PCN from SIP. app used to pay but wrong Reg No. in the app Options

[frogdip]

Hi

My Girlfriend parked in the Tariff street carpark in Manchester run by SIP. As she didn't have any change she re downloaded the app to pay. Unfortunately she has changed cars in the last month and hadn't updated the Reg No. So there was no ticket for the car she had parked and a PCN was placed on her car. The officer was still in the car park so she approached him and explained the situation. He assured her that if she contacted the company they would cancel the pcn.

She appealed through their website but it was rejected.

She is obviously very annoyed as she has paid to park and the landowner has lost nothing. Also she was lied to by their officer.

As they don't seemed to be using reasonable discretion I was hoping for some advice on the best way to fight this.

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

As they don't seemed to be using reasonable discretion I was hoping for some advice on the best way to fight this.

Unfortunately she'll have to wait and see if they issue a court claim. SIP are quite litigious.

There are some good arguments for defending, made much stronger but there operatives 'promise'.

[Redivi]

Promissory estoppel springs to mind

The operative made the promise that the PCN would be cancelled if she appealed and she acted on the promise instead of, for example, making a payment at a discount



Promissory estoppel springs to mind

The operative made the promise that the PCN would be cancelled if she appealed and she acted on the promise instead of, for example, making a payment at a discount or waiting for a Notice to Keeper

SIP cannot go back on the promise to demand payment for the parking notice

[frogdip]

Update

This is the appeal my gf sent, does the advice of the attendant have any bearing on this?

How would you argue Promissory estoppel?

I parked at a SIP car park on 18th Feb 2018 in a new car I recently bought (car details). I used the SIP app to pay, but unfortunately I didn't realise that I still had my old car (car details) registered on the app.

When I returned to my car I found a parking charge on it. I queried this with the attendant who discovered the mistake for me when he checked the records and saw that it was my old car and not the new one that I had paid the parking charge on. He assured me that I would not have to pay if I emailed SIP to let them know of this mistake as he said it is not legal for them to charge me twice for the same parking period.

However, when I emailed, my plea was rejected. I admit that it was a mistake on my part to have not realised that I was paying for the wrong car on the parking app, however they have now charged me twice. I would like to appeal SIPs decision regarding the rejection of my claim.

Thanks

[Redivi]

She must NOT appeal the decision

SIP is a member of the Independent Parking Community and the only appeal route is the IAS
This guarantees to reject 80% of appeals and her chances of success are zero
She's already made two bad mistakes by telling SIP she was driving and made a mistake

All she would do is hand SIP an "independent" decision to wave if they took her to court

She can argue Promissory Estoppel because an employee of SIP assured her that PCN would be cancelled and, by untruthfully telling her it would be illegal to pay for the correct car, prevented her from correcting the error in a way that would be fair

Her best tactic now will be to ignore all correspondence other than an actual Letter Before Claim

[frogdip]

Unfortunately she had already started the appeal with ias before i knew she had the ticket. Any advice on what to put in the appeal or further actions?

[nosferatu1001]

If she’s started the appeal with IAS, what has she already put?

[frogdip]

She has basically copied the original appeal she sent to sip which is included above.
One of there arguments is that they cant prove her old car wasn't also in the car park. But her old car is sorn so is that worth putting in the appeal.
Also the plastic wrapper the pcn is in states that it is an offence for an unauthorised person to interfere with it. But I believe that is incorrect as that only applies to a police pcn.

[Jlc]

Also the plastic wrapper the pcn is in states that it is an offence for an unauthorised person to interfere with it. But I believe that is incorrect as that only applies to a police pcn.

That has no legs here I'm afraid.

It's pretty meaningless statement though. One should try reporting an 'unauthorised interference' and see who's bothered...!

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 - 17:43