SIP Parking PCN for a misleading parking ticket sign

palegreenghost

I've had some lunch and calmed down, found some good witnesses statements so I feel a bit better prepared. 

Thanks @Coupon-mad I wasn't sure if the beavis stuff applied in this case but it was just my misunderstanding. I'll get on it.

palegreenghost

I thought I'd take a look at google maps for the carpark in question and the only sign you see upon approach doesn't mention any terms or conditions, and the only sign at the entrance itself that does mentions T&C is partially obscured by the other sign and is off to the side. The sign has no lights for visibility at night, the carpark had no lighting either. 


I added this, I was just wondering can you use google maps for evidence?

Inadequate signage

14. I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding parking regulations. There is one sign visible while approaching the entrance to the car park, which is otherwise unmarked, giving no information whatsoever as to the nature of the Terms and Conditions, no Terms or Conditions are even mentioned on the sign as seen in (Exhibit RG03) The only sign which does provide information relating to the Terms and Conditions is located off to the left of the entrance, and is itself partially obscured by the sign post previously mentioned, please see (Exhibit RG04) and printed in such small type as to be illegible unless very close The poor placement and legibility of these signs made it extremely difficult for anybody to be aware of or to comply with the parking rules. This is in stark contrast to the highly visible, clear and legible signs seen in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (“the Beavis case”). 

The exhibits RG03 and RG04 show the conditions during the day, at the time I visited On 2 December 2022 at 17:31 it was dark, the entrance signs are not illuminated nor is the carpark itself which would make, seeing or reading any such terms and conditions almost impossible.

----
the exhibit ref numbers are in flux at the moment, I'll make sure they're right before sending. This would be so much easier had SiP sent me their WS/Evidence. 

Coupon-mad

just wondering can you use google maps for evidence?

Yes ... but I would NOT exhibit that sign!

You do need this near the start though:

"(any signs had) no lights for visibility at night, the carpark had no lighting either."

palegreenghost

I see, I don't want to dig my own grave. Is it the first photo that's the issue? Is the 2nd helpful?

----
Here's where I am about now, still not finished

Facts and sequence of events

3. I confirm that I am both the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

4. In November 2022, prior to my visit, I researched parking options online for Essex Street car park. Several websites advertised tariffs of £5 for 12 hours or £4 for 6 hours, which I reasonably relied upon when planning my visit.

5. On 2 December 2022, I parked at the Essex Street car park towards the rear of the site. I had a passenger with me. As it was 17:31 and December it was dark, the carpark site was poorly lit so visibility was poor and I could not see any signs inside the car park, I paid £5 in cash at the payment machine, the machine screen did not list the tariffs or contractual terms, it was merely a payment kiosk which was used in good faith.

 6. The payment machine accepted £5 and issued a ticket without any warning that this sum was insufficient to cover the advertised 12-hour stay. Due to poor lighting at the rear of the site and it being dark, it was not apparent that the ticket issued only covered four hours. I returned to the vehicle shortly before 22:22, which is the time recorded by the Claimant as my exit.

7. At the time of parking, I was unaware that the tariffs had changed in November 2022. I did not see any additional or prominent signage at the entrance or within the site warning that the long-standing tariffs had materially changed. Had I been made aware, I would have paid accordingly.

Failure to give notice of material change to terms

8. The Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and was bound in 2022 by the IPC Code of Practice then in force.

9. The IPC Code of Practice applicable in 2022 stated:

“Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist, the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges.”

10. The removal of the £4 for 6 hours tariff and the increase in the 12-hour tariff was plainly a material change that was not immediately apparent to a motorist relying on previous tariffs or online information.

11. The Claimant has produced photographs taken in November 2022, which show that no additional or temporary notices were placed at the site entrance warning of these changes. These photographs are exhibited at RG01 and RG02.

12. Accordingly, the Claimant failed to comply even with the minimum IPC requirements in force at the time, and users such as myself were not fairly informed of the changes.

13. The private parking sector single Code of Practice states: “3.4 Material change –

notices. Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions

that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has

been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary)

notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the

change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular

visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking

charges”.

Inadequate signage

14. Any signs had no lights for visibility at night, the carpark had no lighting either. I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding parking regulations. There is one sign visible while approaching the entrance to the car park, which is otherwise unmarked, giving no information whatsoever as to the nature of the Terms and Conditions, no terms or conditions are even mentioned on the sign as seen in (Exhibit RG03) The only sign which does provide information relating to the Terms and Conditions is located off to the left of the entrance, and is itself partially obscured by the sign post previously mentioned, please see (Exhibit RG04) and printed in such small type as to be illegible unless very close The poor placement and legibility of these signs made it extremely difficult for anybody to be aware of or to comply with the parking rules. This is in stark contrast to the highly visible, clear and legible signs seen in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (“the Beavis case”). 

Appeal history and lack of transparency

15. Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, I appealed and explained that I had paid £5 for what I reasonably believed was 12 hours of parking. The appeal was rejected, and I was merely told that I had “not paid enough”, without any explanation that the tariffs had recently changed.

16. I was not informed of the November 2022 tariff change during the appeal process. It was only after receiving a Letter Before Claim in April 2024 that I contacted SIP directly, at which point I was told for the first time that the terms had changed in November 2022.

17. This lack of transparency significantly prejudiced my ability to understand or challenge the allegation at an earlier stage.

18. Photos were provided to me by SiP to show the updated signs at the entrance to the Essex Street parking site in November 2022, the photos show that there are no “additional (temporary) notices” at the entrance. Shown in (Exhibit RG01) and (Exhibit RG02) 

Added £60 – abuse of process

19. The Claimant has added £60 to the original £100 parking charge. This sum was not stated on the signage, not part of the parking charge, and not incurred as a genuine loss.

20. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge was enforceable only because it was a single, clearly advertised sum which already covered the operator’s costs of running the scheme.

21. Further, Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limits recovery from a keeper to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The additional 

£60 is therefore irrecoverable, represents double recovery, and is widely recognised by courts as an abuse of process.

Exaggerated Claim and “market failure” currently examined by UK Government

22. The alleged “core debt” from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the

industry cap set out in the IAS Code of Practice). I have seen no evidence that the

added damages/fees are genuine.

23. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict

proof of: 

i) The alleged breach, and

ii) A breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed.

24. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate “debt fees”. The case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated feeds encourages the “numbers game” of

inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak or archive parking cases. No

pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit,

position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

25. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first

published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on the 7th of February 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

“Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a

labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services,

aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from

motorists.”

26. Despite legal challenges delay the Code’s implementation (marking it as temporarily “withdrawn” as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on the 30th of July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed “debt fees”. This is revealed in the Government’s analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

27. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or

“enforcement” (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

28. With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra “fee”. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended “legal

representatives fees” cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has

been examined and found – including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour

Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit

– to constitute “double recovery” and I take that position.

29. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs “eight times less” (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of

hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been

powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced “industry standard” Debt Fee was

enabled only by virtue of the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade

Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and their debt firms who stood to

gain from it.

30. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also,

ParkingEye Ltd. v Somerfield Stores Ltd. ChD [2011] EWHC4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified “admin costs” inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and “would appear to be penal”.

31. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge

(after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an “automated-letter-chain” business model that generates a healthy

profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the “costs of the operation” and the DLUHC’s IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

32. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went

unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due

to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC’s Secretary of State

mentions they are addressing “market failure” more than once in the draft IA, a phrase

which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2024 to scrutinise every aspect of claims

like this one.

33. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA).

CRA breaches

34. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms

Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which

introduced new requirements for “prominence” of both contract terms and “consumer

notices”. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage,

and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

35. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but

not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well- placed (and lit in hours of dusk/darkness) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

36. The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean that there has to be a finding of bad faith).

37. Now for the first time, the DLUHC’s draft IA exposes that the template “debt chaser”

stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v

Wilkinson. (See Exhibit 08.)

The Beavis case is against this Claim

38. The Supreme Court clarified that “the penalty rule is plainly engaged” in parking

cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That “unique” case met a

commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the

largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically

justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow and black warning signs

– (See Exhibit 07) – set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

39. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a “legitimate interest” in performance extending beyond the prospect of

compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to

punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations not “concealed pitfalls or traps”. (See Exhibit 09 for paragraphs from the Beavis case.)

40. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of these tests. There is one main issue that renders this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

i) Hidden Terms: The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as

seen on the signs in evidence. The purported added (false) “costs” are even

more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the

CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a

vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add

whatever their Trade Body lets them, until the Government bans it. The driver

thus has no idea about any risk, nor even how much may be added on top.

Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack

of “adequate notice” of a charge include:

ii) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (“red hand rule”) and

iii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1970] EWCA Civ2, both leading

authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has

been concluded; and

iv) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine

won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would

later be bound, due to “the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the

parking space”.

No contract with the Claimant / incorrect VAT number

41. The parking ticket I purchased on 2 December 2022 displays a VAT number belonging to SIP Car Parks (1) Limited, not the Claimant, SIP Parking Limited. This is shown in Exhibits RG05 and RG06.

42. These are separate legal entities. The ticket is the contemporaneous contractual document and identifies a different company as the party receiving payment.

43. In Fairlie v Fenton (1870), the court confirmed that a party who is not the contracting party has no right to sue upon the contract. The Claimant has produced no evidence of assignment, novation, or agency entitling it to enforce a contract allegedly formed by another company.

44. In the absence of strict proof, I submit that the Claimant lacks standing to bring this claim and that no contract existed between myself and SIP Parking Limited.

----

My eyes are glazing over, I still need to go over what I've put and make sure I have the evidence to back up what I'm saying.

Coupon-mad

This is their claim to prove, not your burden.

I would exhibit the GSV £5 image from April 2022 (and a screenshot of the website if you have that) put SIP to strict proof as to:

- exactly when they changed the signs, and

- exactly when the website was changed, and

- their compliance with the Code's mandatory requirement for extra signs warning of any new rule, such as a tariff change, and

- that all signage was well lit, and

- the view in pitch darkness when standing at the machine to pay.

palegreenghost

Okay, I'll have another go tomorrow I think maybe I'm going overboard with what I've written so far, I'm flailing around hoping something sticks and I know it. I think I'm losing the thread of what I'm trying to argue. 

I can get the sign that said £5 parking for 12 hours from google maps. 
I tried some years ago and failed to find a cached/saved old version of the website that listed that price at the time, 

Coupon-mad

Yes, nearly done though!

Just exhibit the £5 sign from GSV, to prove that rate applied in April 2022 then add a paragraph to copy & paste what I typed above. It doesn't need rewriting.

palegreenghost

I've (hopefully) got a finished WS here with exhibits, I think it's fully redacted unless something slipped through (I hope not). 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j17shdgm43p0xspa216uh/REDACTED.pdf?rlkey=qpyeopxwj0uw9v9vij2v1a73h&st=0sscbyxy&dl=0

Would this be okay? I won't be sending it until the final day of the deadline, seeing as SiP aren't interested in playing ball. 

1505grandad

Para 14  -  should you also include the following as posted by C-m 31.12.2025:-

" exactly when the website was changed, and"

With regard to most of the paras I will leave to the experts to comment but I believe that they may have been copied from earlier WS and therefore some are not required.

Coupon-mad

Remove the phrase 'before the changes were made' from the end of para 10.

Remove the first use of 'November 2022' from paragraph 16 and it will flow better.

Remove (delete entirely) 24 to 28 inclusive, which are all out of date.

Remove 31. Also out of date. The DLUHC doesn't exist since Labour took over and the Draft Impact Assessment was criticised in the 2025 Public Consultation.

End para 30 at 'costs of the operation'.

And 39 (i) needs editing to remove reference to "the £100 being in small print in their WS evidence" because you haven't got their WS yet and the £100 won't be in small print, knowing SIP. Change that 'hidden terms' point to talk about the fact the terms were not seen due to inadequate or non-existent lighting.