SIP Parking

KeithP

ChantillyLace86 wrote: »

So my next step is writing another letter to them about the points above?

No. Why do you think that?

You next step is to wait patiently for a County Court Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

Whilst waiting, it might be a good idea to read some more of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to better understand how to deal with it when it arrives.

Redx

so its like I said , the vehicle overstayed (exceeding the time paid for by paybyphone) and that is why they are pursuing the RK for the default £100 standard charge for breaking their rules, plus they added an unrecoverable £60 on for legal charges , totalling £160

clearly if people dont know how long something may be , that person should pay say £8 to more than cover their stay , whereas paying £6 or £6.20 didnt cover it. maybe there is a 20p charge for using paybyphone ? (I have no idea as I have never done this in my life)

my point ? you now know why they are pursuing you as RK, but an RK can only be held liable if they passed the POFA test OR can prove the RK and the driver are one and the same person

the driver threw the windscreen pcn on the floor and failed to keep it or take any notice of what it said

then when the postal notice came through your door as RK, you made a decision that you were not liable and didnt pay , ditto for any subsequent letters, so you need to ask yourself why you decided to not pay (meaning to fight this pcn) ? must be some reason you did not pay it when the invoice popped onto your doormat ?

writing to them is pointless, they just want their invoice paid in full

at the moment you dont even seem to understand what has gone on or why and yet the pictures you posted make it all quite clear to me what their problem was

the SIP sign over the page is a fairly standard , wordy , small font sign with the default £100 buried in it, plus the words about additional charges being added for debt recovery


so to win you would have to beat them on a legal technicality, most of which has been explained to you in the last few pages of this thread

Coupon-mad

so to win you would have to beat them on a legal technicality, most of which has been explained to you in the last few pages of this thread

Yep, and we do this all the time and still see wins reported for more than 2 years in 99% of cases where people have followed everything this forum tells them.

[Deleted User]

It is open to admit and pay in part, then to argue over the £60 bolt on. Just sayin'

Redx

Johnersh wrote: »

It is open to admit and pay in part, then to argue over the £60 bolt on. Just sayin'

Well said, because I was wondering that when I replied earlier because their case seems correct and judges take a dim view of non-payment and underpayment

This op needs to wake up and smell the coffee because damage limitation seems to be required, or a legal technicality miracle to happen

Beckham was caught speeding in a Bentley and Mr Loophole got him off on a legal technicality because the NIP was a day late, so the speeding issue was never actioned. I suspect that they both knew that he was speeding and could lose his licence