We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
PayByPhone: Paid wrong location (Council) instead of SiP (Private)
Options
Comments
-
Your no. 4 should be numbered '6'.
I'd say that #7 is worth keeping.
Change #8 to the usual defence point about no landowner authority (see other defences for it) and then add this instead of your #9 -#11:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304578#Comment_75304578
Obviously the £sum will need changing to the total on the right of your claim form.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you KeithP and Coupon-mad, it feels like it's coming together now.
I have taken out the 'authorised' by changing the whole line and I've changed it to include the sum of £185 which includes the court costs. Is this okay?
I wasn't quite sure what the £sum bit was and I couldn't see an example of where else to put it.
Seriously, I can count from 5 to 7slightly embarrassing.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
SIP CAR PARKING LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed of £185,
or at all.
1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked in the Manchester Student Village Car Park, Manchester on XX/XX/XXXX.
3. The Defendant parked and had to exit the car park by foot in order to use the PayByPhone app to pay. There is no signal inside the car park rendering the app unusable and therefore unfit for purpose. There is no chance to read the ‘location code’ once a motorist gets a phone signal outside of the building as the door is exit only and there is no SIP signage of any description on the outside of the building.
Unbeknown to the Defendant, their payment was directed to the wrong location by the PayByPhone app. The app did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.
4. The Claimant will be aware that a clear location code is vital to this sort of contract, and that there is more than one location with a similar name listed by their chosen app.
This is unfair and lacking in transparency, contrary to the basic tenets of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to the doctrines of clean hands, open dealing with consumers and good faith.
This is clearly a 'concealed pitfall or trap' to quote the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is fully distinguished from the instant case where motorists are set up for a fall.
5. The failure of the payment service to notify incorrect payment is not the Defendants responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, 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.
6. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.” This cannot be a contravention when the Defendant used the PaybyPhone ticketless option.
7. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
9. The Defendant denies the claim, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Name
Signature
Date0 -
I have taken out the 'authorised' by changing the whole line and I've changed it to include the sum of £185 which includes the court costs. Is this okay?
I wasn't quite sure what the £sum bit was and I couldn't see an example of where else to put it.
Use the link I gave you.
It takes you to a post of words to use objecting to all the added sums, and that is what I meant when I said change the £sum to make sense for your own case.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Sorry, Coupon-mad, I did read that link, but just didn't get it... Late night thinking isn't always my forte.
I've reverted my first two paragraphs back to those in Defence No 2, taking out 'authorised' as directed by KeithP.
I have added in points 9, 9.1 and 9.2 taken from the thread given in the link from Coupon-mad on sums of money.
I've changed the sums and edited para 9.2 to remove any Gladstone references, as my claim is from SIP and not Gladstones.
I'm not sure about the 'It was held in the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]' part. In the para I copied from the thread it was in as !Beavis! and I've assumed that I've changed it to the correct case name. Is this correct?
I'd like some advice on this section of 9.2:
"It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' of £60 to pile on top of any parking charge claim. The Claimant knows this, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by SIP Parking artificially inflating their robo-claims."
I'm not sure if SIP use a debt collection agency, rather than acting as one. How I can re-word this to make the point?
I'm going to say thank you at every point. Everyone in my house has had an unfair parking ticket in the last few months and I'm now able to point them in the right direction!
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
SIP CAR PARKING LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
I am XXXXXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:
1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked in the Manchester Student Village Car Park, Manchester on XX/XX/XXXX.
3. The Defendant parked and had to exit the car park by foot in order to use the PayByPhone app to pay. There is no signal inside the car park rendering the app unusable and therefore unfit for purpose. There is no chance to read the ‘location code’ once a motorist gets a phone signal outside of the building as the door is exit only and there is no SIP signage of any description on the outside of the building.
Unbeknown to the Defendant, their payment was directed to the wrong location by the PayByPhone app. The app did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.
4. The Claimant will be aware that a clear location code is vital to this sort of contract, and that there is more than one location with a similar name listed by their chosen app.
This is unfair and lacking in transparency, contrary to the basic tenets of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to the doctrines of clean hands, open dealing with consumers and good faith.
This is clearly a 'concealed pitfall or trap' to quote the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is fully distinguished from the instant case where motorists are set up for a fall.
5. The failure of the payment service to notify incorrect payment is not the Defendants responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, 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.
6. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.” This cannot be a contravention when the Defendant used the PaybyPhone ticketless option.
7. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case for one PCN, a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.
9.1. This claim inflates the total to a £185, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.
9.2. It was held in the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' of £60 to pile on top of any parking charge claim. The Claimant knows this, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by SIP Parking artificially inflating their robo-claims.
10. The Defendant denies the claim, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Name
Signature
Date0 -
Looks good, but re the link, did you wait a second for it to land on the relevant post?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks Coupon-mad. :j
Yikes, obviously I didn't leave it a second! I did this time though. This forum thing is a learning curve indeed.
I've updated section 9, but I've taken out any reference to legal representative costs as they are listed as £0 on my CC Claim Form.
Please let me know if I need to make any more changes.
I've got another week to submit, but is it more prudent to get the defence in good time in order to confirm receipt and make sure the change of status to 'Defended' is done?
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
SIP CAR PARKING LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
I am XXXXXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:
1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked in the Manchester Student Village Car Park, Manchester on XX/XX/XXXX.
3. The Defendant parked and had to exit the car park by foot in order to use the PayByPhone app to pay. There is no signal inside the car park rendering the app unusable and therefore unfit for purpose. There is no chance to read the ‘location code’ once a motorist gets a phone signal outside of the building, as the door is exit only and there is no SIP signage of any description on the outside of the building.
Unbeknown to the Defendant, their payment was directed to the wrong location by the PayByPhone app. The app did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made.
4. The Claimant will be aware that a clear location code is vital to this sort of contract, and that there is more than one location with a similar name listed by their chosen app.
This is unfair and lacking in transparency, contrary to the basic tenets of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to the doctrines of clean hands, open dealing with consumers and good faith.
This is clearly a 'concealed pitfall or trap' to quote the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which is fully distinguished from the instant case where motorists are set up for a fall.
5. The failure of the payment service to notify incorrect payment is not the Defendants responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, 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.
6. The PCN stated the contravention as “No ticket displayed.” This cannot be a contravention when the Defendant used the PaybyPhone ticketless option.
7. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case for one PCN, a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.
9.1. This claim inflates the total to £185, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.
9.2. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for a private car parking company in issuing robo-claims.
9.3. It was held in the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' of £60 to pile on top of any parking charge claim. The Claimant knows this, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by SIP Parking artificially inflating their robo-claims.
10. The Defendant denies the claim, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Name
Signature
Date0 -
Looks good to me.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Yay! Thanks for all of your help Coupon-mad and KeithP, I'll get it sent.
Onto the next round0 -
Please can someone give me some advice...
I've got my court date next Thursday and I can't go due to work commitments that I've only just found out about. The Notice of Allocation letter gives me 7 days to ask for a delay in the hearing, but because I only found out last night and only got the request in this morning I'm guessing I'm not going to get it.
What are the chances of winning the case without me being there to defend it?
The Notice of Allocation says that 'if the claimant attends but the defendant does not, the district judge may make a decision based on the evidence of the claimant only'.
If I lose, what's the next step please?0 -
I can see no mention of you having filed a Witness Statement.
Have you filed a Witness Statement and evidence?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards