PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
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
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 17:09
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Respond back stating that their failure to manage the car park resulted in a loss of car parking spaces
The vehicle was clearly left as pragmatically as possible, and clearly by failing to provide the offered parking spaces, SIP cannot calim there is a contract.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:46
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 18:09) *
Respond back stating that their failure to manage the car park resulted in a loss of car parking spaces
The vehicle was clearly left as pragmatically as possible, and clearly by failing to provide the offered parking spaces, SIP cannot calim there is a contract.


Thanks for this response. I'll get that sent off right away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 12:45
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, you
Draft a ersponse
Let us havea look
THEN send it off
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:02
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:45) *
No, you
Draft a ersponse
Let us havea look
THEN send it off


Provisional response below. How does that sound?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 27th November 2018.

You state that items were kept in the ‘basement’ which is untrue. The dangerous, heavy duty objects were in the car park and blocking two car parking spaces which were hazard to the general public who entered.

The driver could not possibly park in the marked bay due to your incompetence and failure to manage the car park correctly which resulted in a loss of not one, but two, car parking spaces.

The vehicle was clearly left as pragmatically as possible, with consideration given to the hazardous objects which were obstructing the car parking spaces in question. By failing to provide the offered car parking spaces, SIP cannot claim there is a contract in place.

Yours faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 12:06
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



Hi all,

Planning to send the above off today. Is there anything else I need to add?

Thanks,
PP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 13 Dec 2018 - 12:12
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would just say "failure to manage" the car parking space and ofere the parking spaces your entire alleged contract is based upon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:37
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



Hi all,

I've had the below response from SIP claiming again that the spaces weren't obstructed. I took pictures on the day the notice was issued so I have proof that the bays were being encroached by the heavy duty trolley and fridges.



Would the next step to be show my hand with the images of the car parking bay? I've kept them close to my chest until now.

Thanks,
PP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 10:51
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,508
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



The aim of pre-court exchanges it to narrow the issues to prevent a claim. There's never a reason to 'withhold' to surprise the claimant. (The court will take a dim view of such practice)


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
parkingpaul
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:01
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



So next step would naturally to show them that my images clearly show that the loading trolleys were obstructing the bay?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:46
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, and it woudl show that they lied in their response

You would require them to expalin how these objects were NOT causing an obstruction
OR
How their failure to manage the car parking spaces, by allowing them to be obstructed, hasnt resulted in any offer of parking in a single space being impossible to perofrm.

OR similar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 11:50
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,508
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



But I don't think it will make them change their minds...


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:03
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, but their likely non-response to the fork will give you ammunition to allow a court to draw obvious conclusions, and if they directly lie it reduces their reliabiltiy as a witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingpaul
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:57
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



Thanks for your help so far. Here is my next response..

I repeat, you state that items were kept in the ‘basement’ which is untrue. The dangerous, heavy duty objects were in the car park and blocking two car parking spaces which were hazard to the general public who entered. You have failed to address this false claim in your previous letter.

Furthermore, you state that the heavy duty platform trolley was not causing an obstruction to the parking bay. Please see below for images of the heavy duty platform trolley and the car in said bay when it was issued a parking notice.

(images are here in letter)

It is clear to see that the heavy duty platform trolley was obstructing the parking bay to the front of the vehicle. By parking in the bay in question, the vehicle would have been at severe risk as the heavy duty platform trolley was insecure and could’ve fallen on the vehicle at any moment causing significant damage.

I require you to explain how this object was not causing an obstruction to the car parking bay. Your failure to manage the car park correctly, resulted in hazardous objects obstructing the parking bay which the driver was forced to avoid by parking to the right of the bay.

Yours faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:06
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,508
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Do they manage the car park?

(PPC's usually only infest the car park to issue invoices)


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
parkingpaul
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:09
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,421



I guess it's the landowners responsibility. From my limited knowledge, this surely means that they allowed the landowner to obstruct the car park with the object, therefore the stated contract is invalid as the offered bay wasn't available?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 15:17
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Im putting them on a fork, just yet another one

They alwasy claim they give value by "managing" the parking (we all know they dont, they do nothing at all but issue invoices) and thats the value in the contract, especially residential parkign with a pre-existing right, they claim they offer. No value, nothing to offer, no contract

So, either they say they manage the parking, and admit they failed on the day
OR
they say they dont manage the parking. They therefore have nothing to offer anyone with a pre-existing right to park.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ItsaFineCountry
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 16:36
Post #57


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,864



Your NTK does not look compliant to me as it does not define a period i.e. it does not have a start/stop time. For example, how would a keeper(not driver) receiving this NTK. know how long driver had gone over time. Street view of terms signage where it starts: Parking is permitted for.. is a 55 word sentence(if you look carefully) that reads as if authored by a 10 year old. The word Vehicles being capitalised wrongly a number of times. Google: Gov.uk sentence length why 25 words is our limit. This sign is intended to confuse reader so you dont bother reading on to where it mentions the £100 charge. The street view version of this sign also states 'you agree to pay a consideration' which has had yellow tape put over these words to now read 'you agree to pay a parking charge'. My guess is they have lost on this in court before. Consideration in the legal contract sense is not something average motorist would know. Maybe some of signs at your site have 'lost' this tape and could be photographed. The terms sign also has words 'important notice' at bottom? of sign in miniscule font...so PPC does not think terms very important then. It also says car park managed by SIP car parks but enforced by SIP parking so I would query if they have proper contract and authority to fine you. Companies house lists at least 10 various names for SIP parking over the years eg SIP Car parks (UK) and SIP Carpark(UK) while SIP Parking limited was SIP Clamping...etc. so check wording on any contract carefully. I also see the familiar blue 'P' for parking sign is absent and their sign just have the SIP logo. Could it not be argued no 'offer' to park is clearly made because of this. I am no expert so get others advice on my comments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:33
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,508
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (ItsaFineCountry @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 16:36) *
Your NTK does not look compliant to me as it does not define a period i.e. it does not have a start/stop time.

The car was issued a NtD - the period of parking was unknown. (Which is why they usually state a period of parking preceding...)

You post is hard to read with carriage returns.


--------------------
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, SAR=Subject Access Request

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
cabbyman
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:46
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



A 25 word sentence length will have no bearing on this at all.



--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ItsaFineCountry
post Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 12:07
Post #60


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,864



Agree my post was hard to read without carriage returns. Sorry, was my first attempt as posting.
Was trying to help original poster notice the poor quality and confusing writing on the terms signage

Thought the sentence length would be applicable as it makes sign that much harder to read...I actually read it word for word rather than speed read it which is what we all naturally do.

Think this is deliberate on part of SIP parking. Author of first part of sign having writing skill of a 10 year old yet further down sign where it says 'You agree to pay consideration in the form...'ie the bit about the £100 charge, and the author now has the writing skill of a contract lawyer.

I also notice sign has both SIP carparks and SIP parking mentioned on it. Does this not conflict with Consumer Rights act.?Ie who is driver's contract with, who would driver (the customer) sue for example.

Hope my newbie attempt to help is not having opposite effect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:10
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here