SIP Parking Claim Form Received via HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Blue_Carbon

Hello, back again unfortunately. Received a claim form as above for an incident that happened back in 2022. Me and some family visited some friends in a different town on a Sunday evening. I was driving and one of my family members said that they would cover the parking cost, but for whatever reason, they didn't. I've now received this Claim Form demanding £160 claimant fee plus £35 court fees.

I've been through this rigamarole last year and have an idea of what to do based on the great guidance on this forum, but just wanted to check as I go along that I'm doing it right.

Claim Form was dated 6th June 2025 and I've just submitted my AoS via MCOL as per the guidance.

I've now got a bit of time to draft my defence. I was just going to use the template defence, but add in under paragraph 3.1 that I believed that the parking fee was paid for. Should I add that in or just leave it out? I would have paid the parking myself if I'd known it hadn't been done, but of course I can't prove that, although I do have 2 other witnesses for that day.

Thanks in advance

Car1980

Signage would be a more important factor. Some SIP car parks have a tariff board and separate, smaller T&Cs located elsewhere. So a better angle could possibly be that there is no such contract in place for a £100 non-payment charge.

The issue of your friend not paying would be more that they have breached a contract with you, but I doubt you'll be suing them. So not really of much relevance.

What's the location? 

Coupon-mad

Isn't it more likely that the family member DID pay at the machine and either they typed in their own numberplate by mistake or made a typo in trying to remember yours OR they used an app that defaulted to their own car?

Show us the POC.

Blue_Carbon

Car1980 said:

Signage would be a more important factor. Some SIP car parks have a tariff board and separate, smaller T&Cs located elsewhere. So a better angle could possibly be that there is no such contract in place for a £100 non-payment charge.

The issue of your friend not paying would be more that they have breached a contract with you, but I doubt you'll be suing them. So not really of much relevance.

What's the location? 

That's true - it was late Sunday night in Winter as well, so would have been pitch black. It was at the Huddersfield Lord Street car park.


@Coupon-mad - that's a good point, would it be a good idea to suggest that as a possibility?

The POC is as follows:

@The driver and/or registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXXXXX incurred the parking charge on the Relevant Land at Lord Street, Huddersfield for 'Vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded. The charge was incurred as the terms of the contract were breached and it is stated on the contract that should there be a breach, a parking charge will be incurred to the sum of £100.00, subject to discount for prompt payment. The Claimant seeks recovery of the sums due under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 S56 Schedule 4. The parking charge was issued at 8.15p, on 30/10/2022 under the notice reference of XXXXXX. The amount claimed is for the contractually agreed sum of £100.00, Debt damage costs of £60, plus Court fees.

Car1980

Particulars are crap.

"Vehicle not permitted and grace period exceeded" could cover a number of scenarios. The specific term(s) of the contract of the contract have not been specified.

In paragraph 3 maybe state that you were the driver, but a passenger arranged the parking and so you have no idea what the Claimant's complaint is regarding because the particulars are so vague, especially as it was 3 years ago. Further and better particulars would enable the Defendant to discuss with the driver, who may also wish to submit their own witness statement.

Look at the judgments PDF for previous orders for poor particulars.

Not_A_Hope

Could have been a failure of SIPs payment systems which are crap and has caused the issue. Take a look at Trustpilot to see how many other of their customers have had problems. Why would they bother fixing the issues when not bothering earns them much more money.

A relative of mine has received 3 PCNs last year for ‘vehicle not permitted and consideration period exceeded’. They believed they had paid using a ticketless payment machine the first time when the screen simply flashed up ‘Next customer please’. Mistakenly believing payment via their website was more reliable resulted in a further two PCNs. They now have taken my advice to never park there again.

Blue_Carbon

Car1980 said:

Particulars are crap.

"Vehicle not permitted and grace period exceeded" could cover a number of scenarios. The specific term(s) of the contract of the contract have not been specified.

In paragraph 3 maybe state that you were the driver, but a passenger arranged the parking and so you have no idea what the Claimant's complaint is regarding because the particulars are so vague, especially as it was 3 years ago. Further and better particulars would enable the Defendant to discuss with the driver, who may also wish to submit their own witness statement.

Look at the judgments PDF for previous orders for poor particulars.

@Car1980 -  Thanks for the advice Car1980. I've been reading up on stuff around the forums - when you mean the judgments pdf, did you mean the POPLA decisions thread? I couldn't find anything to refer to what you meant

@Not_A_Hope - some of my friends have experienced the issues you've described before where they've actually paid to the correct place and still had SIP threatening them; they're an absolute nightmare

Gr1pr

Never,  ever park in a SIP car park  , period  !

The Judgments pdf is posted by Le Kirk and mentioned by coupon mad in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  not the popla thread

Blue_Carbon

Ok thanks for the input everyone - after reading the judgments pdf as posted by Le_Kirk I've come up with the below statement for paragraph 3. Your feedback would be much appreciated:

3. The Defendant drove to the car park in question late on a Sunday evening with some family. The Defendant's family arranged to pay for the ticket, which the Defendant believes took place. SIP's payment systems at this car park are notorious for failing to work, with many people reviewing the car park experiencing threatening letters after paying for a ticket. Since the issue occurred nearly 3 years ago now, it is difficult for the Defendant to argue this case and the situation is further not helped by poor Particulars of Claim from the Claimant. According to CPR 16.5, the defendant must deal with every allegation in the particulars of claim, but the particulars of claim in this instance are so vague that it is impossible to do so. This is a clear breach of CPR 16.4 in which the Claimant must clearly and concisely state the facts of the claim.

Le_Kirk

Gr1pr said:

The Judgments pdf is posted by Le Kirk and mentioned by coupon mad in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  not the popla thread

Go here: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80939024/#Comment_80939024