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
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 14th May 17, 3:34 PM
    • 42Posts
    • 36Thanks
    greentree75
    SIP Parking Ltd Manchester
    • #1
    • 14th May 17, 3:34 PM
    SIP Parking Ltd Manchester 14th May 17 at 3:34 PM
    Hi,
    Just wondered if anyone could help. I've scoured the forum but couldn't find anything related to my case.
    Has anybody had any experience with SIP Parking Ltd, Manchester, and/or issues with parking a van? I parked in a bay, paid correct fee & returned to a PCN. After a search of the car park I managed to locate a sign stating a higher rate for vans. The van was inside the bay apart from slightly hanging over at the back, but was in no way obstructing anybody else or another bay.
    I'm in the process of writing my defence after receiving a claim from from Gladstones, I have submitted the AOS form and am just looking for anything I could add to my defence.
    Thanks in advance


    I'm having trouble finding the landowner of the site.
    Last edited by greentree75; 30-10-2017 at 6:45 PM.
Page 4
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Nov 17, 10:59 PM
    • 15,956 Posts
    • 24,760 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I recall a case last year in the North East where SIP used a rep instead called Mr Pickup - I believe that they lost that one too!
    Maybe he’ll be getting a Christmas present he’s not looking forward to!
    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.
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 21st Nov 17, 7:21 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    No he wasn’t the same one as on the WS, but he was definitely from SIP offic. He told me he got stuck in traffic on the M62, and that he’d even set off half an hour earlier.
    I said to him, only half an hour earlier on a Monday morning at rush hour??
    He just looked at me and put his head down. He literally just sat down, filled in his attendance form, then we were called in.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 21st Nov 17, 9:02 AM
    • 8,948 Posts
    • 13,689 Thanks
    trisontana
    This statement from Gladstones earlier in this thread certainly applies to SIP :-

    Letter also states they are requesting for case to be dealt on paper simply because the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate, and they trust i agree.

    It certainly has cost SIP and arm and a leg, but, as usual, Gladstones are laughing all the way to the bank.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 21st Nov 17, 7:13 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    It's ridiculous, I sent a 'hands down' letter 2 weeks ago, they could have just walked away without paying costs but obviously Gladstones didn't agree.
    At least a 5 hour round trip for the SIP rep, for a 15 minute grilling by the judge.
    Why are they still using Gladstones???
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Nov 17, 7:15 PM
    • 15,956 Posts
    • 24,760 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It's ridiculous, I sent a 'hands down' letter 2 weeks ago, they could have just walked away without paying costs but obviously Gladstones didn't agree.
    No wonder, it should have been a ‘drop hands’ offer.
    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.
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 21st Nov 17, 7:35 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    Ha ha , oops I did write 'drop hands' , honest...
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 24th Nov 17, 2:55 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    Meant to say it was DJ Lindsay at Darlington, found her very pleasant and reassuring.
    SIP’s rep was Matthew Elder
    • Fight the good fight
    • By Fight the good fight 24th Nov 17, 7:21 PM
    • 135 Posts
    • 165 Thanks
    Fight the good fight
    Firstly may I congtarulate the OP on their win

    I am awaiting with some excitement SIP/Gladrags next move for the same car park

    Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.

    From the M/Cr City Council planning application website I found an approved application from 2015/6 for a block of apartments which covers this car park and the adjacent land which SIP previously infested which listed the owners as two Asian males from the Manchester area planning number 1108901/FO/2015/C2

    Does the Op still have a copy of the contract he could post up

    Lastly the land adjacent to the car park was refused retrospective planning in 2013 103101/FO/2013/C2 and to date I have not found any appeals or other applications for the live car park but still digging
    I Am Charlie
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 24th Nov 17, 8:17 PM
    • 1,819 Posts
    • 3,214 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.
    Indeed. This seems to be the issue that judges are finding with all SIP contracts. If you read #47 and SIP's appearance at Nottingham court you will see they try to be leaseholder when they want money and a supplier when it comes to paying rates.

    Looks like every SIP case from now on should have a LR search to expose their MO.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Nov 17, 8:41 PM
    • 51,855 Posts
    • 65,486 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The "landowner" may be a number of times removed and not interested. They may not have any powers to vary the contact if the space has been leased so best check who pays the non-domestic rates.

    Suggest it will be SIP who pays the NDR but MCC will confirm.

    Edit: I may be wrong as it appears from this article that SIP don't pay rates as they are not operating as a car parking company - only a supplier of payment machines, barriers and signs.

    http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/company-boss-awarded-1200-after-737025

    Key phrase "We [Nottinghams CC] believed that SIP Car Parks Ltd was the appropriate organisation to pursue for this business rates debt, but the court has ruled this is not the case." So they appear to want to be an operator when it comes to tickets but a supplier when it comes to NDR.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    This is post #47; very interesting:

    The "landowner" may be a number of times removed and not interested. They may not have any powers to vary the contact if the space has been leased so best check who pays the non-domestic rates.

    Suggest it will be SIP who pays the NDR but MCC will confirm.

    Edit: I may be wrong as it appears from this article that SIP don't pay rates as they are not operating as a car parking company - only a supplier of payment machines, barriers and signs.

    http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/company-boss-awarded-1200-after-737025

    Key phrase "We [Nottinghams CC] believed that SIP Car Parks Ltd was the appropriate organisation to pursue for this business rates debt, but the court has ruled this is not the case." So they appear to want to be an operator when it comes to tickets but a supplier when it comes to NDR.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    and this post:

    OK. You need to read this one.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115782

    Seems that SIP have found a new scam.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu

    Is this the same car park where the lovely DJ Iyer has stayed some 'test' cases?
    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.

    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 24th Nov 17, 9:37 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    Firstly may I congtarulate the OP on their win

    I am awaiting with some excitement SIP/Gladrags next move for the same car park

    Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.

    From the M/Cr City Council planning application website I found an approved application from 2015/6 for a block of apartments which covers this car park and the adjacent land which SIP previously infested which listed the owners as two Asian males from the Manchester area planning number 1108901/FO/2015/C2

    Does the Op still have a copy of the contract he could post up

    Lastly the land adjacent to the car park was refused retrospective planning in 2013 103101/FO/2013/C2 and to date I have not found any appeals or other applications for the live car park but still digging
    Originally posted by Fight the good fight
    If you look back on my thread, I posted Gladstones WS in dropbox, the contract is in there.
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 24th Nov 17, 9:39 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    Also, I applied to MCR Council for details of Rate Payer. These didn't come back in time for my hearing, but I will gladly let you know the details when I hear back.

    As for the case in pepipoo link, they won today.

    Seems like the judges aren't going for this new scam of targeting vans and minibuses..
    Last edited by greentree75; 24-11-2017 at 9:42 PM.
    • Fight the good fight
    • By Fight the good fight 25th Nov 17, 11:38 PM
    • 135 Posts
    • 165 Thanks
    Fight the good fight
    Firstly thank you green tree 75 for the heads up re the contract of land ownership

    Even to my untrained eye that is one dodgy self proclaiming document that the landlord is acting as the owner

    Maybe I could submit documents claiming I am acting on behalf of Father Christmas
    I Am Charlie
    • HeatonGuy
    • By HeatonGuy 26th Nov 17, 12:13 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    HeatonGuy
    To be fair, in strictly legal terms, the Landlord is, essentially the owner. Or to be more technical about it, the best title holder.

    When a Landlord offers a lease (including a tenancy) to anyone, whether a person, a company, whatever, they are essentially offering possession of the property in return for compliance with the contractual terms. The main term being payment of rent of some kind.

    That agreement nearly always given the Tenant/Lesee the right to exclude everyone from the property at his whim, including the owner.

    Certainly, the property I live is is owned by one company, mortgaged by another, leased by a third and rented by me. I have best title, and can exclude all of the companies up the chain (other than my landlord in emergencies) from my property, and they would all be trespassing if they entered my bit of land and home without my consent.

    Moreover, unless my tenancy agreement excluded it (which it does ) I could rent out my parking spaces on the driveway outside my garage, and employ a PPC to police them for me, and would have every right to do so.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 26th Nov 17, 12:27 PM
    • 1,819 Posts
    • 3,214 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The issue with SIP is not necessarily title but a form of Schrodinger's Cat argument.

    At one point (at County Court) one of the SIP group companies claim to be occupiers while at the Rates Tribunal they claim to be suppliers to the actual "best title" holders.

    This is why checking who pays Non-Domestic Rates should be done before checking the Land Registry as you do not know how many steps there are between the owner (LR) and the supposed occupier (NDR)
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • greentree75
    • By greentree75 26th Nov 17, 5:20 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    greentree75
    Another thing to note is, that the contract I received between landlord and agent, with SIP companies' was a bit dubious. It was signed by Christopher Marsden on behalf of SIP Parking Ltd and was dated 2014, but he didn't become director of this company until this year. I didn't have chance to bring this up in court, so don;t know the relevance, but it may be an avenue worth pursuing if you receive the same contract.
    • Fight the good fight
    • By Fight the good fight 27th Nov 17, 12:34 AM
    • 135 Posts
    • 165 Thanks
    Fight the good fight
    @Heaton guy I as a lay person accept your reply in relation to a landlord being best placed etc but surely a self proclaiming document stating they are acting as landlord without evidencing where or by whom they have derived this authority from is at the very least dubious .

    We all know how PPCs will resort to incredible low levels of depravity to dupe motorists and surely they would need/require a contract to state they have the authority to act as landlord?
    I Am Charlie
    • willcrook
    • By willcrook 29th Nov 17, 11:38 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    willcrook
    the exact same thing happened to me at this car park, SIP are scammers deliberately not adjusting their signs

    I went to a big effort with my appeal to I-AS including a map of where the machines are located, proof of purchase, several photos from many angles, a diagram showing the route the engineer entered the car parking to illustrate how the 'tariff' board easily be missed, etc

    still lost the appeal, the decision was as follows:

    "It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. While noting the Appellant's comments, the Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site. I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unfair. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as they have not ensured that the correct payment was made for the vehicle they were driving.

    I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
    "


    here is a photo of the sign outside our van and the sign at the otherside of the car park.



    Last edited by willcrook; 29-11-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 17, 11:44 AM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,228 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Of course you lost at the IAS. You and 83% of all people lose.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Nov 17, 11:48 AM
    • 6,479 Posts
    • 8,312 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
    "
    Originally posted by willcrook
    The IAS stands for ..
    INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITED SCAM

    Government still allowing this scam to continue

    No worries, it is always difficult to appeal to the brain dead

    Fortunately real judges do not belong to the scam and
    as the scam was invented by Gladstones Solicitors,
    real courts (not stupid kangaroo courts) are used to
    the very incompetent Gladstones
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

475Posts Today

3,429Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin