SIP Parking

queenadreena

Hi all

I've read up on the newbie thread so apologies if I've missed anything, but I've had 2 parking tickets from SIP as the Pay by Phone app didn't work - it appeared to register and complete but no text confirming the parking (don't always get them as my reception's pretty poor). As soon as I came back 2 days later I realised and paid for the remaining time the car was parked up. This was Nov 2016.

I've appealed and been ignored. No dismissal of appeal, they're ignoring anything's been sent and saying it's too late to appeal now. I've responded to each notice to pay advising that the app is faulty (I bloody park there every week and pay every week without fail), and have also told them that the parking app is overcharging. If you park before 6pm and use the app to park for 24hrs, it'll round it up to 6pm the next day, stick the relevant hourly charge on top of the 24hrs charge and tells you in black and white that it's at no extra charge. I've used this in my letters to SIP. I've proof I've contacted them as I even sent the letter by email so I could show I'd been in contact.

Would there be any point in contacting the landowner at this stage? (Turns out the landowner is actually the local council, but yet they've engaged SIP to run the sh*t show.....odd)

Coupon-mad

Yes I would complain, definitely.

As it's a Council owner with SIP as their agent, you could even press the Council under FOI to show the figures for the number of PCNs issued in that car park before and after SIP were appointed and the stats regarding:

- complaints about app failure at that location
- complaints about any other parking ticket issued by SIP at that location

And ask for a copy of the contract with SIP to see the terms and type of restrictions etc. that SIP are authorised to issue tickets for, including the terms about the Council's right to cancel any unfair parking charge and under what circs/timeline and whether SIP are allowed to sue in their own name or are acting merely as an agent 'on behalf of' the Council with the latter, as landowner, retaining the overriding decision on litigation. State that any fee paid to SIP can be redacted but you expect the rest to be in a readable format.

Add that the parking app is also overcharging. If you park before 6pm and use the app to park for 24hrs, it'll round it up to 6pm the next day, stick the relevant hourly charge on top of the 24hrs charge and tells you in black and white that it's at no extra charge.

Then finish by asking the Council to cancel these ridiculously unfair PCNs for a regular user and payer and demand that they must record this in their complaint figures, as a formal complaint about SIP and their app not being fit for purpose nor meeting the requirements in law for a distance contract (don't talk about not getting a signal).

This might well help you later when SIP might try to sue.

queenadreena

Hi CM,

Thanks so much for the reply. I'll be sending a complaint to them today (I'm sending it via email so I've proof it's got there)

I'll let you know how I get on.

queenadreena

So I've had a reply from the council that states that they do not contract with SIP and that they have no involvement in the case so I would need to appeal to SIP and/or POPLA.
When I replied and said I was asking for information from them as the landowner and not as a complaint against a generalised parking fine, they just stated they had no jurisdiction over SIP fines and couldn't help.
My only glimmer of hope is that they've stated in black and white that they don't contract with SIP - presumably I can use that against SIP?

Thanks in advance for your help

Coupon-mad

Turns out the landowner is actually the local council

So they can't be the landowners then?

queenadreena

Hiya C-M
I've a copy of the land registry for the land that the car park is on (I use land reg for work quite a bit) and it definitely states the council.

queenadreena

Sorry, that feels a bit short!

I've the land reg which shows that the council owns the land but no recourse with them.

Am I right to just ignore for now and pray they leave me alone?

Redx

yes, but bear in mind that as IPC members GLADSTONES will press for them to issue a court case, so expect begging letters and then the usual GLADSTONES roboclaim letters and a possible MCOL within the next 6 years

only reply to an LBC or to acknowledge an MCOL

bear in mind that it may be that somebody has leased the land , as happens in the CHORLTON PRECINCT area where Tameside council own the land (no idea why) but Excel (or VCS) have a contract to patrol it (its well documented on the forums but nobody is quite sure how the arrangement has come about)

queenadreena

Thanks all. I've now received my LBC.


Can anyone have a gander at my letter if they've time, please?


Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of XX 2017.

When your client first contacted me, I explained that payment wasn't taken by their third party PayByMobile app albeit the front-end of the app showed completion and I offered payment to cover the 2 parking periods in question. Your client has not responded to three attempts at mitigating this forthcoming threat of court, nor have they given me - as the registered keeper - opportunity to appeal through the IPC as is my right. Furthermore, I've advised your client that their third-party app is consistently overcharging any stays started before 6pm by rounding up, charging the additional amounts and stating in black and white that it's the "Same Cost As X hours". This has been supplied to your client as a screenshot for clarity.


You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide photographic. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.


This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your client cannot simply ignore attempts to mitigate any proceedings, nor can they ignore the requirements set out as above.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have repeatedly contacted your client since as early as November 2016 yet your client has refused to acknowledge it. Additionally, as I have expressly pointed out in 2 of the 3 letters I've sent the third-party mobile application has been consistently overcharging above and beyond the advertised charges and I will be seeking to claim for these charges to be refunded. The car in question has been repeatedly parked at the car park on XX Street for nearly 5 years.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully etc.

Coupon-mad

I would expect to be defending a claim anyway because robo-claims are like a machine, a steam roller that carries on regardless.

I would be careful here about saying/implying who the driver was:

When your client first contacted me, I explained that payment wasn't taken by their third party PayByMobile app albeit the front-end of the app showed completion and I offered payment to cover the 2 parking periods in question. Your client has not responded to three attempts at mitigating this forthcoming threat of court, nor have they given me - as the registered keeper - opportunity to appeal through the IPC as is my right. Furthermore, I've advised your client that their third-party app is consistently overcharging any stays started before 6pm by rounding up, charging the additional amounts and stating in black and white that it's the "Same Cost As X hours". This has been supplied to your client as a screenshot for clarity.

...because as keeper, you can't be held liable on Council-owned land as it doesn't fall within the definition of 'relevant land' in the POFA.

If this were me I would remove that first paragraph, not remind Gladstones about anything said on appeal (because they will not know, won't have looked because they have no details) and instead attach your Land Registry proof of land ownership and instead go in with the assertion that this is not 'relevant land' under the POFA and no assumptions can be made about who may have parked the vehicle, without evidence.

Tell them not to insult you with a reply about 'Elliott v Loake' or 'CPS v AJH Films' which are such burnt out old chestnuts by now, thrown out by court after court that surely they realise this claim like many others will be a waste of their client's time and money.

queenadreena

Cheers CM - I forgot to thank you at the time, apologies!

Well, unsurprisingly I was ignored by Gladstones and received a letter from Northamptonshire CC.

I wrote and asked for a stay of proceedings due to pre-court protocol not being met by the defendant and have received a letter advising me that I can apply to have the claim struck from court (£255 I don't have), or submit a defence or counter-claim.

I've no date other than what's on the letter received, and no court date as yet. I don't really know what to do now? Should I just get my defence together without knowing what Gladstones are going to rock up with? Or send a WS?

This is really stressing me out. We've had 2 deaths in the immediate family since March and my nerves are s*dding shot now.