SIP Parking Letter Before Claim Advice

kimmy9999

Hi
I have looked through some of the other threads but i can’t find any advice that would relate to what happened with me. My ex-partner has posted a letter through my door, the letter is the Letter before Claim from SIP Parking and the reason is 'Vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded', from the 15/10/2017. I know when this was and where, it is the car park for my gym, and i would have parked there when i went in to register my membership with them but I was never advised to register my car. Also, they are charging me in total £160 -
£100 Fine
£5.35 in costs to obtain the registered keepers details from DVLA
£12.00 per letter sent, following the breach on contract (£48.00)
£0.23 in costs associated with the required Trade Association
£10.00 to operate, maintain and host the high-level security systems associated with keeper data (including staff, time and equipment).
I dont live at the address they have been sending the letters to so i wasn’t aware and my ex-partner has only just given me this one and it is the first i have seen. I changed my address with DVLA for my license in August 2017 but i don’t think i have changed my cars registration address.
Am i really going to have to pay this fine? Any advice would be much appreciated.

ShakeItOff

Welcome!

Have a read through the NEWBIES thread on Post #2, as this covers all of the court side of the process.

You won't find anyone here saying to pay it - claims are defendable with work.

You really do need to make sure that your car is registered to the correct address now - that is a hefty fine if you don't. Driving licence and V5 are completely separate and changing one doesn't change the other.

It would also be a good idea to submit a Subject Access Request (template in the newbies thread) to the PPC, and update your address details with the solicitor and the PPC.

kimmy9999

Hi,
I assume PPC is the company SIP? I also dont have a solicitor and what is PPC? Sorry im not familiar with these abbreviations.

beamerguy

kimmy9999 wrote: »

Hi,
I assume PPC is the company SIP? I also dont have a solicitor and what is PPC? Sorry im not familiar with these abbreviations.

PPC = PRIVATE PARKING COMPANY

You don't need a solicitor, there are a few on here for FREE

You must read the Newbies Thread

Did SIP really send you a letter that says .....

£100 Fine
£5.35 in costs to obtain the registered keepers details from DVLA
£12.00 per letter sent, following the breach on contract (£48.00)
£0.23 in costs associated with the required Trade Association
£10.00 to operate, maintain and host the high-level security systems associated with keeper data (including staff, time and equipment).

ShakeItOff

Sorry, I didn't spot the PPC name (SIP) in the thread title.

It is their solicitor and SIP you should update with your address, though it seems they may not have appointed a solicitor is they have written to you directly. You don't want anything sneaking over to your ex's address at this stage.

Abbreviations are also covered in the NEWBIES thread.

fisherjim

Those charges are all a scam and a joke you would be foolish to pay them anything.


As already said it's a scam charge not a fine, and have you shown the gym what their muppet contractor is trying to scam out of their membership, and told them to cancel or you will be cancelling your membership?

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

Those charges are all a scam and a joke you would be foolish to pay them anything.


As already said it's a scam charge not a fine, and have you shown the gym what their muppet contractor is trying to scam out of their membership, and told them to cancel or you will be cancelling your membership?

Point is Fisher ...... is this what SIP are sending out generally ???

The_Deep

what is PPC? Sorry im not familiar with these abbreviations.

All is explained in the stickies/ FAQs. Is a solicitor involved?

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Hrsoftie99

Yes this exactly what SIP outlined in their letter to me with same breakdown of charges

beamerguy

Hrsoftie99 wrote: »

Yes this exactly what SIP outlined in their letter to me with same breakdown of charges

You as well. To me this seems to be a new way of hiding the fake £60 that the dodgy legals add on.

I would imagine a judge would laugh his socks off with such rubbish.
Whatever next will these nutters dream up

Fight_the_good_fight

Certainly does appear to be a new tact as in my ongoing case and will interesting to see if they follow through and actually issue court papers or a final attempt at a threatogram.

If not are they carrying out action in house or hiding their allegencies with Gladstones