SIP Court claim - Insufficient fee paid Derby 2025

donthurtmenomore

Thanks, have just found it in my junk mail folder, was expecting it to be by post.

donthurtmenomore

Have just finished the mediation, took 3 short phone calls in total.
First one received about 45 mins after my slot was scheduled to begin, to introduce the processes. They hadn’t spoken to the claimant yet. Call lasted 3 mins.

Next call received about 25 mins later, with the claimant’s summarised position (sounds like they actually agreed with some of the defence about the poor lighting, but made a counterpoint that payment could have been made online) and an offer from the claimant was made for £135, down from £195.
I made a very brief summary of my defence, offered nothing and said I was unwilling to compromise. Lasted 5 mins.

Third call received 7 mins later. Explained it would now progress to court. Lasted 1 min.

Overall this tied up about 1hr30min of my time, including waiting time before the call.

Coupon-mad

I'd expect this to go to a court hearing if it is SIP who filed the claim themselves. Carry on!

Interesting they would settle for £135 which is the £100 PCN plus the court fee they paid. Shows that the £60 DRA fee add-on (that made it £195 in your case) is totally unjustified and unneeded and that a hefty £100 PCN covers all costs and a profit (as £85 was recognised as doing, in Beavis).

donthurtmenomore

I have received the court hearing date (07-Jan-2026), I need to submit my documents by 12-November.
I should also point out I received no further correspondence from SIP, I have not received a director's questionnaire or any response to my defence.

I have prepared a draft witness statement as follows (I will create a similar one for the driver, changing the wording in facts and sequence of events accordingly). Any comments would be appreciated.



Statement:

1.               I <defendant name and address> and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.     In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Facts and Sequence of Events

3.               It is admitted that I was the registered keeper of vehicle of <vehicle reg> on 16‑December‑2022.

4.               I was not the driver of vehicle <vehicle reg> on 16‑December‑2022

5.               The driver of the vehicle on the 16‑December‑2022, <driver name>, drove to the car park and parked the car.

6.               The time of arrival was after 19:00, which is at least two hours after sunset, therefore there was no sunlight during the entire period of parking.

7.               The driver paid a parking fee and left the car park.

8.               The driver returned to the car park later on in order to extend the parking.

9.               At the time the driver returned, the car park was poorly lit and the driver felt unsafe in the car park as it was a dead-end alley and there were people present who were smoking illegal substances.

10.           The access to the parking ticket machines was obstructed due to the presence of building site materials on the ground.

11.           The lighting on the parking ticket display was poor and the driver was struggling to read the test on the display.

12.           The driver inserted money into the machine and operated the machine to request additional parking.

13.           Due to the unsafe conditions observed in 8. and 9., the driver was in a hurry to leave the car park and had assumed the payment for the parking extension had been successful.

14.           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. 

15.           The entrance signage and the signage near the ticket machines to the car park does not clearly state the terms or the parking charge (see Exhibit 01).

16.           On 14-April-2025 claim form <claim number> was issued and I received this shortly afterwards.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

17.           The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

18.           This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. I take the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

19.           The claimant has filed a claim for £100 + £35 court fee + £60 Debt damage costs, the sum of which totals £195.

20.           The court is also reminded that 'terms' and the new CRA concept: 'consumer notices' must both be fair and prominent.  The signs do not create a contract to pay £100 plus court fees.  The sign that this Claimant relies upon only states £100.  This issue alone - exaggerating the quantum and pretending (according to the POC as pleaded) that the sum of £100 was on the contract when it wasn't - I trust could be enough in itself to persuade the court to dismiss the claim. It cannot pass the CRA fairness test to offer an alleged contract at £100 then try to claim it at £100.

21.           As I was not the driver of the vehicle, the only way the claimant can hold me as the keeper liable is by complying with Sch4 POFA, which only allows (under certain circumstances) keeper liability to a maximum of the sum of the parking charge as appeared on the sign when the driver was in site that day (£100). Attention is drawn to Excel v Smith (See Exhibit 02) and VCS v Edward (See Exhibit 03)

22. See Sch4 Explanatory Note 221:

"221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied [...] but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. [...] The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5))."

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

24. (i) the alleged breach, and

25. (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

26. 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.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

27. 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 (CRA).

28. CRA Breaches

29. 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.

30. 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 darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

31. 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 there has to be a finding of bad faith).

The Beavis case is against this claim

32. 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, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 04) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

33. 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 nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 05) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

Hidden Terms:

34. 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 DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

(i)               Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

 

(ii)              Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

 

(iii)            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".

35.  In the matter of costs, the I ask:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

36. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

donthurtmenomore

This fell off the front page of the forums and if I am going to make any changes I need to make them soon. Any comments appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Which court? Manchester?

donthurtmenomore

The case will be at Derby.

Gr1pr

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SIP court claim,  Derby,  2025

Car1980

Can you remind us of the particulars? They are bringing the claim under POFA aren't they?

Personally I think you're at risk of irritating the judge with a third person incorporation by a driver who wants to remain incognito. It's supposed to be your own witness statement. This is the hurdle with POFA witness statements.

You might be best inserting an anonymous quote as hearsay evidence instead. But I would ditch all the unsavoury aspects as it makes it sounds like an admission that they didn't operate the machine correctly.

Make it sound like they definitively returned and paid the correct amount, and that no signage was visible in order to form the contract they are alleging anyway due to the building items and the fact it was pitch black. The onus is on them to make it clear, and they didn't.

donthurtmenomore

Yes, they are bringing the claim under POFA.

I was also going to submit a very similar witness statement from the driver with a first person account.

Will make an update later today.

i’ve also attached photos of the signage.