Court claim - Insufficient fee paid

donthurtmenomore

Hi all,

I have a court claim from SIP Parking Limited, regarding an insufficient fee paid. I am the keeper, not the driver and am attempting to draft a defence based on the template, I believe I have about a week left to submit this to both the court and the claimant.

The court claim issue date is 14th April 2025, and I have responded with an acknowledgement of service on 25th April 2025.

I am struggling to get a coherent account of the day from the driver, so not yet sure if I can produce any useful defence statements about the facts around the incident on the day. (I believe the fee paid was for 2 hours, but the stay is indicated at more than 2 hours. There may have been an attempt to extend the parking stay duration, although I have not been able to obtain any evidence of this).

I'll post a draft defence when I have it, in the meantime any feedback or guidance would be gratefully appreciated.

Particulars of claim and Notice to keeper are posted below (page 1 and 2 of the NTK are in the wrong order, I couldn't get them to appear correctly on the forum).

<images redacted>

Coupon-mad

Here's a typical outcome from DJ Iyer at Manchester in a SIP case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81427979/#Comment_81427979

Generally, their signs are OK but judges won't allow the added £60.

For that reason, unless the NTK was non-POFA worded, for an overstay after 'paid-for' time, I think this might be an uphill battle. Maybe one to offer something at Mediation? £35 then work your offers up to max £90 or whatever you decide to avoid the hassle.

I don't normally say this but SIP handle their cases pretty well.

Gr1pr

I agree,  SIP have their office in manchester,  plus issue their own claims and can easily get to court to argue their own case I'm person, which they do

I would expect that the NTK PCN letter complied with POFA 2012, so probably liability as keeper and it's difficult to argue about an insufficient payment case 

Therefore I suggest that you try to agree a deal at mediation , as suggested above 

donthurtmenomore

Thanks for the info, I will read up on it. Note the car park was in Birmingham and the court hearing would be in Birmingham so would I still expect them to attend in person? And is there a likelihood it would end up thrown out due to (unlawful?) added costs?

Gr1pr

I doubt that they would attend in Birmingham,  but may send an advocate 

No it wont get thrown out due to the debt collectors fee, but hopefully if you lost it would be removed from the total to pay,  leaving a smaller figure owing to be paid within 30 days. The core issue around the issuing of the pcn has to be dealt with,  regardless of the debt fee addition

If you win you won't pay a penny 

Most SIP car parks tend to be around Manchester,  I avoid them like the plague   !

donthurtmenomore

I have reviewed the account with the driver, and have prepared the following defence statement, I will insert the following paragraphs into "the facts known to the defendant" part of the template, with the rest of the template remaining the same.

The facts known to the Defendant:

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, but it is denied that the Defendant was the driver.

3               The total recorded duration of the visit from entry to exit according to SIP Parking was 2 hours 38 minutes.

4.               On arriving and parking, the driver purchased a period of parking.

5.               The driver then later returned to attempt to pay for an extension of parking. The car park had very poor lighting and felt unsafe due to its location at the end of a dead-end alley, presence of people in the car park smoking illegal substances and the car park being used to store building site material for a construction project, which was obstructing access to the machines. Money was deposited into the machine, and the driver operated the machine to request an extension for parking. Sufficient money was paid using SIP's car parking machines to cover the full duration of the visit.

6.               The parking ticket machine was not issuing paper tickets. Due to the poor lighting in the car park and the unsafe conditions, the driver was in a hurry to complete the parking extension. The driver assumed the extension had been successful as the machine had accepted the money.

7.               Due to the lack of clear signage in the car park and the very poor lighting conditions, the driver was not aware of any contracts or contractual penalties.  

8.               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, and
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

 

9.               The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from this, having reviewed the photos of the car park, it's no exaggeration to say that the car park signage is very poor, there are no obvious references to Ts&Cs or penalties at the entrance or the payment machines, and that is compounded with the poor lighting conditions at the time.

Coupon-mad

That's fine but I'd remove 3. Don't state their case for them (that period of time is NOT in the POC)!

And I'd remove this phrase, because they ARE alleging a loss (of the tariff):

"The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that"

Of course your Defence will in fact exceed 30 paragraphs ... but don't show us the whole template. Just making it clear fir browsing new posters that the above is only the facts section that fits into the template defence.

donthurtmenomore

Thanks Coupon-mad. Should I email my defence to the following email address or is there a specific contact for enforcement? Couldn’t find any alternatives on their site.
info@sipcarparks.co.uk

Coupon-mad

donthurtmenomore said:

Thanks Coupon-mad. Should I email my defence to the following email address or is there a specific contact for enforcement? Couldn’t find any alternatives on their site.
info@sipcarparks.co.uk

Do what? You'd get a CCJ if you did that.

Of course you don't send a claim defence to SIP!

donthurtmenomore

Ok thanks for the heads up, I had misremembered the process from last time! :

Gr1pr

The current process is described correctly in the defence template thread in announcements,  no need to remember anything