usually from a DCA , not from a PPC

    and because you have a date in your local court for next month, you are wayyyyyy past the defence stage so are at the WS + evidence stage
    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
    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 9:35 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    Looking back it was £125 and was a notice to keeper from SIP.

    I have got mixed up and confused about what I was supposed to send and have sent. It is witness statements they want, and I have till 15th to send. Is the above ok to send you think?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jun 17, 9:40 PM
    • 16,570 Posts
    • 20,730 Thanks
    Redx
    not if it contains errors because you are signing it as a statement of truth , so you have to be 100% certain that the content is correct

    ie:- you dont want SIP or their rep stating they never sent a debt letter for £150

    I am not qualified to answer the question but I do know that in court you should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, especially if signing a statement of truth

    think again and alter it such that you know for a fact that everything in it is the truth
    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 11th Jun 17, 9:41 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,188 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have till the 15th to submit and the hearing is in July.
    Oh thank goodness, I was going by a previous post where I think you said the hearing was on 15th.

    So, don't help their case:

    I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. xxxx xxx. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked on a poorly-marked parking area hatched are of Islington Wharf Car Park in Manchester, on xx xx xxxx.
    I returned to my car to find a ticket issued for parking on the hatched area of the car park. When I left the car I wasn't sure if the hatched area was in use or valid as it was so worn out and parking there wouldn't have caused any obstruction. Further to that was unaware of any restrictions or terms for parking. Apart from a few very faded lines, there are no markings anywhere in the car park. so it looked like they were redundant and not in use.
    What evidence have you got to submit with the WS? Photos of the unmarked/unsigned area? IMHO you need them urgently, and/or a video would be good.

    What about adding that there was no entrance sign, so there was nothing to tell you that the car park was 'managed' or restricted. And that you understand this is contrary to the Code of Practice.


    Have you already admitted that you were driving? I think you did but no time to keep looking back...
    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.

    • lafferdog
    • By lafferdog 11th Jun 17, 9:43 PM
    • 61 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    lafferdog
    I was going to double check figures and dates before sending along with photos. Will definitely amend that, and it is all true.

    So you think that is ok to send as a witness statement?

    My argument is that they didnt follow their appeals procedure and that the area I parked on seemed fine, is there anything else I need to add?

    The car park has since closed, dont know if that helps.
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

1,790Posts Today

7,399Users online

Martin's Twitter