SIP Parking PCN for a misleading parking ticket sign

palegreenghost

I can't actually see what solicitor they're using, the claim form doesn't mention it. Would it be somewhere else?

I've updated the thread title to include SIP Parking. 

I only mention the £300+ figure because the mediator was under the impression that's what I'd end up paying if I lost, which didn't sound right to me but it didn't change my decision either way.

Gr1pr

SIP conduct their own litigation,  usually for around £185 for a single pcn , no lawyers 

Check your claim form for the actual total,  on the lower right hand side 

Your claim form is on page 7, only SIP, no lawyers,  £195 is the total,  for insufficient payment 

palegreenghost

Gr1pr said:

SIP conduct their own litigation,  usually for around £185 for a single pcn , no lawyers 

Check your claim form for the actual total,  on the lower right hand side 

Your claim form is on page 7, only SIP, no lawyers,  £195 is the total,  for insufficient payment 

Yes that's right, it's says £195. I see that's interesting that they do their own litigation.

I guess I shouldn't worry too much about my defence considering how far away it is. It's just fresh in my mind so I'm going over it all. Thanks again!

James_Poisson

palegreenghost said:

........ defence that the IPC CoP says they must have prominent additional signs saying that the tariff has changed for no less than 4 months.

They argued that because this happened in 2022 there were no actual guidelines to say it had to be anything longer than "7 days". I seem to remember that there wasn't actually any timeline stated just that it should be reasonable? I forget the actual wording maybe someone does remember? I just looked back at their actual wording it was "an appropriate period". 

Correct, but at that time the BPA COP said four months, and the IPC's woolly "an appropriate period" means nothing specific. 

In which case I imagine a judge would consider the BPA being a longer established ATA and the fact that the IPC has adopted their standard in the joint COP four months is a good yardstick to apply to then.

Stating "no longer than 7 days" is quite ridiculous was not specified and they have made that up to suit this challenge, don't let the conniving dimwits fool you!

palegreenghost

James_Poisson said:

palegreenghost said:

........ defence that the IPC CoP says they must have prominent additional signs saying that the tariff has changed for no less than 4 months.

They argued that because this happened in 2022 there were no actual guidelines to say it had to be anything longer than "7 days". I seem to remember that there wasn't actually any timeline stated just that it should be reasonable? I forget the actual wording maybe someone does remember? I just looked back at their actual wording it was "an appropriate period". 

Correct, but at that time the BPA COP said four months, and the IPC's woolly "an appropriate period" means nothing specific. 

In which case I imagine a judge would consider the BPA being a longer established ATA and the fact that the IPC has adopted their standard in the joint COP four months is a good yardstick to apply to then.

Stating "no longer than 7 days" is quite ridiculous was not specified and they have made that up to suit this challenge, don't let the conniving dimwits fool you!

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I think I caught them off guard and they tried their luck with "7 days" once I heard that I told the mediator "I know that's not the case, it's not 7 days" so it made me feel a lot happier to just take it to court.