SIP Letter Before Claim

ParkingPeter

Hi all, I'll be writing back to the PPC today. Do you recommend outlining the fact the bay was obstructed as I haven't informed them on this yet although it's clear from the pictures they sent through.

nosferatu1001

The purpose of the LBA process is to outline why you feel you dont have to pay, and to narrow any areas wher you disagree

So yes, you outline that the vehicle was not parked fully within the bay due to the obstruciton caused by X. The vehicle was parked no further out than was necessary to avoid the potential for damage from X. As such any reuqirement to park within a bay was frustrated by SIPs failure to manage the space correctly.

ParkingPeter

Okay, thanks. My response is below. Would you add/remove anything?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your response to a ‘letter before claim’ form issued on the 15th October 2018.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I wish to make you aware of the reasoning for the vehicle being parked across two parking bays. As you can see from the pictures of the vehicle, the car was parked by the driver one and a half foot to the right of the bay. This was due to a heavy duty platform trolley obstructing the bay to the front. The vehicle was parked in such manner to avoid the heavy duty platform trolley from falling onto the bonnet of the car which would have caused serious damage. The heavy duty platform trolley was dangerously left on two wheels facing forward which was unstable and extremely hazardous.

The heavy duty platform trolley is property of SIP and any requirement to park within a bay was frustrated by SIPs failure to manage the space correctly.

The trolley was both a safety risk to members of the public passing by, as well as the driver in this instance and the vehicle in question.

Furthermore, a fridge was obstructing the bay to the right hand bay which also left the bay unparkable and rendered unsafe. Had anybody opened the door to the fridge, the vehicle in question would have been damaged to the bumper.

The two objects which were both dangerous and unnecessarily located within the grounds of the SIP car park and were both avoided by the driver who parked across the bay to avoid contact with both objects.

I expect your ‘parking charge’ to be rescinded upon receipt of the letter.

Your faithfully,