SIP Letter Before Claim |
SIP Letter Before Claim |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 11:46
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,421 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 - 13:02
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 16 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,421 |
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, |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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, |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:10 |