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
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 4th Jun 17, 3:46 PM
    • 258Posts
    • 147Thanks
    kelly4509
    SIP/Gladstones draft Defence - seeking feedback
    • #1
    • 4th Jun 17, 3:46 PM
    SIP/Gladstones draft Defence - seeking feedback 4th Jun 17 at 3:46 PM
    Hi all,

    Received a CCC bought by SIP for alleged parking contravention at Spaw Street Arches Manchester. I have put together a draft defence and would welcome any feedback.

    Quick overview:
    - PCN stated the contravention was 'No ticket displayed'
    - Payment was attempted by PaybyPhone but due to assumed system failure no payment was actually taken. I have phone record evidence of a 6min call to PBP on the day in question.
    - I sent a written appeal to SIP in the first instance and another to Gladstones in response to their LBC. No response received to either.
    - I identified myself as the driver in the letter to SIP (schoolgirl error i know, it was before I discovered this forum !!!) but reverted back to no identification in my letter to Gladstones.

    Defence posted below.

    Thanks in advance!
Page 1
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 4th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    • #2
    • 4th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

    1.It is admitted that the Defendant 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 a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Spaw Street Arches, Salford, Manchester. The PCN stated the contravention as “No 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 by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2016.
    b. There was an 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 additional 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.

    4. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed
    b. There was an agreement to pay a 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 additional 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.

    5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

    Rebuttal of Claim
    6. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.
    a. Payment for parking was made via telephone using a cashless system provided by PayByPhone.
    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. The Defendant followed the PayByPhone instructions exactly as shown on the signage at the payment machine.
    d. This was not a fully automated contract. On telephoning the payment provider and following the initial touch tone service, the Defendant was referred to and conversed with an employee of PayByPhone to register a new account/vehicle details with the PayByPhone service. After which they were transferred back to the automated touch-tone service to complete payment details.
    e. The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.
    f. The failure of the payment service to accept payment is not the Defendants 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. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    8. The Defendant denies that they 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.
    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.
    e. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
    f. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.
    g. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
    The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

    10. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits 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 £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    b. 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.

    Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
    11. SIP Parking Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has 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 and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
    landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    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 ParkingEye (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 the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
    ‘The driver of the vehicle registration
    XXXX XXX incurred the parking
    charge(s) on XX/XX/2016 for breaching the
    terms of parking on the land at Spaw Street
    Arches.
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
    is the Keeper of the Vehicle
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
    indemnity costs if applicable, together with
    interest of £6.81 pursuantto s69 of the
    County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
    to Judgement at £0.04 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 the Defendant 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. The Defendant invites 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. The Defendant 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    17. The Defendant believes 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    18. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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. The Defendant denies 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. The Defendant invites 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 4th Jun 17, 4:44 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 4th Jun 17, 4:44 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Jun 17, 4:44 PM
    That's looking very good, very solid.

    Personally, I don't like the standard point #3 that repeats the Claimant's Claim (not needed IMHO) so I would suggest tweaking 2, 3 and 4 like this:


    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 a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Spaw Street Arches, Salford, Manchester. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.”

    3. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.” This cannot be a contravention when a driver uses the Pay by Phone option, as I did.


    4. It is denied that:

    a. A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of ''no ticket displayed'' occurred or can have occurred when using the Pay by Phone 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 any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

    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 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.''



    (You could tweak it and move some of the points added out of #4 and into the main body of your rebuttal, where it might sit better near your mention of Jolley v Carmel, for example).
    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.

    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 4th Jun 17, 5:20 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    • #4
    • 4th Jun 17, 5:20 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Jun 17, 5:20 PM
    Thank you Coupon-Mad! Feedback duly noted and defence template updated.

    Without the help of this forum & time/support given by people like yourself I would have been at a complete loss as to where to start with all this. Bravo to you all & keep up the great work
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 26th Jun 17, 8:34 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    • #5
    • 26th Jun 17, 8:34 PM
    No Directions questionnaire received
    • #5
    • 26th Jun 17, 8:34 PM
    Update: My defence was submitted to/acknowledged by Northampton on 5 June 2017. On returning home from a family holiday this weekend I have receipt of a completed Directors Questionnaire from Gladstones Solicitors dated 15th June 2017. To date I have not yet received a questionnaire from the Court addressed directly to myself.

    What is the usual time-frame for a defendant to receive the N180 after submission of their Defence? I am worried that my copy may be missing in the post and of the associated time constraints in returning the form.

    In consideration of this shall I download a copy of N180 from the internet and return to Northampton/Gladstones in response to Gladstones correspondence or should i contact the Court direct to chase up?

    Many thanks for your help/advice
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 26th Jun 17, 9:00 PM
    • 743 Posts
    • 1,378 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #6
    • 26th Jun 17, 9:00 PM
    • #6
    • 26th Jun 17, 9:00 PM
    No harm in doing your own DQ - Not least because you'll presumably want a change of court.

    The claimant DQ should specify the last date for filing the same at court (same date for both). Of greater concern is that the related court order has gone AWOL, so if follow up with the court too.
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 26th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    • #7
    • 26th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    • #7
    • 26th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    Thank you, I have prepared a DQ to post 1st thing but I'll follow that up with a call to Northampton. Incidentally there is no last date for filing specified on the Claimants DQ (which had me considering whether this was an administrative error or tactical response?)
    • nicolanicola
    • By nicolanicola 19th Jul 17, 6:04 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    nicolanicola
    • #8
    • 19th Jul 17, 6:04 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Jul 17, 6:04 PM
    Hi Kelly, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. How did you get on?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jul 17, 6:10 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 19th Jul 17, 6:10 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Jul 17, 6:10 PM
    It will be quiet at the moment for this OP, except for a random letter perhaps from the solicitor, saying nothing at all but trying to intimidate defendants.

    After DQ stage, she will be waiting fir the allocation to the small claims track and her local court, then in the Autumn she will have a hearing date and a date by which to supply her Witness Statement and evidence, unless the PPC discontinues.
    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.

    • nicolanicola
    • By nicolanicola 19th Jul 17, 6:11 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    nicolanicola
    It will be quiet at the moment for this OP, except for a random letter perhaps from the solicitor, saying nothing at all but trying to intimidate defendants.

    After DQ stage, she will be waiting fir the allocation to the small claims track and her local court, then in the Autumn she will have a hearing date and a date by which to supply her Witness Statement and evidence, unless the PPC discontinues.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Gosh, its a complicated process. What a waste of everyones time.

    What is DQ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jul 17, 6:13 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm suggesting you go back and read 'what happens when' and bargepole's linked post all about all stages, in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Go back to it at each and every stage. We can't do this forum on a case by case question/answer every time basis, it's too much for the basics.
    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.

    • Andrea Swan
    • By Andrea Swan 20th Jul 17, 4:17 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Andrea Swan
    Hi All,

    I went on Experian last night to check my credit file, and was horrified to find out I had a £3500 CCJ thanks to SIP parking limitet for 19 unpaid parking tickets.

    So the story begins....................

    I was a member at a gym (I can provide proof of membership) I was using the gym carpark unbeknown to me when I entered the gym I should have entered my reg into a computer.

    The tickets range from Jun 16 - Oct 16, I moved home in September but from June to September I received no correspondence, I then registered my new address with DVLA in Feb 17, this was taken to court in June 17 so in this time I received no correspondence either.

    I can pay this in full if I do not have a case or if I can defend and file a N244 form to set aside the CCJ to then give me the time to answer my case.

    What are people thoughts
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jul 17, 10:33 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi All,

    I went on Experian last night to check my credit file, and was horrified to find out I had a £3500 CCJ thanks to SIP parking limitet for 19 unpaid parking tickets.

    So the story begins....................

    I was a member at a gym (I can provide proof of membership) I was using the gym carpark unbeknown to me when I entered the gym I should have entered my reg into a computer.

    The tickets range from Jun 16 - Oct 16, I moved home in September but from June to September I received no correspondence, I then registered my new address with DVLA in Feb 17, this was taken to court in June 17 so in this time I received no correspondence either.

    I can pay this in full if I do not have a case or if I can defend and file a N244 form to set aside the CCJ to then give me the time to answer my case.

    What are people thoughts
    Originally posted by Andrea Swan
    Please read the NEWBIES thread about set asides, then start your own thread (but only after reading the sticky thread post #2 about set asides).

    If you are for real why the heck are you wanting to pay this, as if it's normal? At the very least - given the amount of money involved, if true - anyone would be looking to sue the GYM for causing this by taking on the PPC then not telling members clearly about the contractual 'obligation' (trap).
    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.

    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 17th Sep 17, 12:59 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    Update - received court date
    Well my claim is swiftly progressing!

    I have received a court date of 04/10/2017. I am currently working on my Witness Statement with a view to hand delivering it to the Court this week prior to the 14 day deadline. I endeavour to post it up on here for feedback prior to its submission

    I have already received a WS from SIP, any comments on it would be much appreciated, however it looks pretty generic to me.

    The SIP WS/evidence along with my original defence are all saved in the following Dropbox file: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/agfojwyy611nc2a/AADo9QTqF_rTfSeQlFVOi_0Ka?dl=0

    KR's, Kelly
    Last edited by kelly4509; 17-09-2017 at 2:00 PM. Reason: sp
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 17, 2:46 PM
    • 51,758 Posts
    • 65,406 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, pretty generic stuff from SIP.

    In point 13 they've assumed that your car headlights would have lit the sign (was it dark, then?) but they've shown no evidence and it's likely the sign was way above headlight level!

    They have included no photos taken in the actual car park whatsoever, have they? That's curious. And leaves it open for you to show photos yourself, taken in the dark (if that's what conditions were like). Make your evidence conclusive, that whilst you could make out the tariff and phone number, there was absolutely no way you saw £100 as a possible 'charge' and neither was it mentioned by the operative on the telephone when you registered, then (you believed) paid.

    Therefore, there was no agreement on the charge of £100, only agreement on the tariff, which you registered for and paid (you honestly believed on the day). So the case can be fully distinguished from the facts in the completely different Beavis case.

    Can you prove you registered with PaybyPhone that day? Ask them for evidence urgently, if you can't prove it, as it supports your version of events.

    You will need the right section of the distance contracts consumer law (although don't hold your breath that the Judge will be interested in that argument). Also the EU Guidance on those regs, helps as evidence, because providing parking spaces as a 'service' for a fee is certainly 'rental' of that space, and would be covered as shown here in the Guidance:

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_guidance_en.pdf

    search that PDF for the word 'parking' and you get:

    ''For example, renting a parking space ... is subject to the Directive. ''
    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.

    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 17th Sep 17, 4:03 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    Thanks for your feedback Coupon Mad, much appreciated and gratefully noted

    SIP did provide photo evidence of my car, I just haven't uploaded the pictures (sorry!). The pictures are presumably to support the fact that I wasn't displaying a ticket when I have already established that as it was a distance contract no ticket was provided. I will however pick up in my WS on your point of it being poorly lit within the carpark, being 'arches' there are no windows and very minimal lighting and so visability is pretty poor.

    Also, I did try to contact PayByPhone to confirm my registration but I have had no response to date. Part of the evidence submitted by SIP (evidence 'E', but it's hard to read on the scanned copy) shows my PayByPhone account (allocated to my mobile number) with a 'Creation Date: 05/07/2015' and a 'Status Date: 08/03/2017'.

    I cant recall using this service in 2015 and there is no corresponding transaction information to verify any details. The only 2 transactions showing on the printout are recent ones of 03/08/17 and 04/08/17 - which are dated after the 'Status Date' of 08/03/2017. Therefore i'm not entirely sure as to what the 'Status' refers to as it can't be - as I initially considered - the date when the information was extracted from the system by SIP.

    Nonetheless, its doesn't change my defence as it wasn't a fully automated process on the day in question and I was still required to converse with an operative in order to provide my registration details - as you would when registering a new account. I have also purchased a new vehicle since 2015 and have new payment cards so any historic information from back then would be expired/incorrect.

    I do have itemised phone records showing a telephone call to PBP on the day which I am providing as an exhibit. I hope this is strong evidence to the judge of my intent/belief of payment.
    Last edited by kelly4509; 17-09-2017 at 5:12 PM. Reason: SP
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 17th Sep 17, 4:10 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    Interestingly, just to add, I did use the same SIP car park in Salford for only the second time last month (as evidenced in the transaction history in the post above).

    This time, on telephoning PayByPhone, the automated service recognised my mobile telephone number and was immediately able to quote my car registration number to me in order to verify that that was the vehicle I was using. That is acknowledgment to me that I had registered for the service on a previous occasion and I'll be stating as such in my WS.

    Furthermore, in this instance I ended up terminating the call without proceeding to payment as after numerous attempts the service was unable to recognise how many hours parking I required. Immediately after ending the call I received a text message from PayByPhone notifying me that "A recent parking call was ended before being confirmed. Retry call to start valid parking." I had not received any such notification on my first visit which surely adds to my defence that the service was not working adequately that day?

    NB: I eventually successfully paid for my parking after downloading the PayByPhone iphone app. It was so much more convinient, I wish I had used it the first time and I wouldn't be in this mess!
    Last edited by kelly4509; 17-09-2017 at 5:14 PM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 4th Oct 17, 8:39 AM
    • 1,815 Posts
    • 3,205 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    I have received a court date of 04/10/2017.
    Good luck.
    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
    • kelly4509
    • By kelly4509 4th Oct 17, 9:05 PM
    • 258 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    kelly4509
    Court outcome - I won!!!
    So today was the big day and the Judge found in my favour

    I even remembered to claim back my costs

    I will post a full summary of the day tomorrow but for now i really want to thank Coupon Mad and all the other contributors to this forum as without your help, advice and support I would never have had the confidence to continue with this 'journey' which started back in September 2016.

    And to anyone in a similar boat my advice is DONT GIVE UP! If I can do it, anyone can
    Last edited by kelly4509; 04-10-2017 at 9:12 PM. Reason: sp
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Oct 17, 9:25 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,293 Thanks
    beamerguy
    WELL DONE

    Another Gladstones failure, a delight to hear
    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

4,566Posts Today

9,283Users online

Martin's Twitter