SIP Parking Ltd Manchester

greentree75

No he wasn’t the same one as on the WS, but he was definitely from SIP offic. He told me he got stuck in traffic on the M62, and that he’d even set off half an hour earlier.
I said to him, only half an hour earlier on a Monday morning at rush hour??
He just looked at me and put his head down. He literally just sat down, filled in his attendance form, then we were called in.

trisontana

This statement from Gladstones earlier in this thread certainly applies to SIP :-

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.

It certainly has cost SIP and arm and a leg, but, as usual, Gladstones are laughing all the way to the bank.

greentree75

It's ridiculous, I sent a 'hands down' letter 2 weeks ago, they could have just walked away without paying costs but obviously Gladstones didn't agree.
At least a 5 hour round trip for the SIP rep, for a 15 minute grilling by the judge.
Why are they still using Gladstones???

Umkomaas

It's ridiculous, I sent a 'hands down' letter 2 weeks ago, they could have just walked away without paying costs but obviously Gladstones didn't agree.

No wonder, it should have been a ‘drop hands’ offer. :rotfl:

greentree75

Ha ha , oops I did write 'drop hands' , honest...

greentree75

Meant to say it was DJ Lindsay at Darlington, found her very pleasant and reassuring.
SIP’s rep was Matthew Elder

Fight_the_good_fight

Firstly may I congtarulate the OP on their win

I am awaiting with some excitement SIP/Gladrags next move for the same car park

Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.

From the M/Cr City Council planning application website I found an approved application from 2015/6 for a block of apartments which covers this car park and the adjacent land which SIP previously infested which listed the owners as two Asian males from the Manchester area planning number 1108901/FO/2015/C2

Does the Op still have a copy of the contract he could post up

Lastly the land adjacent to the car park was refused retrospective planning in 2013 103101/FO/2013/C2 and to date I have not found any appeals or other applications for the live car park but still digging

System

Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.

Indeed. This seems to be the issue that judges are finding with all SIP contracts. If you read #47 and SIP's appearance at Nottingham court you will see they try to be leaseholder when they want money and a supplier when it comes to paying rates.

Looks like every SIP case from now on should have a LR search to expose their MO.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

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.

This is post #47; very interesting:

IamEmanresu wrote: »

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.

and this post:

IamEmanresu wrote: »

OK. You need to read this one.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115782

Seems that SIP have found a new scam.

Is this the same car park where the lovely DJ Iyer has stayed some 'test' cases?

greentree75

Fight_the_good_fight wrote: »

Firstly may I congtarulate the OP on their win

I am awaiting with some excitement SIP/Gladrags next move for the same car park

Not wishing for the grass to grow I have been doing my own research on this car park and from an earlier post the OP stayed he was having difficulty establishing landowner details and that SIP had provided a dodgy looking contract re ownership.

From the M/Cr City Council planning application website I found an approved application from 2015/6 for a block of apartments which covers this car park and the adjacent land which SIP previously infested which listed the owners as two Asian males from the Manchester area planning number 1108901/FO/2015/C2

Does the Op still have a copy of the contract he could post up

Lastly the land adjacent to the car park was refused retrospective planning in 2013 103101/FO/2013/C2 and to date I have not found any appeals or other applications for the live car park but still digging

If you look back on my thread, I posted Gladstones WS in dropbox, the contract is in there.