Received a Letter Before Claim from SIP as claimant and solicitor

Coupon-mad

Very good - but don't confusingly call your contention that you've overpaid for years a 'claim' in paragraph 7.

Sounds like the ticket machine has always been programmed for the tariffs at the car park 100 miles away.  It can happen when setting a site up - human error - as is given away by your receipts which show the wrong site.

And the stuff under 'Abuse of Process - the Quantum' is out of date.  Remind us please:

Did SIP add an admin fee to the PCN(s) in the Particulars of Claim?

Did you use the template defence? 

Did SIP file this claim in-house, not using a roboclaim legal?

ScammingIndustry

- Originally, letter of claim asked for 8x £100. However, particulars of claim has added on £60 false admin cost.

- Yes, I used the defence template from FAQ and added on more points recommended by yourself in regards to the particulars of claim.

- Yes, SIP are claiming internally. A point worth noting, the tariff board on site shows different VAT number to one displayed on tickets. SIP have different trading names, so I am not sure whether it's been transferred internally to a different "SIP". Not sure if that makes sense the way I've worded it.

I'll make amendments to para 7, thanks for point that out.

ScammingIndustry

Further to my point above:

-Current name in company house: SIP car parks (1) limited. 
-Letter of claim: SIP parking limited(21 mar 2013 - 13 mar 2014). This is a previous name which discontinued in 2014 (can be seen on company house)

On site terms and condition board: SIP parking limited. This still shows active on company house.

I hope this makes it a bit clearer

1505grandad

Pedantic observation:-

Para 13  -  "....prices by purpose despite knowing the fact that..."

Should that be on purpose?

ScammingIndustry

@1505grandad should that be changed? I wrote "By purpose" because they said the signs are audited independently so someone in the company has to know. That's what I take from it.

If I should put it in better wording let me know

Coupon-mad

'On purpose' is a better understood phrase.

Add these points into your WS:

Originally, the letter of claim asked for 8 x £100. However, the particulars of claim has suddenly added on +£60 false admin cost.

A point worth noting, the tariff board on site shows different VAT number to one displayed on tickets. SIP have different trading names, so I am not sure whether it's been transferred internally to a different "SIP" (breach of the GDPR if so) or which one offered the alleged contract or whether the 'right' SIP is suing me.

Current name in company house: SIP car parks (1) limited. 

Letter of claim: SIP parking limited (21 mar 2013 - 13 mar 2014). This is a previous name which discontinued in 2014 (can be seen on Companies House)

On site terms and condition board: SIP parking limited. This still shows active on Companies House.

-------

Remove everything from (and including)  'Abuse of Process - the Quantum' and replace it with the stuff in the WS example that I added in a reply on Monday, on the Template Defence thread.  Needs adapting to suit your case but you'll see what I mean when you read it.

ScammingIndustry

Thanks you, I'll make the amendments tonight and re-send a copy.

ScammingIndustry

Good evening,

I've made necessary changes to the WS, let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Nothing at the start tells the reader why you were issued with 8 PCNs.  What went wrong?

You need to briefly explain what happened on these eight occasions. App failure? Machine failure?

Make sure you stress this was not deliberate payment evasion and was due to their unreliable payment systems.  Can you attach an Exhibit from your bank account showing the regular payments for a year, if you paid by card?

That would be good evidence to show you are honest and not an evader.  Remember that's what you are mainly dealing with and defending - denying liability or fault for the £800 worth of PCNs, not the peripheral observation (worth saying, but secondary) about the tariff chart not matching on the days when you did pay.

In 13 you have the name of the consumer legislation you are relying on correctly stated, but in 11 and 14 you haven't.  But why repeat it three times?

22 needs to come AFTER the sub-heading below it about Beavis being distinguished.

In 25 you've just copied 'see Exhibit xx' - the point of me putting that 'xx' in the example is that you need to give it a number and attach a sheet with the usual 3 paragraphs we always quote from Beavis.

Same with Excel v Wilkinson. An Exhibit that you must attach. Not 'xx'.

You also have repetition - not sure how because I don't think my version of the suggested WS does?  You need to go though it slowly or get a family member or friend (fresh pair of eyes)  to check it thoroughly for repetition (doesn't matter if they understand it or not).

e.g. I saw 'DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along' in 46 and 48.

And para 30 talks about 'the new code' before you've even introduced the new code!   Needs moving down (or deleting if it's actually repeated later...I didn't check).

ScammingIndustry

Thank you for your feedback, I am working on the letter. I will get someone to proof read it all. 

Thanks,