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 (20 - 23)
Advertisement
post Sun, 8 Oct 2017 - 18:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ludzy
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 23:33
Post #21


Member


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



ok so heres my first draft defence.. The layout has changed as I've copied and pasted it over abit which I'm aware of.

Rip it apart and tell me what I've done wrong..


I am XXXX XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, XXX, XXX, defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

2. The claim form itself is vague and lacks information as to actual location of the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim are in breach of PoFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 4 and merely state the road that the claim is being made upon. As stated in PoFA 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 2a “ The notice must - (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”. As the claimant hasn’t complied to PoFA 2012 schedule 4 in full there is no liability against the defendant.

a) There is no mention in the claim form as to the total time the vehicle was parked and reason for claim other than breaching the terms of parking.
b) The claimant has two parking locations on the road mentioned in the claim form. The claim form does not detail which location the claim relates to.
c) These two parking locations have their own unique location number and are fenced in from one another plus have their own vehicle entrances.
d) Not only are these two locations distinguished by the above but also each has different parking charges advertised on the signs by each location. This shows that each location are separate areas from each other and cannot be claimed as or referred to as a ‘main’ and ‘overflow’ carpark.
e) As the Claimant and their solicitors have failed to notify the Defendant of the actual location of the claim on numerous occasions the Defendant again cannot be held liable for this claim. POFA 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 8 states that for ‘the keeper’ to be held liable certain conditions have to be met, namely “specifying the relevant land as to which the vehicle was parked”. The road name alone is not enough to justify this claim.


3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Both the claimant and the claimants solicitors have failed to acknowledge or respond to communications from the defendant.

a) The claimant failed to respond to the defendants appeal after the NTD (Notice to driver) was issued, even when copies of photographic evidence were used by the defendant the claimant failed to respond.
b) The claimants solicitors did not respond to the defendant's reply to the LBCC (Letter Before Claim). Again the defendant stated all the true facts and clear points as to why this claim is false.
c) The claimant sent two separate letters delivered the same day and both dated (06/06/17) for two different sums of money (£115 and £125). This makes me think that the claimant clearly has a complete disregard for the facts and their sole purpose is to harass and pressure the defendant into paying knowing full well the claim brought by them is based on their own incompetence and lies.

4. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

a) The total charge payable as described in the claimants poorly worded and positioned terms and conditions are £100. As to the how the claimant believes that fee now becomes £165.12 I am dumbfounded. Another blatant attempt to extract meaningless costs and charges on an already lost case for them.

5.It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and text size hence incapable of binding the driver.

a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage which is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice as of which any contract believed to have been entered into with the Claimant is void.
b) Parking charge signs have been altered from their original state in such a way that it is not only misleading to drivers but completely unjustified and again proves the incompetence and inability from the Claimant to abide by the guidelines set in place.
c) The ‘allday’ parking fee signage displayed on entry is clearly in place to confuse and mislead the driver. This sign alone cancels any contract that the Claimant believes the Defendant to have entered into. The fact that the Claimants whole claim is based on this signage and apparent breach of terms and conditions from these signs again shows a complete lack personalization to this case and points to another ‘cut & paste’ claim brought forward from the Claimant and their solicitors.
e) All signs present are in clear violation of the IPC (International Parking Community) guidelines E.23.
The signs are solely there to ‘entrap’ the driver(s) into a false contract and give a way for the Claimant to start the harassment process and try to force the inflated fees upon us.

5. The Claimants details do not match that of the details on signage which the Claimant is using to form a contract.

(a) The Claimants name used on the claim form are SIP PARKING LTD, yet on the signage at the parking location the name used is SIP CAR PARKS LTD. The Defendant is confused as to why the Claimant has brought this case against them when the signage prove otherwise.



Thanks




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 18:16
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,596
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No chance to look at it this weekend. Can regulars check please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ludzy
post Wed, 18 Oct 2017 - 21:36
Post #23


Member


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



My defence is complete. Whats the email address I send it to please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 07:35
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,118
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Sorry, first chance to really read. Your item 5 should be at the top. If the names really are different then there is no case to answer as you created a contract with one company but the claim is by another company who you did not contract with. But check that the signs really say SIP car parks ltd.
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, 18th September 2018 - 18:33
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.