Claim form from SIP Parking LTD

afi

Hi, I received a N1 Claim from from SIP Parking LTD- dated 29th Feb 2024 for a PCN from 2022 from SIP Parking LTD (no solicitor). No letter before claim was received

I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time. I have not sent any replies/correspondence to SIP over the 2 year period and indeed hadn't heard anything for a long time from them. The car park is owned a strip of land which appears to be owned by SIP.

On the day, the driver of the vehicle parked in the car park to visit nearby local shops. They did not see the signs that the car park required payment and thus visited the shops without realising. 

I have filed a AoS via MCOL, however I did make an error and accidentally ticked the box stating that "I intend to contest jurisdiction"- but reading the forum I believe this shouldn't be an issue. 

I have attached pictures from google maps of the car park and the redacted claim form.

I have started to write my defence from the stickied template on the forum, however not entirely sure what to write. Have attached below the edited areas:

...................

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and was not the driver of the vehicle.

3. In the mentioned period, the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle during the alleged event did visit the area of the car park to visit local shops. 

4. The defendant did not notice any signage close to where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions of usage. As such the defendant was not aware of any restrictions due to obscure signage from the parking position. As the alleged event occurred over 2 years ago, the defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN. 

5. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, ..... CONTINUED AS PER TEMPLATE

Is there anything further to write?

Coupon-mad

I rarely say this but:

How could a driver not notice those signs?

Think again (below wording conflicts).  Are you sure the driver was not you? How so? Para 4 says you were:

3. In the mentioned period, the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle during the alleged event did visit the area of the car park to visit local shops. 

4. The defendant did not notice any signage close to where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions of usage. As such the defendant was not aware of any restrictions due to obscure signage from the parking position. 

afi

Coupon-mad said:

I rarely say this but:

How could a driver not notice those signs?

Think again (below wording conflicts).  Are you sure the driver was not you? How so? Para 4 says you were:

3. In the mentioned period, the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle during the alleged event did visit the area of the car park to visit local shops. 

4. The defendant did not notice any signage close to where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions of usage. As such the defendant was not aware of any restrictions due to obscure signage from the parking position. 

Hi, I actually wasn't the driver, but I was a passenger. In hindsight the signs look clearer on the photo and so it sounds silly but the left side of the car park has signs that are smaller/less visible. 

Fruitcake

None of the signs around the pay machine mention Ts and Cs, or the consequences of not following them. You need to get photos of the other signs on site.

The PoC look vague enough to me that the CEL v Chan case would apply. You need to specifically determine what the claim, "vehicle not permitted and grace period exceeded" means. What do the signs say about "permitted vehicles" and is the grace period stated on the signs?

KeithP

OK, you tell us you weren't the driver, so why do you think this has any relevance?...

4. The defendant did not notice any signage close to where the vehicle was parked...

Why should anyone be interested in what the Defendant did or didn't see?
It's what the driver saw that matters.


With a Claim Issue Date of 29th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.
To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

afi

Have updated the statement, with separate clarification as to what the driver stated vs me as a defendant - (is there any benefit in naming the driver at this stage?)- is this any better?

3. In the mentioned period, the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. The defendant has spoken to the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle during the alleged event did visit the area of the car park to visit local shops. 

4. After speaking to the driver,  the driver states that they did not notice any signage close to where the vehicle was parked showing the terms and conditions of usage. Having attended the location again and reviewed the signage 2 years later, it is apparent that the signage for the car park is placed in a separate smaller section to the right of the entrance. As such it was not immediately visible upon entering the car park. As such the defendant was not aware of any restrictions due to obscure signage from the parking position. As the alleged event occurred over 2 years ago, the defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"As such the defendant was not aware of any restrictions due to obscure signage from the parking position. As the alleged event occurred over 2 years ago, the defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN."

Instead quote their allegation 'vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded' and say you have no idea what this could possibly mean, how this could have created a 'relevant obligation' or contract with the driver, nor indeed on what basis the Claimant has claimed £160 with no breakdown of that extortionate quantum, given that there has been no debt recovery cost incurred or paid by them, and they filed this claim online themselves.

afi

Sent the response on the 25th March via the email in the main thread. Received the auto reply saying I'll hear within 10 days. Has been over 2 weeks and haven't heard since. Logged into MCOL and apparently the DQ has been sent to me(not received anything) - but interestingly the MCOL site says something about the notification of DQ being sent being removed?d?

Coupon-mad

Send the defence again right now.  That says it's been rejected.  Put it in NOW (maybe you didn't sign it?).

KeithP

The important line there is...

   

I wonder why your Defence was rejected. Do you know why? If not, you need to find out PDQ.

afi

Was signed and dated correctly, so not sure, will contact them and resend