PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

SiP PCN Leicester, Defence help needed?
ludzy
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 18:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



Hi,

The driver has been using the same SiP carpark on and off for over a year now and back in March the driver returned to my car to find a PCN attached the the windscreen. The reason stating that "The vehicle was parked in a manner where by the driver is liable for a parking charge in accordance with the signage as displayed in the car park". Apparently the drivers ticket expired even though the driver paid the all-day parking fee.

Upon inspection the driver noticed that some of the large parking display signs didn't match. Some clearly stated the fee was £2 all-day and others said £2.50, but the interesting thing is and these signs are huge and that the ones that said £2.50 the 50 had just been added on and the font was so small theres no way you could have noticed this. Also there was no decimal place so the driver could argue the price could be £250!!! The driver has past and recent photos of these signs to prove my claim.

I appealed straight away as I'm the registered keeper which I think must have been ignored as I received a NTK letter in May asking for £100. As I was rushing I didn't send my appeal by recorded delivery so I have no proof of sending. I'm unsure if SiP don't reply to failed appeals or never received it? I did not respond to the NTK until I received two letters on dated on the same day in June. These were a 'payment overdue' letter asking for £115 and a 'notice of impending legal action' letter asking for £125. I did respond to these letters again stating the poor signage is compliant etc. I did get a reply this time early July basically saying I didn't appeal in time!!

I received my County Court claim form stating I now owe a total of £240.12 I've acknowledge this claim and said I will defend but now I'm at a lose as to how I compile my defence to send off? Obviously my argument is that I paid the all-day parking charge as stated on the signage ( and have done for a year). There half hearted approach at changing the signage to match there price increases was poor. And clearly a poor way at informing the public of any changes to there T&C's.

I just dont know any legal laws that I can add into my defence. I've looked at afew other defences posted but just dont think I'll word it correctly etc...

Any help or advice will be greatly received.

I've included a picture of the signage

Many thanks

Attached Image


This post has been edited by ludzy: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 06:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 18:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 19:52
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You need to ACKNOWLEDGE the claim online. Today. What is the issue date? You have 33 days from date if issue once you have acknowledged the claim, for the court to receive your printed, signed, scanned to pdf and emailed defence.
Do not contest jurisdiction
Do not start the defence. This must be completely blank for now.

You have at least three, with poor signage and complied with the signs being at least two. Consumer rights act 2015 states that any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumers favour. Clearly here there is ambiguity.

Have a look for sip claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 19:57
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:52) *
You need to ACKNOWLEDGE the claim online. Today. What is the issue date? You have 33 days from date if issue once you have acknowledged the claim, for the court to receive your printed, signed, scanned to pdf and emailed defence.
Do not contest jurisdiction
Do not start the defence. This must be completely blank for now.

You have at least three, with poor signage and complied with the signs being at least two. Consumer rights act 2015 states that any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumers favour. Clearly here there is ambiguity.

Have a look for sip claims.


Thanks for the response. I've already acknowledge the claim online I'm just stuck on the wording of my defence. I can argue my case to a person but writing it down and using legal terms and law baffles me.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:00
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,413
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



What do the particulars of claim say?

The NtD was no where near good enough to convey the alleged 'offence.' What has subsequent paperwork revealed about the driver's supposed transgression?


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:07
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What sip defences have you looked at?
We can’t just write it for you. This is YOUR defence, you must understand it yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 21:00) *
What do the particulars of claim say?

The NtD was no where near good enough to convey the alleged 'offence.' What has subsequent paperwork revealed about the driver's supposed transgression?


Particulars of the claim:

"The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on XXXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Richard III Road Leicester. The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for the parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £5.12 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:30
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,901
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



That is the most ridiculous sign I’ve ever seen. Is there a pay meter? What does that look like?


--------------------
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
ludzy
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 20:42
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 21:30) *
That is the most ridiculous sign I’ve ever seen. Is there a pay meter? What does that look like?


I don't have any picture of the pay meter but I would assume that says £2.50 for all day. All of the signs are like the one in the picture. Some just have a little 50 stuck on and some have that and a decimal point. All are tiny add-ons though. As the driver used that carpark for a while it just gets routine parking up and paying the £2 then placing the ticket in the window.

This post has been edited by ludzy: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 17:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 21:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,901
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The defence should be constructed in a logical order.

The signs first but as a backup that the amount is a penalty not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis. The 'ignored' appeal mentioned too.

The 'unpaid' 50p cannot give rise to the charge. Whilst Beavis is about free car parks it can still very much apply in the Judge's mind and you need to change that. (Beavis is about whether the sums demanded have a commercial justification and that they do not need to be an actual 'loss')

The BPA have a specific point about changing terms and that clear signage is required to advise - these are IPC members, read their Code of Practice and highlight where they have failed to comply too.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 21:07


--------------------
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
ludzy
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 21:20
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 22:03) *
The defence should be constructed in a logical order.

The signs first but as a backup that the amount is a penalty not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis. The 'ignored' appeal mentioned too.

The 'unpaid' 50p cannot give rise to the charge. Whilst Beavis is about free car parks it can still very much apply in the Judge's mind and you need to change that. (Beavis is about whether the sums demanded have a commercial justification and that they do not need to be an actual 'loss')

The BPA have a specific point about changing terms and that clear signage is required to advise - these are IPC members, read their Code of Practice and highlight where they have failed to comply too.


Many thanks. I'll get reading up on some cases and get a draft written up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 05:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,592
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I can't see a judge taking long to dismiss that claim with that 'honey trap' signage, but you need to defend on all aspects so photo's of the signs that detail the penalty are needed as well.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 12:18
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 06:35) *
I can't see a judge taking long to dismiss that claim with that 'honey trap' signage, but you need to defend on all aspects so photo's of the signs that detail the penalty are needed as well.


Thanks. I'm going to have a walk round the carpark after work and take pictures of all the signs and pay meter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 18:41
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



So I've taken some extra photos of the signs and SiPs t&c's board.

Attached Image


Attached Image


Attached Image


I need to get another picture of a board on the main road directing people to this car park as that is the same as the others seen. There are 8 in total of the t&c's board placed around the carpark. Also which I never actually thought of until today is that on the same road (dead end) there are 2 SiP car parks next to each other. Each has a different entry point and once in you cant get to the other so technically I would say its 2 different locations. None are mark "zone A or B" etc. On the PCN & NTK nothing is mentioned as to which carpark this is for. It just says the Road name which both are on. I'm I correct in thinking this is a major fail on SiPs part??? The driver used the later of the 2 carparks and I'm sure the 1st carparks prices are £2.50 allday with a "proper" board and large font. The last picture was taken infront of the 1st carpark clearly pointing/advertising that another SiP carpark in to the right, & you can clearly see that is poorly displayed and worded.

If by SiP not narrowing down the actual location of the PCN & just putting the road name this is clearly in breach of POFA 2012??

Thanks

This post has been edited by ludzy: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 17:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 19:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,413
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



Can anyone work out the alleged offence from the information given?

Fails Beavis on prominence of charge on signs.



--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Mon, 9 Oct 2017 - 20:07
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



Well I'd say the offence has clearly got to be the signs displaying the charge & poor attempt to change them... As for the legal term for that I don't know??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 01:06
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I think the point being made is tha5 the description tells a keeper nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 06:26
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,592
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The claim doesnt say if they are claiming from you as keeper or driver (which provide different defences) the driver may have na idea why the tcket was issued but its not in the claim, the keeper would have no idea at all and cannot defend it.

Edit your posts above, refer only to the driver as 'the driver' don't make it easy for them. every thread will tell you this!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



So I think i've finally got all the information I need to get this defence written up. Sorry for the essay sad.gif

The reason for PCN issue is exceeded time.

1. PCN (windscreen sticker)

REASON : Exceeded Time
Ticket expired 13:10:00
Time PCN issued 14:50:45

PCN states the driver is liable.

2. NTK

REASON : Exceeded Time

" The driver accrued a PCN in accordance with the signage as displayed at the location described below. The driver of the above vehicle is liable for a parking charge in the above amount which, at the date of this notice, remains unpaid in full and for which the balance due remains outstanding. The charge was issued in: Richard III Road, Leicester at 14:50:00. The parking charge notice (notice to driver) was affixed to the windscreen of the above vehicle at the time of issue. This charge relates to the period of parking that immediately preceded the issue of that notice, the charge having been incurred for the reason as stated above is the liability for the same brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the location above at the time of parking.

We, the above named company, are the creditor. At the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and as registered kepper of this vehicle you are invited to"

Pay the PCN or name the driver etc.....

3. Payment overdue letter

REASON : Exceeded time

Again this letter states the that the PCN was issued in accordance to the signage at the location. Basically the same letter as the NTK. Also states that after the period of 14 days beginning the day after the notice was given the charges will go up and "I" will be liable. Does not state if I'm liable as the driver or keeper??

4. Notice of impending legal action

REASON : Exceeded Time

This letter also mentions that the PCN was issured in accordance with the signage displayed at the location. It mentions their have written to me (the kepper) on several occasions and no payment has been made and that the balance is outstanding (£125)

5. Final Reminder

REASON : Time exceeded

Now states the driver of the vehicle is liable. Again mentions the PCN was issued in accordance with the signage displayed at the location. £125 outstanding but will increase to £150 when they instruct Gladstones to get involved.

6. LBC

States that they have been instructed to start legal action against me (doesn't say as driver or keeper) due to me not providing a valid reason for non payment. The location of the PCN is again just the road and not the actual site. Asks me to aknowledge the letter and write back within 14 days with a description of the circumstances as to why the PDN was imposed. Also asks me to name the driver. I did acknowledge their letter, the driver was not named.

7. Court Claim form

The particulars of the claim are in one of my above posts. The claim form does not state the PCN number nor does it state the reason for the PCN just that the vehicle breached the t&cs of parking on the land at the location. Again no mention of the actual carpark just the road Sips 2 carparks are on. Says I (the defendent) was driving and /or is the registered keeper.

So as I (the defendent) see's it my arguments are that:

1. The actual location the PCN took place has not been named properly, just the road it's on. As theres 2 sip sites on the same road theres differentiation between them (entrances are not next to each other and the 2 are completely fenced in and not connected). Breach of POFA?????

2. As i believe the above to be a breach of POFA then the registered keeper cannot be held liable.

3. The poor signage. As the pictures I have uploaded show the poor attempt to change the signage around the site breaches the IPC code of practice and doesn't make the driver fully aware of any changes to their t&c's. These sign can be seen to be misleading and also incorrect as in some pictures no decimal places were used between the parking charge fees, making a allday fee of £2 becoming a fee of £250!!

4. The total amount due if the terms of parking are broken are £100 (again poorly stated in the terms signs). So it's unclear how now the PCN is now at a balance of £240.12.

5. Ignoring my appeal letter completely and countless letters which are viewed as a harassment for money.

6. Contradicting letters dated the same with 2 different figures owed. Again adding to the already confused and distressed state of the defendant.

Hope that covers my angles? If I've left anything please let me know. Also I do have copies of all letters received and sent....... But I can't find the parking ticket the driver bought!!!! Is this a major issue or would the operator that issued the PCN have taken a copy as surely SiP/Gladstones need to have proof that as they say the ticket ran out???

Thanks

This post has been edited by ludzy: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 20:57
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



A defence is a series of legal arguments
That is a mess

Have you looked at other defences?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 21:10
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 8 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,412



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 21:57) *
A defence is a series of legal arguments
That is a mess

Have you looked at other defences?



This isnt my defence. This is basically a timeline/breakdown of the information received. Just incase somebody on here spots something I may not have picked up on. And lastly the arguments I will use in my defence. I have no intention of sending this how its worded..
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, 19th June 2018 - 21:33
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.