Received a Letter Before Claim from SIP as claimant and solicitor

ScammingIndustry

Umkomaas said:

ScammingIndustry said:

Umkomaas said:

If your contract to park is with one company, then a different company pursuing you to court is not normal, they are a potential stranger to the original contract.  But much depends on what the signage says as to whom you were actually contracting with. 

You need some photos of the detail on the signs in the car park. 

At the bottom it says 6752126

But that company number is not that of 'Simple Intelligent Parking Limited'. See this:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08077105

On Company House, Simple Intelligent Parking Limited has the following:

C/o SIP car parks limited

Is that of any significance?

patient_dream

ScammingIndustry said:

Umkomaas said:

ScammingIndustry said:

Umkomaas said:

If your contract to park is with one company, then a different company pursuing you to court is not normal, they are a potential stranger to the original contract.  But much depends on what the signage says as to whom you were actually contracting with. 

You need some photos of the detail on the signs in the car park. 

At the bottom it says 6752126

But that company number is not that of 'Simple Intelligent Parking Limited'. See this:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08077105

On Company House, Simple Intelligent Parking Limited has the following:

C/o SIP car parks limited

Is that of any significance?

It seems that SIP is another Wonga operation and WONGA were forced to pay compensation of over £2.6m ?

They can call them themselves C/O anything but that means nothing

The company number is a STAMP on what they can do

IE:
The signs, the ticket, the letters and claims must all be in the same name

The VAT number is very important for HMRC to investigate

Coupon-mad

On Company House, Simple Intelligent Parking Limited has the following:

C/o SIP car parks limited

Is that of any significance?

Nope.  They are separate legal entities.  This is a major point to include in your defence.

ScammingIndustry

Great! Thank you for your expertise. I will definitely include this in my defence should they pursue this in court. Even if they do not pursue this, I will be letting HMRC and trading standards know 

ScammingIndustry

Hi all @Coupon-mad, @patient_dream, @Umkomaas


I have finally received a reply from SIP, a very comical reply which claims to have clarified my points but screams I have not read the letter at all. This is from their "Legal department".

I am attaching a picture of the letter.

1st paragraph suggests I have been using payphone. I have never used payphone therefore never created an account or purchased a ticket from payphone website.

2nd paragraph suggests I can't put a time in the past but hang on a minute your ANPR have my car on camera about 10 mins ago so I am required to put the time in past otherwise I am receiving a ticket anyway for non payment.

3rd paragraph talks about error on PayByPhone but again I have never used it. It is stated clearly on my letter that I have purchased tickets from the pay and display machine in the past which charges more than displayed tariff .


4th Paragraph mentions PayByPhone charging 20p extra but again never used them. All my tickets have been from pay and display which charges incorrect amount and goes against their own traiff displayed. So paying by cash on p&d machine should not charge me more than the tariff displayed. I will attach a picture of the tariff board.

5th paragraph they admit it's adminstration error.

6th paragraph states £4 entitles to 8 hours of parking which is incorrect. It entitles to 12 hours according to their displayed tariff so either they are trying to mislead me or even they don't understand their own signs.

Back of the letter tells me they will not be removing charges.

This is absolutely comical because I've never paid with payphone. Malfunction was actually on their website. On my letter I've reiterated the fact that I have been charged more even paying by cash which means the tariff displayed is in fact incorrect along with timings as they have admitted it entitles 8 hours rather than 12.

Oh did I mention this letter is from their "Legal department". Laugh with me please

Castle

Have you got your SAR back yet, so you can "cross check" with their last letter.

ScammingIndustry

No signs of SAR as we speak but I'll wait for it

Le_Kirk

ScammingIndustry said:

No signs of SAR as we speak but I'll wait for it

It is the data from your SAR that you will get back!  When did you submit it?  They have one calendar month to  respond.

ScammingIndustry

They have not sent my data as per my request 

Coupon-mad

So complain and threaten to report them to the ICO.