We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gladstones SIP - Parking Charge - Court
Comments
-
They state: 'Exhibited in my previous witness statement is a copy of the 'Parking enforcement agreement' which confirms my company is the 'operator' of the Relevant Land and has permission of the 'Landlord' (SIP Car Parks Limited) whoa re either the owner or the landlord's authorised agent, to provide enforcement services. In any event, the contract is between my company and the defendant and as confirmed in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) the contracting party does not need to show that they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is the agreement between the operator and the Landowner of any relevance'
This is a quote from VCS v HMRC and concerns a concept called "naked trading". They are saying that SIP can operate anywhere and offer parking even if they do not own the land or are trespassers.
Your response is that SIP can offer parking but can't deliver if they are not occupiers/authorised as they would not be in a position to give consideration. Their promise of parking is effectively an empty promise due to the lack of consideration.
This is why we suggested you do your own research rather than relying on SIP producing a contract they do not have. Clearly if they can't produce one, they will say it is not relevant and quote the case above. You just have to get the judge to see it for what it is.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
So went to court today - the judge thought that the Parking enforcement agreement was proper and that SIP "PROBABLY" had the permission of the landlord or were authorised by the landlord. And so I lost -_- Even though I showed the list from Manchester City council, stated they were not on the list for the land in questions. That their director was on record stating that they were cash collectors etc etc.
Oh well...0 -
That's tough as you were not the driver, and SIP didn't comply with the requirements of KL as they didn't get a Notice to Keeper to you. It would appear the judge wanted to give SIP every benefit of the doubt regarding signs, paperwork, code compliance etc.
Not a lot you can do with a judge that takes that approach.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
What I couldn't believe is how the judge did not require SIP to provide any proof that they were occupiers of the land or agents of the owners and said that it seemed proper.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards