PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Defendant won against SIP Parking Ltd
greentree75
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,665



So, was at court this morning with SIP and the judge struck the claim out

Will post full report later, but could not have done it without the help of this forum, the people behind BMPA and Parking Pranksters website
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 2)
Advertisement
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 14:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
greentree75
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 18:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,665



We won!!!

Basically, the rep from SIP didn't turn up until 10.30. There was nobody from Gladstones.

He apologised when walked into the room, but don't think went down well with the judge.

The judge talked us through the process then said "Before we start with the nitty gritty, I have an issue I would like to bring up with the Claimant"

She talked through the Claimant's WS, and then came out with "Where is the evidence to prove that this is the sign in the car park?"

The rep replied "On the map of the car park in the WS"

The judge then said, "That doesn't prove that that is the sign, and where it is"

A bit of toing and froing, they both repeated the same thing several times, with the rep doing a lot of paper shuffling.

It looked like the judge was going to move on, but then made the point again, that she wanted proof that that was the sign, and then moved on that she wanted proof that there was a sign showing the higher tariff for vans at the entrance suitable for high vehicles.

More paper shuffling by the rep, then he said "I concede that I do not have the proof"

I held my breath, then the judge said, "I strike this claim out due to lack of proof"

I didn't even need to bring up costs, the judge asked if I had loss of earnings, I said yes, we discussed the £95, she asked the rep if he agreed, he just mumbled yes, looking sick as a parrot. He'd driven from Manchester and got stuck in traffic on the M62, felt a bit sorry for him.

Judge asked if there were any more costs, I pushed for unreasonable behaviour costs, judge said she didn't think their behaviour was unreasonable. Fair enough, no harm in trying.

It was an experience, and actually wished I'd been able to put all the research to use. But as I had questioned the certainty of the sign in the SA I suppose that may have helped.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 09:26
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,876
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Nicely done!

For unresaonale you need to look at Denton - that lays the tests out to pass unreaosnable, Always good to compare to case law, means the DJ has something to compare to. But no harm!

Can you please add a link to your original thread, if you have one? I cant recall if you do smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 20th July 2018 - 10:26
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.