Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zara1325
    • By zara1325 15th Jun 17, 2:30 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 7Thanks
    zara1325
    SIP informed that i was driving does it reset to the start
    • #1
    • 15th Jun 17, 2:30 PM
    SIP informed that i was driving does it reset to the start 15th Jun 17 at 2:30 PM
    HI all,

    SIP have been given my details as the driver, which i was ok with as i was the driver but they are hounding me from where they left off with the keeper who is disabled.

    I assumed it would reset and go back to the original amount. Since they have my details i have had NTND on 5/6/17 for £100 8/6/17 final reminder £125 14/6/17 notice to of impending legal action £125. Is this right? What could I do about it.

    I feel i have a strong case as we had a ticket which was in time, reason for the notice was no displayed blue badge.
    Thanks
Page 3
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th May 18, 1:56 PM
    • 9,312 Posts
    • 9,591 Thanks
    KeithP
    You may well be right with that assumption, but perhaps you should ring the court tomorrow and find out.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 4:24 PM
    • 61,764 Posts
    • 74,679 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    the claim is stayed pending the determination by district v willers dyer.
    You need to know the outcome of that case, so ask for a copy of that determination.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • zara1325
    • By zara1325 12th Aug 18, 5:17 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    zara1325
    court action now!
    Please can someone help me on this please...

    I assumed this had been thrown out of court and threw away all paperwork, stupid I know!

    1st fact is the disabled person uses her middle name as her first, so it is the same person
    2nd. I did inform the pub of fall as a member of staff helped to pick her up, so why it was not logged, I have no idea. I intend to phone them and ask the question
    3. The lady did attend the GP's the following day, so I can support this by getting relevant info
    4. The photos of the wheelchair not in the boot is ridiculous, as it was in there and I showed the attendant at the time. She can choose to use the wheelchair as she chose not to on that day.
    5. Why do I need permission to take four ladies out and what business is it of them to ask that
    6. from what i can remember I could not go to 2nd appeal as they would not restart the ticket after I said I was driving. I had a phone call, not sure if it was from SIP or Gladstones asking me whether I had photo evidence of the disabled badge on the car, I was taken off guard and told them no, stupid, I know.
    7. Gladstones phoned me to ask wether I would except £100 as settlement, I said no and then I get this by email.

    Please, if you could help in anyway I would be really grateful as I did pay and it was driver error.

    This is their defence

    IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: SIP PARKING LTD (CLAIMANT) -AND(DEFENDANT) ____________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF ____________________________________ I, , of SIP Parking Limited, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are the following documents which my Company wishes to rely upon; i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’); ii) The Sign (‘the Contract’); iii) The Site Plan and Photographs; iv) Notice to Driver; v) The First Appeal; vi) Registered Keeper data from the DVLA; vii) Notice to Keeper, Payment Overdue and Final Reminder in the name of ….; viii)Driver Nomination; ix) Final Reminder in the name of the Defendant; x) The Second Appeal; xi) Notice of Impending Legal Action; xii) Photographs of the contravention; xiii)Letter Before Claim; xiv)Witness Statement of ….. xv) Disabled Motoring UK Webpage; xvi)Department for Transport; ‘The Blue Badge Scheme: rights and responsibilities in England’.
    1 3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the Schedule below are details of the parking charge; The Defence The Charge
    4. My Company relies on the case of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], in which it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.
    5. The terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous. It is stated that parking is permitted for vehicles either; i. Fully displaying a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or; ii. With an electronic ticket purchased by phone in advance of the vehicle being eft unattended, remaining valid for the duration of the vehicles stay. Furthermore, the contract states that ‘vehicles in disabled bays must have a valid disabled badge on display in the windscreen in addition to the requirements above’.
    6. The photographs of the charge confirm that a pay and display ticket valid from 17:27 to 18:27 was on display on the dashboard of the vehicle, however, a valid disabled badge was not, whilst the vehicle was parked in a marked disabled bay. As no valid disabled badge was displayed, the Defendant failed to adhere to their obligation pursuant to the contract and agreed to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100.00.

    The First Appeal
    7. The first appeal for this parking charge was received by my Company on 06 March 2017, from the registered keeper of the vehicle, ….. a copy of which is exhibited. This appeal wrote in the first-person states that … was the driver (‘I parked in a disabled bay’) who ‘displayed the ticket and the badge’.
    8. Upon returning to the vehicle, …. was aware that a parking charge had been issued to the vehicle and approached the parking attendant stating they did have a disabled badge, but it was on the floor on the passenger’s side, which would have been the result of their friend knocking off the badge upon exiting the vehicle.
    9. It is averred that in the boot of the vehicle there was a wheelchair, which would automatically suggest it is a ‘disabled persons vehicle’. For the avoidance of doubt and as per the exhibited photographs, no wheelchair can be seen in the boot of the vehicle. Further to this it is reasonable to suggest that as both the registered keeper and their friend are disabled, the wheelchair would not have been in the vehicle at the time the parking charge was issued. PCN Number Date of Charge Location Description 68042400 27/02/2017 Wilmslow Road, Didsbury Disabled Bay 2
    10. The appeal is signed by a ‘….’ and enclosed with the letter is a copy of the disabled badge that was purportedly on display at the time the parking charge was issued. The disabled badge is not in the name of the registered keeper, instead it is for a ; my Company are unable to ascertain whether … and …. are the same person or whether ….. was in the vehicle at the time the charge was incurred. Driver Nomination
    11. My Company then received a letter from a third party writing on behalf of ……. on 30 May 2017, a copy of which is exhibited. This letter is in contradiction to the content of the first correspondence my Company received in relation to this parking charge as the writer states …. ‘can not drive’ despite … confirming she was the driver previously.
    12. This letter stated that (the ‘Defendant’) was the driver at the time the parking charge was incurred, and the Defendants serviceable address was provided. As the driver nomination was made prior to proceedings being issued, my Company accepted this transfer of liability request as it was made in accordance with Paragraph 5(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (the ‘Act’).
    13. This letter was not written in the first-person, instead it was someone writing on behalf of …, therefore my Company questions whether the version of events stated in the letter received on 06 March 2017 are correct and whether ….. actually composed such letter. Furthermore, it cannot be ascertained as to who wrote this letter as the first initial is not clear and the surname could be either ‘…… or ….’.
    The Second Appeal
    14. The Defendant made an appeal to my Company by way of letter dated 07 June 2017, which was received on 09 June 2016. The Defendant confirmed they were the driver of the vehicle and reiterates the argument made in the driver nomination that ….. could not drive the vehicle.
    15. The number of people in the vehicle has changed from that stated by …... The Defendant avers she was ‘supporting four ladies who all have learning disabilities and two of them are unsteady on their feet’, whereas …. averred there was herself, the Defendant and one other individual. Through the use of the term ‘supporting’ the Defendant infers they were acting in an official position as a carer but has provided no evidence to support her claim that she was authorised to care for four individuals with no assistance.
    16. The Defendant recalls the circumstances as to why the disabled badge was not displayed correctly; ….. fell outside the pub whilst the Defendant was assisting two ladies out of the vehicle. Whilst the Defendant has not stated which pub they were purportedly visiting, my Company assumes they were visiting the Slug and Lettuce which is situated next to the Relevant Land. My Company has contacted the management of the Slug and Lettuce by phone who stated that there is no record of an incident on the day the charge was incurred, which is reaffirmed in the exhibited witness statement from the general manager,

    17. As it appears the Defendant was acting in the capacity of a carer, it is reasonable to assume that the fall would have been reported to the management of the Slug and Lettuce and that the Defendant would have evidence of reporting the matter to their employer, which has not been provided. The Defendant has failed to provide any evidence that …… was taken to see a general practitioner the following day and that the purported bruising was the result of the purported fall. Furthermore, my Company is at a loss as to why ……. did not refer to their purported fall.
    18. The Defendant avers that the disabled badge was found on the chair, contrary to …. claim that the badge was found on the floor. The terms of the contract state that a valid disabled badge is to be displayed in the windscreen in order to park in the bay in which the Defendants vehicle was parked, therefore whether or not the disabled badge was on the floor or on the chair does not impact upon the Defendants liability in this claim. The photographs of the charge do not show a disabled badge on the floor or on the chair and the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
    19. The Defendant purports that she showed the parking attendant the disabled badge on the floor who appeared to not be interested, which is neither confirmed nor denied. In any event, showing where the disabled badge was displayed after a parking charge was issued, would not cause the parking attendant to cancel the same as they have no authority to do so. Further to this, the contract states that retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted, therefore by the registered keeper providing a copy of the badge that was purportedly displayed in their appeal does not render the parking charge invalid.
    20. The Defendant states that should the parking charge not be cancelled, they will make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (‘IAS’) which has not been the case. As the parking charge was not appealed within 21 days to my Company by the Defendant, they would be outside of the appeals time frame to submit an appeal to the IAS as the parking charge had been incurred over three months prior to the Defendants letter. The Defendant could have contacted the IAS to submit their mitigating circumstances but failed to do so and should this have happened the IAS would have advised the Defendant to make a request to my Company to submit a non-standard appeal, with the costs being incurred by the Defendant. For the avoidance of doubt, no request was made to submit a non-standard appeal.
    Timeline of Events
    21. My Company is perplexed with regard to the timeline of events that happened at the time the charge was incurred; …. The vehicle was first observed as being parked on the Relevant Land at 17:20, a fact that is disputed by …. in their appeal but has no evidence to the contrary. ii. The pay and display ticket was purchased at 17:27 and displayed by either …. or the Defendant. My Company cannot ascertain at what point based on the timeline of the Defendant’s events that whether the ticket was purchased prior to the Defendant taking the first two ladies to the entrance of the pub or after. iii. The charge was issued at 17:35 iv. The last photograph is taken at 17:44 4 22. It would be reasonable to assume a member of the defendant’s party fell on the way INTO the pub, as stated in their appeal letter. However no mention of a fall is made to the parking officer, and should a fall of such severity that it required medical attention, have occurred the defendants priority ought to have been the injured party. No Contract
    23. The Defendant suggests there was no contract. The rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to park their vehicle on the Relevant Land and adhere to the terms of parking; to have both a valid ticket whether that be physical or electronic and a valid disabled badge displayed or to park not in accordance with the terms and to agree to pay consideration in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100.00.
    24. In the case of Alder v Moore (1961) the Court concluded that one should consider the obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used i.e. the agreement’s substance, not form.
    25. The principles in this case are the same as in the Parking Eye case, save that in the Parking Eye case, as the particular parking rules were different, the rule breached was that motorists must leave the site within 2 hours, whereas here, as set out above, the rule was to display a valid disabled blue badge aswell as a valid parking session. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the Sign and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.
    26. The Court may conclude that the Land is managed as follows; the Claimant grants a contractual license to all; this license allows anyone permission to be on the Land. This is inferred by the nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard, the Defendant (as were all the motorists) was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a £100 charge. The acceptance was at the point the Defendant decided to park, having read the sign, and their consideration was the promise to pay £100.00 for the privilege of parking contrary to the terms and conditions. The Claimant’s consideration is the provision of parking services. The Disabled Badge 27. My Company does not consider the actions resulting in this parking charge being issued to a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
    28. My Company adheres to the International Parking Community (‘IPC’) Code of Practice which states that reasonable adjustments are to be made to assist disabled people to use any services that are provided. It is for the parking operator to determine what is necessary on their individual sites, which include wider parking bays marked for disabled drivers, which my Company has adhered to.
    29. The Defendant avers that displaying a valid disabled badge is ‘a Council-only scheme’, which is rejected. As per Disabled Motoring UK’s website, motorists are reminded that when parking on private land ‘it is important to check signage for terms and conditions of each car park’. The Defendant would be aware that parking regulations that apply on a public highway do not apply to private land as this is detailed in their Disabled Blue Badge guidelines (which accompanies the blue badge itself) to check the signs on such land before leaving their vehicle unattended. 5
    30. The Department for Transport’s document entitled ‘The Blue Badge: rights and responsibilities in England’ states that ‘incorrect display of the badge may result in a parking fine’. Therefore, by the badge not being displayed at all, the parking charge was issued correctly. 31. Whether the Defendant is in possession of a disabled blue badge or not, is immaterial to this case as the requirement is to display this badge, in order to park in a disabled bay. My Company’s parking attendants cannot assume that by a vehicle being parked in a disabled bay, a passenger or driver of the vehicle is disabled and despite the Defendant’s assertion that the vehicle is clearly marked as a disabled vehicle and the DVLA are aware of the same, my Company were not aware of such information at the time the parking charge was issued and should this information have been available it would not render the parking charge invalid.
    32. It is an integral part of the parking scheme that a valid disabled badge is displayed as otherwise the scheme would be unmanageable; my Company’s parking attendants would have no way of determining whether the vehicle was permitted to park in that marked bay. If my Company were to waive one charge on the basis put forward in the Defence it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant. Charge is excessive/No loss suffered
    33. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s legitimate interest. In the case of Parking Eye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.
    34. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect. No authority to enforce charges
    35. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences my Company’s authorisation to operate/manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the Landowner.
    36. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186 1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning. 2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. 6 If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the land. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking” Particulars of Claim
    37. The claim is issued through the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules, with only brief details of the claim being allowed to be inserted. In any event, it is confirmed that the particulars of claim contained sufficient information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to, namely; i. The date of the charge; ii. The vehicle registration number; iii. The parking charge notice number; iv. The amount outstanding; v. It is for a parking charge; vi. The claim is for a debt;
    38. Further to the above, prior to proceedings being issued, the Defendant was sent notices from my Company, they appealed the charge providing a detailed account of the circumstances as to why the parking charge arose and a Letter Before Claim dated 10 July 2017. Therefore, the Defendant was fully aware of the nature of the claim prior to receiving the claim form.
    39. Should the Court be of the belief the particulars of claim are insufficient, my Company’s instructed legal representatives would have been ordered to file and serve further particulars of claim, which has not been the case.
    40. It is denied that my Company uses the small claims track as a form of aggressive automated debt collection. My Company is a member of the International Parking Community (‘IPC’) which is an Accredited Trade Association within the parking sector and we are authorised to issue parking charges and seek recovery of the same through the small claims track. My Company has done only what is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to facilitate the recovery of this debt. 41. The Defendants opinion on my instructed legal representatives is not relevant to this claim. 7 The Current Debt
    42. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred.
    43. My Company is an Accredited Operator of the International Parking Community (IPC) who prescribes a maximum charge of £100. The Code of Practice states: "Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/ or other documentation. Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated."
    44. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the initial 28 days allowed or the further 28 days allowed after the Notice to Keeper has been sent, the parking charge has become overdue and a reasonable sum of £60 has been added.
    45. The Sign states the prescribed charge for failing to comply with the terms is £100, however it also specifies ‘enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge.’ Further the Letter Before Claim also made it clear the debt may increase in respect of costs and interest if a claim had to be issued. Due to the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company's legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd, who were instructed to commence legal proceedings. The potential additional costs mentioned above are now sought.
    46. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Aug 18, 6:02 PM
    • 37,323 Posts
    • 21,513 Thanks
    Quentin
    That is their witness statement (not a defence or POC)


    You do yours which will presumably be contradicting theirs in many places!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,422Posts Today

8,306Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @PheebsVyse: We had to watch @MartinSLewis instead of bake off tonight and mum and dad have gone and saved £662 + £200 off tax this yea?

  • Hi folks. We've just left st George's hall. Am shattered. Hope you enjoyed the show. Martin And thanks Oli for twe? https://t.co/vpHEa53rug

  • And that's a wrap! This is MSE Oli signing off - the next tweet will be from Martin. #MartinLewis

  • Follow Martin