SIP Parking Ltd Manchester

Redx

my personal opinion

if the Land Registry cannot tell you , then I dont think anyone can (or will) tell you

if it is actually SIP that own it , then nothing will help you to overcome that obstacle

the point of knowing who owns the land is that they might help you, or to prove the PPC has no rights to invoice you

if SIP own it, they could sue the driver for trespass (if known)

greentree75

Thanks Redx, I feel like this is slipping away from me. Think it’s going to be a close call on the day.

Umkomaas

greentree75 wrote: »

Does anybody have any suggestions how else I could find out who the landowner is. I have done the Land Registry search and also Council Planning search but no joy. Claimant has sent contract which states that they are the landowner but it looks a bit suspect!

Try the Valuation Office. I think they have a website with a search facility. What about the council’s council tax department, asking who pays the tax on the property. If they have no records of any being paid, report the fact that SIP claim it to be theirs - and as they are running a business there, shouldn’t they be paying business rates?

See it as you doing your little bit for the local community.

greentree75

Thanks Umkomaas,
I’ll try that tonight when I get in.
I’d certainly like to try and help the local community ��

Castle

greentree75 wrote: »

Does anybody have any suggestions how else I could find out who the landowner is. I have done the Land Registry search and also Council Planning search but no joy. Claimant has sent contract which states that they are the landowner but it looks a bit suspect!

The claimant's contract actually states that SIP Car parks Ltd, (which is a different company), are only the "Landlord". I'd suspect that this company, (Land and Securities Ltd), may be the actual landowner judging by its accounts:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06752444/filing-history

System

The "landowner" may be a number of times removed and not interested. They may not have any powers to vary the contact if the space has been leased so best check who pays the non-domestic rates.

Suggest it will be SIP who pays the NDR but MCC will confirm.

Edit: I may be wrong as it appears from this article that SIP don't pay rates as they are not operating as a car parking company - only a supplier of payment machines, barriers and signs.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/company-boss-awarded-1200-after-737025

Key phrase "We [Nottinghams CC] believed that SIP Car Parks Ltd was the appropriate organisation to pursue for this business rates debt, but the court has ruled this is not the case." So they appear to want to be an operator when it comes to tickets but a supplier when it comes to NDR.

greentree75

Just realised I didn't enclose signed statement of truth at end of my skeleton argument.. Could this be a problem?

greentree75

Won against SIP Parking this morning.
Will put report up later today. Thanks for all the help received, this forum has been invaluable.

greentree75

We won!!!

Basically, the rep from SIP didn't turn up until 10.30. There was nobody from Gladstones.

He apologised when walked into the room, but don't think went down well with the judge.

The judge talked us through the process then said "Before we start with the nitty gritty, I have an issue I would like to bring up with the Claimant"

She talked through the Claimant's WS, and then came out with "Where is the evidence to prove that this is the sign in the car park?"

The rep replied "On the map of the car park in the WS"

The judge then said, "That doesn't prove that that is the sign, and where it is"

A bit of toing and froing, they both repeated the same thing several times, with the rep doing a lot of paper shuffling.

It looked like the judge was going to move on, but then made the point again, that she wanted proof that that was the sign, and then moved on that she wanted proof that there was a sign showing the higher tariff for vans at the entrance suitable for high vehicles.

More paper shuffling by the rep, then he said "I concede that I do not have the proof"

I held my breath, then the judge said, "I strike this claim out due to lack of proof"

I didn't even need to bring up costs, the judge asked if I had loss of earnings, I said yes, we discussed the £95, she asked the rep if he agreed, he just mumbled yes, looking sick as a parrot. He'd driven from Manchester and got stuck in traffic on the M62, felt a bit sorry for him.

Judge asked if there were any more costs, I pushed for unreasonable behaviour costs, judge said she didn't think their behaviour was unreasonable. Fair enough, no harm in trying.

It was an experience, and actually wished I'd been able to put all the research to use. But as I had questioned the certainty of the sign in the SA I suppose that may have helped.

I thank everyone who gave advice on here, along with Pepipoo, Parking Prankster resource and BMPA website, I'll buy all that helped a virtual drink.

Redx

believe me , we are all glad you beat these sc@mmers , be in no doubt that SIP are sc@mmers and I avoid their car parks in and around manchester , especially near the arena

with a good defence , it shows you may not have to say anything at all

well done