Please put me out of my misery...

mlang88

Just made the following addition to my defence - taken out the frustration of contract as, having read the Maritime National Fish case - felt like the 'impossibility' was the fault of one of the parties in this instance. Anyway, here is the additional arguments:

iii. (a) Denning LJ in!Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking![1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way'' and that the contract takes place when the payment is made.
(b) Also relevant is Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel![1949] 1 KB 532 is on all fours with my case and is binding case law supporting the contention that any other terms come 'too late' if they are only known about afterwards. The case stands for the proposition that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if only known after the agreement was made.!
(c) The representation - in this case a 'parking charge' (penalty for parking a vehicle in a manner which did not breach ill-conceived signage) can only be binding where that charge was agreed/the bargain made, at the time the contract was formed. Denning LJ held that a clause a consumer can only learn about after the contract was allegedly formed was too late to be incorporated into the contract:!''The first question is whether that notice formed part of the contract. ... The hotel company no doubt hope that the guest will be held bound by them, but...the ticket comes too late...'
3 i. The fact the defendant made reasonable endeavours and cannot be penalised under UK contract law is also a circumstance supported by trite law. Authority for this is the case of!Jolley v Carmel Ltd![2000] 2 EGLR 154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.!I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms with I believe to be misleading.

4. ii. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of!£50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.!!

iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors and file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

iv. The added 'legal' cost is an artificially invented figure (carefully avoided in the!Beavis!case where only £85 was pursued, presumably to avoid just such scrutiny). This is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.!


I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence are true

Coupon-mad

Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:

I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms at that machine and complied with them. [STRIKE]with I believe to be misleading[/STRIKE].

4 iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They [STRIKE]employ salaried in-house Solicitors[/STRIKE] use Gladstones who do not come to this matter with clean hands, since their Directors also run the Trade Body (IPC) and the so-called Independent Appeals Service where it has been publicised that they advertise to entice new member firms that some 80% of appeals will go in favour of the parking firm members. As for claims, each claim has a £50 legal cost added onto the original ticket value. When claims go undefended and are awarded by default, these charges are automatically awarded. Gladstones file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, carrying out no scrutiny of facts or contract before issuing proceedings. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary and to evidence the £50 'cost' added to an already-inflated 'parking charge', an unconscionable amount not saved by any legitimate interest.

mlang88

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:

Brilliant - I can't thank you enough for your assistance on this, and to all others who have submitted responses. I was genuinely ready to give this up about a week ago, but I am very glad I haven't now. Even if this isn't successful, I'll be satisfied that I was able to fight back. I shall submit this tomorrow, using the advice provided. (I've spaced correctly, and included the claimant v defendant part at the top on the version I am to send).

Thanks again

mlang88

Hi all - had a letter delivered from Gladstones (to the incorrect address, even though I told them otherwise)

hxxxp://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

I know there are directions on here of how to proceed, I was just wondering if this is a fairly standard letter again that they issue? As most others appear that way. Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.

Cheers

Umkomaas

http://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

I think you have enough posts to be able to post 'live' links now. No need to 'hxxp' any more.

Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.

You're making the mistake of thinking that someone at Gladstones reads responses. It's robo-claiming on an industrial scale. Maybe near the final part of the process some human eyes will glance over this.

Regardless of you believing you have a 'fairly compelling argument', their role is to pressurise you into paying. You must continue to jump through the hoops and continue defending this, otherwise you will lose by default - and they know this, and is all part of their tactic.

This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.

mlang88

This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.[/QUOTE]

Great thanks for the direction, I'll take a look.

I did assume that this was just a continuation of the tactics they'd used earlier on in this thrilling saga, i think you could quite easily be fooled into thinking these letters were personalised. I am determined to fight this. Cheers

mlang88

Just read directions from Redx, directing me towards a post made by Bargepole which has a clear process to follow. Cheers!

mlang88

Hi guys, not sure if anyone will pick this up or not as it's been a while since my last post on here. I've been waiting to see what SIPS came back with (via Gladstones) on the defence I submitted.

I have my date in court - Thursday 5th October, and I received the response whilst I was away (sent on 18th September). So pretty short notice, but there we are. I am posting just to probe for any advice you may have for Thursday's hearing? Or if you can point me toward any advice. As expected, SIPS are taking the cold hard facts route on this one, that I didn't have a permit for this space, the signage is not unclear in their opinion, and I have broken the rules. They have outright dismissed everything that I have said/claimed. They have also said that the fee is not disproportionate because I have wasted their time in having to contact me so much (so much time wasted having to send a template letter out to me) so they argue a couple of hundred quid is just-reward for their hard work...

I know this isn't something you'd necessarily advise - but I feel it sensible to prepare for a 'worst case scenario', I thought I might try and outline the fact that this was essentially a mistake (based on the information they provided in the form of ambiguous signage, of course). So I have a letter from my MP to the director of SIPS pleading for the case to be dropped on the grounds that this was an obvious mistake, the fact that I had parked there on many previous occasions without being told otherwise, the fact that I originally appealed on the grounds that I thought my P&D ticket hadn't been seen etc etc. Is that going to get me anywhere - in the form of leniency from the court IF I lose and receive a fine?

Any advice would be great (I appreciate this is relatively short notice)

Cheers

KeithP

mlang88 wrote: »

Is that going to get me anywhere - in the form of leniency from the court IF I lose and receive a fine?

Even if you lose, you won't receive a fine.

It simply isn't that type of court.

Redx

if you lose there will be a judgment , no "fine"

pay this promptly, IN FULL , usually within 28 days , to prevent a CCJ from happening

ps:- this has been a civil matter all the way through , at no time has a "fine" been issued and it never can be nor will be

the word "fine" should never come into it , because it didnt happen , wont happen and cannot happen