SIP Parking Ltd Manchester

Umkomaas

greentree75 wrote: »

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

Many PPCs have increased their court activity! The Supreme Court (PE v Beavis) has a lot to answer for.

So much for British justice.

Coupon-mad

You've used the same introductory wording as this person, which I suggested be changed to read in a better way:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72583732#Comment_72583732

Should we still deny being the driver?

Of course, if that is true. The appeal letter can be explained at a hearing, and the keeper can insist he was not driving, stating that fact honestly in his WS and in front of the Judge.

greentree75

Thanks everyone for your help

MothballsWallet

Umkomaas wrote: »

Many PPCs have increased their court activity! The Supreme Court (PE v Beavis) has a lot to answer for.

So much for British justice.

What do you expect for the same system that let a traitor off without any court case even though she helped another government kill over 45,000 of their own people with a nuclear bomb?

greentree75

Just returned from post office to collect a letter, turns out to be from Gladstones, letter stating their intention to proceed with claim after MCOL. Had to pay £2.00 to collect as they hadn't bothered to put any postage on envelope!!! Totally Incompetent..
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.
ha ha funnily enough I don't

Umkomaas

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.

Standard G's attempt to disadvantage you. Make sure you object to this via your Directions Questionnaire by electing to have the hearing at your local court.

Coupon-mad

greentree75 wrote: »

Just returned from post office to collect a letter, turns out to be from Gladstones, letter stating their intention to proceed with claim after MCOL. Had to pay £2.00 to collect as they hadn't bothered to put any postage on envelope!!! Totally Incompetent..
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.
ha ha funnily enough I don't

Keep that and add it to your Witness Statement in due course, and to your costs schedule.

Every little helps break these scams, you may as well point out all unreasonableness to the Judge, to tip the balance.

But for now, do as Umkomaas says. There is example wording on Jack Basta's thread or on Gin and Milk's thread, they both beat Gladstones claims in court and batted away this 'request for the case to be heard on the papers' in their threads. Assertive wording was used and you can copy it.

greentree75

Thanks once more for your help.. I am just filling in the DQ, and have noticed that the copy Gladstones sent of theirs doesn't have 'Claimant' circled at the beginning or the end....
Is this something I could use in my WS or am I just getting carried away?
I'm also not sure where to send other copy of DQ, SiP or Gladstones.
Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Send the copy to Gladstones, as they are acting for the Claimant. Nothing direct to SIP.

I think the copy N159 is misleading enough, trying to push you into agreeing to have the case heard on the papers, never mind that they didn't tick 'claimant'. I assume you searched the members' list and found the threads I mentioned, so that you have created a robust covering letter to go with your DQ, same as they did?

greentree75

Coupon-mad, yes I have , thanks very much for the tip