SIP Parking PCN for a misleading parking ticket sign

Car1980

If the charge becomes overdue an additional £60 damage may be added to the value of the parking charge for which you, the driver, will be liable. You, the driver, will also be liable for legal costs incurred if proceedings are commenced.

FYI they MUST show actual loss suffered from late payment, which would be a struggle. They haven't gone contractual, whatever they claim. They have gone for recompense.

And obviously doesn't apply to the keeper, only the driver. POFA does't permit more than £100 if they are holding the keeper liable.

I'd still put money on them not turning up.

Coupon-mad

Loss suffered from late payment is impossible in parking because the pre-action letters including LBC are all held to be accounted for within an £85 PCN (ParkingEye v Beavis).

Not_A_Hope

The landowner contract is with SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd.

(Nice to see that both parties came in on a bank holiday to sign the contract!)

The landowner contract is with SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd but the claim form is from a completely different company SIP Parking Ltd. This would suggest they are a stranger to the contract and have no authority to take anyone to court. As well as a very dubious bank holiday date I note the actual client provided any landowner authority is not actually named. Just some random bloke off the street called Chris Marsden. Hopefully if SIP don’t pull out the judge throws it out 

Castle

Not_A_Hope said:

The landowner contract is with SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd.

(Nice to see that both parties came in on a bank holiday to sign the contract!)

The landowner contract is with SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd but the claim form is from a completely different company SIP Parking Ltd. This would suggest they are a stranger to the contract and have no authority to take anyone to court. As well as a very dubious bank holiday date I note the actual client provided any landowner authority is not actually named. Just some random bloke off the street called Chris Marsden. Hopefully if SIP don’t pull out the judge throws it out 

A "Christopher Wayne Marsden" is a Director of "Land and Securities Limited" which appears to be the Landowner. They are a "Sister company" to SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd

Coupon-mad

So they've concocted it between two related companies but sadly for SIP, brought this claim in the wrong company's name who have no rights, authority or title in this site!

palegreenghost

It sounds like there's a good chance this will get thrown out because the company that's taking me to court is not the one who I was apparently in breach of their supposed terms. 

This is what was in my WS (plus the photo of the parking ticket with SIP Car Parks written on it with the vat number):

Not_A_Hope

A "Christopher Wayne Marsden" is a Director of "Land and Securities Limited" which appears to be the Landowner. They are a "Sister company" to SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd

According to Companies House Land and Securities Limited started life in 2008 as SIP Car Parks Limited before changing to SIP Car Parks (Properties) Ltd in 2014 and finally Land and Securities Limited in 2016. 

Christopher Wayne Marsden has been a Director at SIP Parking Ltd since Nov 2017. He has also been a Director of SIP Parking (1) Limited since it was incorporated in October 2022. However he was not a Director of Land and Securities until 17/3/25.

All smoke and mirrors and I have no idea who actually owns the land. If it is owned by Land and Securities Limited Christopher Marsden as director of one SIP company should not have signed the landowner authority in Jan 2021 as he was not made a Director of that company until 17/3/25

Not_A_Hope

Reviewing the Landowner Authority again it was signed 1/1/21 and each page has SIP Parking (1) Limited on it. This company was not incorporated until 17/10/22.

More evidence the document they have supplied to the court is a complete fabrication whoever owns the land.

palegreenghost

Is this something I can bring up in the hearing? Would this information have to be submitted to the court beforehand?

Coupon-mad

Of course you say all of this at the hearing but mainly that it's the wrong Claimant company.

No you don't need to raise this earlier. You are entitled to make pertinent observations about the other side's allegations, WS & exhibits.