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
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 30th May 17, 8:43 PM
    • 37Posts
    • 35Thanks
    mlang88
    Please put me out of my misery...
    • #1
    • 30th May 17, 8:43 PM
    Please put me out of my misery... 30th May 17 at 8:43 PM
    I have just read bargepole's thread on irrelevant defences and would just like someone to tell me whether or not any of these are permissible at all (I've got a court date - SIPS & Gladstones)

    - Parked in the car park 10 times previously, have evidence and was never issued a ticket
    - Paid for parking on the day
    - I know the 'but there was no loss to the claimant' argument is considered a dead duck, but in this instance they were £2 up from me (pushing it a bit far perhaps?) and there's a £2 car park literally across the way, so no real gain for me to park there?
    - I appealed the original 'PCN' on the grounds that I thought the SIPS warden hadn't seen my ticket, but this was rejected and the charge doubled (at which point I decided £65 was ridiculous)
    - My MP has even been in touch with them to try and lower the charge to the original £35 but no avail
    Please help!!

    Just want to know whether or not I even have a case at all or whether or not I should just take whatever punishment they have for me

    Thanks in advance
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jun 17, 9:29 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If yours was a PCN on the windscreen then ANPR cameras are not relevant, so you can remove that bit.

    You can adapt yours to be more like this one, which uses the Olley v Marlborough Court case and Jolley v Carmel and has other similarities:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72425544#post72425544

    Feel free to plagiarise some of that as I could see several bits that would fit your case. Beefs it up a bit more!
    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.

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Jun 17, 10:17 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Just made the following addition to my defence - taken out the frustration of contract as, having read the Maritime National Fish case - felt like the 'impossibility' was the fault of one of the parties in this instance. Anyway, here is the additional arguments:

    iii. (a) Denning LJ in!Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking![1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way'' and that the contract takes place when the payment is made.
    (b) Also relevant is Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel![1949] 1 KB 532 is on all fours with my case and is binding case law supporting the contention that any other terms come 'too late' if they are only known about afterwards. The case stands for the proposition that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if only known after the agreement was made.!
    (c) The representation - in this case a 'parking charge' (penalty for parking a vehicle in a manner which did not breach ill-conceived signage) can only be binding where that charge was agreed/the bargain made, at the time the contract was formed. Denning LJ held that a clause a consumer can only learn about after the contract was allegedly formed was too late to be incorporated into the contract:!''The first question is whether that notice formed part of the contract. ... The hotel company no doubt hope that the guest will be held bound by them, but...the ticket comes too late...'
    3 i. The fact the defendant made reasonable endeavours and cannot be penalised under UK contract law is also a circumstance supported by trite law. Authority for this is the case of!Jolley v Carmel Ltd![2000] 2 EGLR 154, where 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.!I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms with I believe to be misleading.

    4. ii. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of!£50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.!!

    iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors and file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

    iv. The added 'legal' cost is an artificially invented figure (carefully avoided in the!Beavis!case where only £85 was pursued, presumably to avoid just such scrutiny). This is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.!


    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence are true
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:

    I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms at that machine and complied with them. with I believe to be misleading.


    4 iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors use Gladstones who do not come to this matter with clean hands, since their Directors also run the Trade Body (IPC) and the so-called Independent Appeals Service where it has been publicised that they advertise to entice new member firms that some 80% of appeals will go in favour of the parking firm members. As for claims, each claim has a £50 legal cost added onto the original ticket value. When claims go undefended and are awarded by default, these charges are automatically awarded. Gladstones file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, carrying out no scrutiny of facts or contract before issuing proceedings. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary and to evidence the £50 'cost' added to an already-inflated 'parking charge', an unconscionable amount not saved by any legitimate interest.
    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.

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Jun 17, 11:33 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Brilliant - I can't thank you enough for your assistance on this, and to all others who have submitted responses. I was genuinely ready to give this up about a week ago, but I am very glad I haven't now. Even if this isn't successful, I'll be satisfied that I was able to fight back. I shall submit this tomorrow, using the advice provided. (I've spaced correctly, and included the claimant v defendant part at the top on the version I am to send).

    Thanks again
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 1:32 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Hi all - had a letter delivered from Gladstones (to the incorrect address, even though I told them otherwise)

    hxxxp://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

    I know there are directions on here of how to proceed, I was just wondering if this is a fairly standard letter again that they issue? As most others appear that way. Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.

    Cheers
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 2:07 PM
    • 15,571 Posts
    • 24,311 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    http://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

    I think you have enough posts to be able to post 'live' links now. No need to 'hxxp' any more.

    Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.
    You're making the mistake of thinking that someone at Gladstones reads responses. It's robo-claiming on an industrial scale. Maybe near the final part of the process some human eyes will glance over this.

    Regardless of you believing you have a 'fairly compelling argument', their role is to pressurise you into paying. You must continue to jump through the hoops and continue defending this, otherwise you will lose by default - and they know this, and is all part of their tactic.

    This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 14-06-2017 at 2:09 PM.
    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.
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 2:14 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.[/QUOTE]

    Great thanks for the direction, I'll take a look.

    I did assume that this was just a continuation of the tactics they'd used earlier on in this thrilling saga, i think you could quite easily be fooled into thinking these letters were personalised. I am determined to fight this. Cheers
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 2:23 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Just read directions from Redx, directing me towards a post made by Bargepole which has a clear process to follow. Cheers!
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Oct 17, 1:28 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Hi guys, not sure if anyone will pick this up or not as it's been a while since my last post on here. I've been waiting to see what SIPS came back with (via Gladstones) on the defence I submitted.

    I have my date in court - Thursday 5th October, and I received the response whilst I was away (sent on 18th September). So pretty short notice, but there we are. I am posting just to probe for any advice you may have for Thursday's hearing? Or if you can point me toward any advice. As expected, SIPS are taking the cold hard facts route on this one, that I didn't have a permit for this space, the signage is not unclear in their opinion, and I have broken the rules. They have outright dismissed everything that I have said/claimed. They have also said that the fee is not disproportionate because I have wasted their time in having to contact me so much (so much time wasted having to send a template letter out to me) so they argue a couple of hundred quid is just-reward for their hard work...

    I know this isn't something you'd necessarily advise - but I feel it sensible to prepare for a 'worst case scenario', I thought I might try and outline the fact that this was essentially a mistake (based on the information they provided in the form of ambiguous signage, of course). So I have a letter from my MP to the director of SIPS pleading for the case to be dropped on the grounds that this was an obvious mistake, the fact that I had parked there on many previous occasions without being told otherwise, the fact that I originally appealed on the grounds that I thought my P&D ticket hadn't been seen etc etc. Is that going to get me anywhere - in the form of leniency from the court IF I lose and receive a fine?

    Any advice would be great (I appreciate this is relatively short notice)

    Cheers
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 1st Oct 17, 1:33 PM
    • 4,517 Posts
    • 2,853 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is that going to get me anywhere - in the form of leniency from the court IF I lose and receive a fine?
    Originally posted by mlang88
    Even if you lose, you won't receive a fine.

    It simply isn't that type of court.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Oct 17, 1:35 PM
    • 16,574 Posts
    • 20,730 Thanks
    Redx
    if you lose there will be a judgment , no "fine"

    pay this promptly, IN FULL , usually within 28 days , to prevent a CCJ from happening

    ps:- this has been a civil matter all the way through , at no time has a "fine" been issued and it never can be nor will be

    the word "fine" should never come into it , because it didnt happen , wont happen and cannot happen
    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
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Oct 17, 1:54 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Ok cheers - if a judgement is made then, I believe that it is capped at a certain amount? And of course I realise you won't be able to give an accurate answer to this perhaps, but is the judgement likely to follow some kind of formula based on SIPS claims of time spent on this, or is it entirely up to the courts consideration of both sides evidence (i.e. could the court say "ok that's a bit unreasonable" and decide on something a little more arbitrary - may be clutching at straws there).

    Cheers again, I've found the thread on what to expect on the day.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 1st Oct 17, 2:01 PM
    • 7,654 Posts
    • 7,915 Thanks
    pappa golf
    costs are limited to a max of £50

    the "invoice" cannot be raised to a level above that stated
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Oct 17, 2:01 PM
    • 16,574 Posts
    • 20,730 Thanks
    Redx
    the maximum the judge may allow is about £175 if you have argued against all the additional costs that are not allowed , so assume anything between say zero pounds and say £250 , but typically between £100 and £200

    its called small claims court for a reason , and so the claimant can only claim certain limited costs

    there are other threads on here that details those costs and fees , if you read enough of them , but £175 is a fair assumption to make , based on the original charge plus 2 filing fees etc

    you wont be "fined"
    you wont be "punished"
    you wont have your car taken off you
    you wont be banned from driving
    you wont be banished to Mars
    they wont take your kids off you
    your cat or dog or hamster is safe
    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
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Oct 17, 2:30 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Ok perfect thanks for that. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's good to know anyway!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Oct 17, 10:14 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You haven't mentioned your Witness Statement and evidence you had to file in September. I don't like to see a big gap in advice then months later, a person coming back days before their hearing, it makes me twitchy to be sure you have followed the required process as set out in your court date letter.

    Please confirm you have filed your WS and evidence in time (not just the defence), with copies to the court and Gladstones, and what it said/what evidence you are relying upon for 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.

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 2nd Oct 17, 1:44 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Hi I have submitted it but I had to label it as 'urgent' as I didn't submit in time as I was away and obviously had other things on my mind. Only myself to blame of course, but hopefully it will be considered. I can post if required? I have written what I think is both a skeleton argument and a WS but not sure if I have done this correctly as I was up against it time-wise of course. I used arguments which I think may be far stronger than mine, posted previously on this board. I think mine relies mainly on ambiguity more than anything.

    One more thing, that may be too late to factor as an argument now, I cannot find any planning application for the site in question on the Manchester CC planning portal - do they, therefore, have no permission to post signage here and as such, is it illegal? Feel this could be quite pertinent, but understand it may be too late now...

    EDIT - When I say I used arguments that may be stronger than mine, I mean I used template letters which I felt maybe had stronger arguments, so trimmed out all irrelevant information.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 2nd Oct 17, 3:00 PM
    • 3,498 Posts
    • 3,553 Thanks
    DoaM
    Planning permission is rarely considered by judges, unless the defendant has made a very clear and compelling case as to why it is relevant.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 3:01 PM
    • 51,575 Posts
    • 65,193 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As long as the other side and the court has a WS from you that's good to know.

    As for a skeleton, are you writing that now and including transcripts of other cases, and evidence to support your legal arguments, or has that already been filed with the WS?

    Don't forget the costs schedule to be filed not less than 24 hours before (with the skeleton if you like).
    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.

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 2nd Oct 17, 3:29 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    mlang88
    Hi,

    I have submitted the WS - as I read on another thread, I gather you can include your witness statement together with your skeleton argument? Is there a time limit on submitting a skeleton argument then, if you can submit up to the day before (with cost schedule).

    I have included legal arguments and all evidence in the form of pictures of the signage, proof of previous parking sessions on site, and then some letters sent on behalf of myself through my local MP (this is more to highlight the fact that this was a mistake made based on the misinformation provided by SIPS). I called the courts to check whether or not it would be considered, and they just said its with the judges files - not sure whether to take that as a 'yes' or 'no'.

    I feel I am relying quite heavily on the judge thinking the same as me, that SIPS asking for a 'valid P&D ticket' in addition to a 'valid permit' seems a bit contradictory.

    Also, I have noted that Gladstones in their response have argued that 'It doesn't matter that you haven't seen the sign, we think you should have seen the signs as they are large enough etc' - If they read my argument properly, they would see that I hadn't actually said this, I said they were unclear. I think it would be worth bringing to the courts attention - particularly as they are chasing around £150 in costs on top of the maximum £100 charge for the alleged breach of contract.
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

3,051Posts Today

7,324Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a lovely weekend folks

  • Interesting, most people say they would champion a policy from a party they usually oppose. Yet is anyone brave eno? https://t.co/MWYGHunAqu

  • RT @MSE_Deals: The MSE deals team are in the office nice and early to bring you full analysis of all the #BlackFriday deals throughout the?

  • Follow Martin