Do I have a defence? SIP Salford/Manchester LBC for overstay/WS defence draft

DodgyDavesDVD

Hello all,

I hope you are all looking forward to the bank holiday.

I have received the dreaded LBC from SIP. I only received the LBC yesterday (21/05/2025) and the LBC is dated 09/5/2025. The reason for this is because I did the classic idiot thing of updating DVLA and not updating my v5c.

The weird thing is the v5c is registered at my mums address, I was at my previous address when the PCN and payment overdue letter arrived. I have since move and updated DVLA yet the LBC was sent to my previous address and not my current address. Is this correct? Surely it should have either been sent to my mums address where the v5c is registered or my current address which DVLA have. I can't think of any reason it was sent to my previous address (I have proof via email DVLA were updated piror to the LBC being sent and I have checked my logbook to confirm the above).

I am updating my logbook today to reflect my previous address, I wrongly assumed DVLA would also update the logbook.

Anyway, my main reason for posting is to double-check my next steps are correct and ask if I have a defence? I have appealed using SIPs appeal process and used the template on the newbies thread, they replied with the below:

Your vehicle was parked in a manner other than in accordance with the signage situated at the car park.
 
For this reason the parking charge was issued correctly and the charge now stands at £60.00 to be paid within 14 days. After this time the charge will increase and additional charges may be incurred.

"Please be advised as your purchased parking ticket could not cover the entire duration of your stay, the charge was issued correctly and will stand. If you are unable to provide us with the driver details, we will be pursuing you (Registered keeper) under the POFA Section 4."
 
Please refer to your rejection letter for further information on how to pay the charge at the rates advised within the rejection letter or how to appeal further.

I did not bother appealing to the IAS as this is described as kangaroo court in the newbies thread.

I have emailed my MP but haven't had a response yet. I'm unable to locate the land owner as it's a car park under railway arches, I'm not sure how I would find out who owns this.

I have not admitted I was the driver. My concern comes from the fact I did drive, I did overstay and I forget to pay the extra as I arrived early due to me aticipating the traffic to be busy (a few days before christmas) and my appointment overran. I guess my defence would be it's an unfair amount for a 23 minute overstay, with a 10 minute grace period, this would amount to 13 minutes which £100 seems excessive for.

The signs are clear in terms of the £100 and £60 but the rest of the text is very small, especially the "important notice" part, would this still count as a defence?



I have come up with the following points as a defence using my own initiative and other threads as well as the draft witness statement, I was being vague about the date/location as I know SIP monitor these threads and don't want to give them my defence yet:

Faulty Statement of Case:

The Claimant’s statement is a cut‐and‐paste, incoherent narrative that fails to disclose all necessary facts—breaching CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7.

As a result, the Defendant cannot clearly discern which allegations and cost heads are being pursued, despite admitting to being both the registered keeper and driver.

Supported by:

One Parking Solution v Wilshaw—which confirms that clear, prominent notice is essential for forming a valid contract, and that failure to provide such notice renders the charge unenforceable.

Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the “red hand rule”) further emphasizes that hidden or ambiguous terms are not binding.

Circumstances of the Infraction:

On December 2023, the Defendant parked at [insert location] 17:50 to attend an appointment.

Payment for extra time was inadvertently omitted due to a hectic day and other pressing commitments.

The Defendant’s appointment overran by 10 minutes, leading to a departure at 19:13 .

Although the overstay appears to be 23 minutes, a statutory 10-minute grace period applies—making the effective overstay only about 13 minutes.

Excessive and Disproportionate Charging:

The maximum “core debt” charge in the industry is £100.

Charging £100 (the maximum amount allowed) for an effective 13-minute overstay is grossly disproportionate, especially compared to local council charges that typically run around £30.

Supported by:

Excel v Wilkinson—which requires that charges be directly proportionate to the actual costs incurred, and any fee that greatly exceeds those costs would be penal.

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67—which underscores that any charge lacking a legitimate interest or verifiable loss is punitive.

Arbitrary Additional £15 Overcharge:

The Defendant initially received an overdue charge of £115, which was later reduced to £100 in the subsequent letter before claim.

This inconsistency shows that the extra £15 is not based on any additional, genuine administrative or recovery cost.

If the £15 were a recoverable expense, it would have been invoiced consistently.

Supported by:

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67—which establishes that any excessive charge lacking demonstrable cost is penal and unenforceable.

Inadequate Signage and Unclear Terms:

The signage features a bold £100 charge, but all accompanying terms—including the “Important Notice”—are printed in extremely small, unreadable type.

The sign includes the statement “You the driver will be liable,” despite the Claimant pursuing the registered keeper, demonstrating clear inconsistency.

Environmental issues (limited natural light in winter and shadowing from railway arches) further impair the clarity required to create a valid contract.

Supported by:

One Parking Solution v Wilshaw and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest—which both stress that inadequate, unclear, or poorly placed notice renders any contractual terms unenforceable.

Lack of Proper Authority and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):

The Claimant has not demonstrated that it holds the required written landowner authority (as mandated by DVLA rules and industry standards), which is necessary for enforcing the charge.

The Defendant’s appeal was rejected outright with no genuine offer of ADR; the only option provided was a demand for the full £100 charge.

This failure to offer independent dispute resolution further indicates that the Claimant’s process is designed solely to extract the maximum penalty.

Supported by:

The principle from One Parking Solution v Wilshaw regarding acceptable notice and authority, and the overall industry guidance that demands independent ADR—a failure of which questions the Claimant’s standing.

Flawed ANPR Evidence:

The evidence provided by Automatic Number Plate Recognition is deficient, as the entry image does not clearly capture the vehicle’s number plate, thereby undermining the reliability of the identification process under POFA.

Overall Conclusion and Costs Sought:

No valid parking contract was formed due to malfunctioning payment conditions, inadequate and unclear signage, and disproportionate penalties.

The Defendant argues that charging a maximum £100 for an effective 13-minute overstay is grossly excessive.

The extra £15 fee is arbitrary and punitive because it is not backed by a genuine additional cost.

The Defendant’s appeal was rejected without any offer of ADR, reinforcing that the Claimant is simply enforcing a predatory, profit-driven scheme.

Supported by:

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, Excel v Wilkinson, Spurling v Bradshaw, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest—all of which reinforce that any excessive charge must be proportionate, based on a legitimate interest, and supported by clear, effective contractual notice.

The Defendant seeks a dismissal of the claim and further an award of costs in light of these unreasonable practices.

Additionally, Members of Parliament have criticised private parking companies for such predatory, maximum-charge schemes—further corroborating the argument that the charges are designed to maximize profit rather than reflect any actual loss incurred.

Do you think these are valid defence points? Is there anything I should remove?

I just want to check my next steps if I do have a defence which will hold up in court.

I need to reply to the LBC but not via the reply forums, do I reply with the template to info@sipcarparks.co.uk? The only way I can see to reply is the reply forums which the newbie thread says to not use. I need to request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days as per the PAP, is this right?

I also need to request a SAR, is this correct?

I just want to make sure I am doing this all correctly, I promise I have read the newbies thread multiple times and I feel I am correct, I just want to make sure I have a defence before it goes past the pay up option which I would rather not do.

Thank you

DodgyDavesDVD

I don't think I can edit my posts so I just wanted to add I apologise for the length, I just wanted to make sure I read and understood the newbies thread correctly and my defence is solid, I'm skeptical about the ANPR argument, I think POFA says they just need one clear image which they have provided.

Coupon-mad

just want to make sure I have a defence before it goes past the pay up option which I would rather not do.

Why not? If the 'pay up option' is already asking for £160 or £170 then you'd probably see them settle for even less than that at court mediation phone call stage. Therefore - even with a shaky defence - defending ANY parking claim is worth it right now because you get offered a lower settlement AFTER a claim form goes in...

AND even if it goes to a hearing with judgment against you in the end, this is Manchester Court's take on SIP cases with clear signs:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81428442/#Comment_81428442

Mega_Maniac said:

So the judgement for this has come back today. It has basically found that I am responsible for the £100 

See? No risk in defending.

£100 IN TOTAL ordered by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court (probably the leading parking expert judge who trains other District judges about these cases) disallowing the added £60 due to the trite law authority (even after Beavis, which didn't affect it) of ParkingEye v Somerfield which was ratified at Court of Appeal level, so it's every bit as binding as Beavis.

See?

There's no risk in defending because the greedy industry have made pre-action more expensive than would be likely agreed at court mediation phone call stage, or ultimately granted by a judge.

No SAR. You've read old info!

You are only at LBC stage so yes, you email SIP with the standard LBC reply which includes putting right and insisting they erase the old address (they traced it from your credit record with a 'soft trace' which is OK).

You will get a claim form in due course but it's vital that it comes to your address so that you see it in time.

DodgyDavesDVD

Thanks for the response @Coupon-mad

I will email my LBC response with my updated address

Why not? If the 'pay up option' is already asking for £160 or £170 then you'd probably see them settle for even less than that at court mediation phone call stage. Therefore - even with a shaky defence - defending ANY parking claim is worth it right now because you get offered a lower settlement AFTER a claim form goes in...

At the moment the pay up option is £100 as per SIPs payment website when I enter my refence so if say I lose in court, I would have to pay this on top of the court fees even with DJ Ivys dismissal of the £60. My expenses for the missed afternoon of work and say milage would come to about £100 so even with this taken off then I'd be relatively the same? Or would it just be the £35 court fees as I would be a lot more open to paying that. I'd happily offer £0 at the court-appointed mediation, but would they go for something like £60, which I could have paid when I first received the PCN?

AND even if it goes to a hearing with judgment against you in the end, this is Manchester Court's take on SIP cases with clear signs:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81428442/#Comment_81428442

I did read that thread but was that not because of the costs incured from a missed CCJ? I'd have thought with me updating my correct details and if they have retrieved my address legitimatly then I wouldn't be able to claim for any other expenses like that thread, just the expenses from driving and the afternoon off work which would be about £100, maybe less.

DodgyDavesDVD

DJ Iyer* autocorrect got me there

Coupon-mad

so if say I lose in court, I would have to pay this on top of the court fees even with DJ Iyers dismissal of the £60.

No. I already showed you his decision was £100 altogether. Did you read his words? No costs were allowed. However...

...as SIP are in fact not chasing £160/£170  and you have a very poor chance of successful defence (you knowingly overstayed and due to Beavis you have zero change by trying to argue that the £100 is 'excessive')...you could pay it now and draw a line under it.

In fairness to SIP, this is a good example:

- the sign is OK

- they never add a legal fee to claims so there's no double recovery

- they don't use debt collectors

- they operate like ParkingEye used to until 2022 (fair reminders and no intimidation or add-ons). 

- they are still offering the PCN sum (and no added fees) right up until court claim stage. Many more people would pay if they all had to operate like this.

SIP are a decent example that this model works for a SME.

The system used by other PPCs, of adding a huge % extra, asap - sometimes added as quickly as day 28 with no reminders first - defeats the object and deters settlement.

It exists to feed the litigating PPCs, bullying DRAs and the roboclaim firms.

It also doesn't match any other comparable UK debt recovery model involving a trader/consumer invoice* and it breaches case law (Somerfield) and consumer law (the CRA 2015 test of fairness and proportionality and the POFA prescribed 'maximum sum that can be recovered'). Added fees must be banned.
 

*utilities/water companies are NOT comparable with ex-clampers!

DodgyDavesDVD

Yes sorry you are correct, I just re-read the judgement. I dunno, I personally feel that £100 is excessive for a 13 minute overstay but the law seems to say otherwise. I think I will just suck it up and take it as a lesson, at least I've learned a little bit about law and the prodcedures involved.

It's odd, it says they have charged me £160 but the actual online payment system says £100 due. I may be back if that's not the case, but I appreciate your help, thank you.

Car1980

Personally, I'd describe the sign as poor. The problem is always that judges are likely to look at it and sees all the correct text is there and give it the thumbs up. But as a piece of clear communication, it's inadequate. The wording is rather long winded, You'd have to design a clear sign alternative in your witness statement so the judge can visually compare clear and unclear. Dennings red hand rule is not really met with that £100.

Beavis is also quite specific to a retail park. This is a SIP owned bit of land and the justification for the charge is different and possibly diminished.

But these are things you'd have to competently argue in court and you'd be a bit of a guinea pig.

Coupon-mad

But we know DJ Iyer's view on a similar SIP sign (he allowed it) and that one is bright yellow and has the £100 in large bold letters, the OP overstayed and we know SIP do litigate.

It's not worth refusing to pay £100 if the very best you might get (knowing this will go to Manchester court) is paying £100.

What you DON'T do is pay £160.