PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

SIP Letter Before Claim
parkingpaul
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:15
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



Hi all,

Sorry for another one of these threads, however I can’t seem to find the exact response to this case.

In Feb 2018, a ticket was issued for parking outside a marked bay in an underground car park. The reasoning for this was that a trolley/object from the car park was in the way of the space and couldn’t be moved, therefore the car was parked slightly to the right to make sure the object wouldn’t fall on the car.

Having read forums, I ignored the letters that proceeded until today I received the letter before claim which asks me to pay £160 or potentially go to court. I understand the likelihood of this is low, but I also know now might be the time to respond.

I've heard people say ignore is the best remedy and the letters will go away as private car parks very rarely bother to go the full distance with the claim, but I feel like that's just wishful thinking.

What do you suggest I reply with for this case?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
PP

This post has been edited by parkingpaul: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 12:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,249
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The discount was only for the PCN placed on the car. It's lost when the NtK is sent out.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 10:51
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The IPC members do not give a discount on a NTK when there has been a windscreen ticket. Their excuse is that there has already been a discount offered on the NTD.

Here's the full legislation (POFA) covering this

In your case, with a windscreen ticket, then paragraph 8 applies. Note the "must" on 8 (2) If the statements are not substantially there then there is no compliance and no keeper liability.

Check the NTD and NTK. The details from the NTD must be copied correctly to the NTK.

Perhaps post up your NTK so that others can see it and comment?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 11:25
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 11:51) *
The IPC members do not give a discount on a NTK when there has been a windscreen ticket. Their excuse is that there has already been a discount offered on the NTD.

Here's the full legislation (POFA) covering this

In your case, with a windscreen ticket, then paragraph 8 applies. Note the "must" on 8 (2) If the statements are not substantially there then there is no compliance and no keeper liability.

Check the NTD and NTK. The details from the NTD must be copied correctly to the NTK.

Perhaps post up your NTK so that others can see it and comment?


Thanks, I've attached the NtK below. Any tips would be hugely appreciated.

Here's the first page of the NtK

Here's the second page of the NtK

This post has been edited by parkingpaul: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 11:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:12
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The letter looks as though it complies but what about the dates?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 12:30
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:12) *
The letter looks as though it complies but what about the dates?


The PCN was on the car on 15/02/18 and the NtK came through after 6 weeks later so 42 days. Are these the dates you refer to?

This post has been edited by parkingpaul: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 15:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 11:20
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



In terms of next steps, I've gathered that POPLA doesn't apply here so no point going for that. Would it be a letter of appeal based on the circumstances of how the bay was obstructed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 11:53
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The first steps of appeal are
1 - appeal to PPC
2 - if they offer POPLA then do so, if not dont appeal further

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Yesterday, 11:17
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



So there is no way of appealing to the PPC (SIP) this late in the process. When you don't appeal further, are you recommending just leaving this or going down a different route completely?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Yesterday, 11:43
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I told you the only route to take, ever.
You can still appeal to SIP - you just send a bloody letter if you need to! - at any time. their time limits are of no concern to the purpose of appelaing, which is showingreasonable behaviour.
Then you ignore the debt collector drivel
BUt you will know all this from reading a couple dozen threads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Yesterday, 15:27
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



My response is below, would you add/remove anything before sending across?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your response to a ‘letter before claim’ form issued on the 15th October 2018.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I wish to make you aware of the reasoning for the vehicle being parked across two parking bays. As you can see from the pictures of the vehicle, the car was parked by the driver one and a half foot to the right of the bay. This was due to a heavy duty platform trolley obstructing the bay to the front. The vehicle was parked in such manner to avoid the heavy duty platform trolley from falling onto the bonnet of the car which would have caused serious damage. The heavy duty platform trolley was dangerously left on two wheels facing forward which was unstable and extremely hazardous.

The heavy duty platform trolley is property of SIP and any requirement to park within a bay was frustrated by SIPs failure to manage the space correctly.

The trolley was both a safety risk to members of the public passing by, as well as the driver in this instance and the vehicle in question.

Furthermore, a fridge was obstructing the bay to the right hand bay which also left the bay unparkable and rendered unsafe. Had anybody opened the door to the fridge, the vehicle in question would have been damaged to the bumper.

The two objects which were both dangerous and unnecessarily located within the grounds of the SIP car park and were both avoided by the driver who parked across the bay to avoid contact with both objects.

I expect your ‘parking charge’ to be rescinded upon receipt of the letter.

Your faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Yesterday, 15:32
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"I refer to your response to a ‘letter before claim’ form issued on the 15th October 2018."
What does this even mean? Their response? But htey issues the LBC, surely you are the one responding?
And if this is a LBA, you are far past the point of appealing. Now you are saying why you do not owe anything, legally
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Yesterday, 15:35
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



They responded to my initial letter asking for more details which included photography and signage.

This is an LBC, therefore I am outlining why I believe I don't owe anything which I'd appreciate advice on if possible please.

This post has been edited by parkingpaul: Yesterday, 16:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Yesterday, 15:48
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



LBA/LBC/LBCCC are all exactly the same. Different names for the same thing.

Your first sentence make no sense, regardless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Yesterday, 16:03
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



That's been changed now, I presume the rest of the letter is along the right lines?


Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to a ‘letter before claim’ form issued on the 15th October 2018.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I wish to make you aware of the reasoning for the vehicle being parked across two parking bays. As you can see from the pictures of the vehicle, the car was parked by the driver one and a half foot to the right of the bay. This was due to a heavy duty platform trolley obstructing the bay to the front. The vehicle was parked in such manner to avoid the heavy duty platform trolley from falling onto the bonnet of the car which would have caused serious damage. The heavy duty platform trolley was dangerously left on two wheels facing forward which was unstable and extremely hazardous.

The heavy duty platform trolley is property of SIP and any requirement to park within a bay was frustrated by SIPs failure to manage the space correctly.

The trolley was both a safety risk to members of the public passing by, as well as the driver in this instance and the vehicle in question.

Furthermore, a fridge was obstructing the bay to the right hand bay which also left the bay unparkable and rendered unsafe. Had anybody opened the door to the fridge, the vehicle in question would have been damaged to the bumper.

The two objects which were both dangerous and unnecessarily located within the grounds of the SIP car park and were both avoided by the driver who parked across the bay to avoid contact with both objects.

I expect your ‘parking charge’ to be rescinded upon receipt of the letter.

Your faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Yesterday, 23:51
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,197
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I refer to a ‘letter before claim’ form issued on the 15th October 2018.


Remove the word 'form'.

If you have not seen ALL photos taken and all letters/PCN (or if you haven't kept them) use this chance to tell them that you require SIP's Data Protection Officer to provide as a SAR, all photos and all letters/PCN sent and anything they hold by way of data or communications with the landowner that explains why this fridge and trolley were littering the bays that day.

What makes you say this fridge and trolley were the property of SIP, how can that be they are just a parking firm parasite, not the landowner?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Tuesday, 13th November 2018 - 03:36
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.