SIP Letter Before Claim Options

[parkingpaul]

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]

[Jlc]

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

[ostell]

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?

[parkingpaul]

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

[ostell]

The letter looks as though it complies but what about the dates?

[parkingpaul]

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

[parkingpaul]

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?

[nosferatu1001]

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

[parkingpaul]

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?

[nosferatu1001]

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.

[parkingpaul]

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,

[nosferatu1001]

"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

[parkingpaul]

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: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 16:03

[nosferatu1001]

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

Your first sentence make no sense, regardless.

[parkingpaul]

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,

[SchoolRunMum]

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?

[parkingpaul]

Thanks SRM. I've removed 'form'. So I should refer to the fridge and the trolley as the 'landowners property rather than SIP? There were actually loads of them stocked up in a bay opposite too - it's looks like a fly tip!

[nosferatu1001]

Well, if you doint know whos they are, you cannot say it was SIPs!
What you can say is that SIP have failed to manage the car park, as these obstructions wouldnt exist, if they were actually *managing* the carpark...

[parkingpaul]

Hi all,

Update here. I have attached the letter in reply to my last response. They are basically saying 'if you didn't like the spot then don't park there'. They've also said I wouls have to contact the landowner for their reasoning to keep such items on the land and blocking the parking spaces.

Part 1
Part 2

What would you recommend as next steps? I was going to ask for the landowners details?

Thanks,
PP

[nosferatu1001]

I cant see googledocs - tinypics etc are usually betyter for hosting pictures as you can load the images directly onto the forum using the IMG tags

[parkingpaul]

Sorry, hopefully this should work!