SIP Parking Ltd Manchester

greentree75

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.

Redx

there are several threads about SIP Parking , plus hundreds about Gladstones court claims on here and over on pepipoo

I suggest you use suitable search words in the drop down forum search box and find similar court case threads over the last 12 months and read what they have written as a defence

you are unlikely to find one that exactly matches the details you posted, but they will all cover the main legal defence points

and read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread too

greentree75

thanks..struggling to find one regarding a van but I'll keep looking...

waamo

The van part is irrelevant. You had a ticket and now need to enter a defence. It doesn't matter if it's a car, van, bike or the starship Enterprise.

Everyone thinks their case is unique and unusual. It isn't it's a ticket that needs defending.

MothballsWallet

Not sure if it matters what type of vehicle the VRM belongs to for the purposes of the AOS/defence?

Also, OP, with help from the regulars on here, you've got an incredibly high chance of success against Gladstones due to their levels of incompetence that has been witnessed and commented on in courts recently.

Plus, Gladstones have senior level people in common with the IPC that SIP Parking are a member of, so their IAS appeal service isn't regarded as of any use at all (for example, conflict of interest, failure to let the motorist see the evidence pack from the PPC, failure to identify the assessor making the decision - just three failings I can remember from reading on here, I'm sure there are more).

Redx

I dont think you will find one with a van in it , but you may find ones with VEHICLES in them

I dont think it matters even if it was a spaceship , its not really a legal point

their point is that the van driver failed the rules on parking , your task is to pull them up on all legal arguments used in a defence , making them prove they followed the many legal arguments of their side of the contract

so you are not trying to justify the overhang here , apart from the fact that the bay may be too small

so as stated above , you are defending against getting the ticket itself , not this minor detail of it being a van involved

the LAND REGISTRY will tell you who the landowner is , for a small fee

greentree75

Ok, thanks everyone, think I am just over thinking it.....

greentree75

Hi,
I would be grateful if I could get some feedback on my defence.
Thanks in advance.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. xxxxx


BETWEEN :
xxxxxxxxxxxx Claimant

AND
xxxxxxxxxxxx Defendant
_________________________ _________________________________________________________
DEFENCE


Introduction
1. I am xxxxx, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is xxxx
2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.
4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a xxxxx, registered number xxxx.
5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at xxxxx
6. A ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the duration of stay in the car park at xxxxx. Upon return to the vehicle a PCN had been issued stating ‘insufficent fee paid’. After a search of the car park a sign was located at an entrance with a height restriction stating that there was a higher fee for vans/minibuses.
7. An appeal to xxxxx was sent, but no reply was received. A letter was also sent requesting further and better particulars. Again, no reply was received.
8. A letter was also sent to Gladstones after receiving the Letter before Claim requesting further information. No reply was received.
9. After requesting a ’Subject Information Request’ from xxx there was receipt of the appeal letter dated months after appeal was sent, and also a ‘Payment Overdue’ and ‘Final Reminder’, neither of which was received by the registered keeper. These letters also state that amount now due is £115 and £125 respectively, with no explanation of how these figures were reached.
Purported Basis of Claim
6. 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 20/10/2016.
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 terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt.
Rebuttal of Claim
7. 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 terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. That I am liable for the purported debt.
8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.
9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.
My Defence
10. My defence will rely principally upon the following points:
11. That the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.
The claimant’s increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. 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 “insufficient fee paid” which does not give any indication on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the changes 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.
12. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
13. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code
14. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above.
In this case there are two possible entrances, one with a height restriction unsuitable for vans/minibuses. At this entrance is a sign that states there is a higher fee payable for vans/minibuses. There is no such sign at the entrance of which the driver of a van/minibus would be required to use in order to enter the car park.
15. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by xxxx’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.
The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever.
16. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal.
17. 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 £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA schedule 4 specifically disallows. The attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper, where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).
That the amount demanded is therefore 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.
18. I have also 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, so any appeal would have been doomed to failure.
There is a conflict of interests, between the IPC and Gladstones Solicitors.
19. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed_______________________________________

Dated________________________________________

greentree75

Also, I should have said, this is my partners PCN. In his initial appeal letter, although denying he was the driver, he stupidly used 'I' a couple of times. This letter was not replied to until I requested Access of Information Request, their letter just stated that the appeal had been sent too late, not surprising as the appeal was sent at the end of last year, and the AIR was sent 2 weeks ago.
Should we still deny being the driver? Will the contents of letter be used against us?

Lamilad

What's with all the SIP cases​ recently.... Have they got a new head of litigation or something?

greentree75

On the BMPA Insight on SIP there seems to be an huge increase in the last year...