SIP parking ltd small claims court for parking outside of bay, wheels over the line in car park somewhere in Birmingham |
SIP parking ltd small claims court for parking outside of bay, wheels over the line in car park somewhere in Birmingham |
Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,051 |
In November last year I was in Birmingham at a conference. Parked in a car park, paid for a whole day. On return around 10pm I saw I had a ticket. I did not check the ticket until I got home to Brighton. It was for parking outside the bay.
I threw it out. I later got a small claims. I defended it stating that I did not believe I had parked outside of the bay and that even if I had they suffered no financial loss. (The copy of the defence was accidently thrown out during building work at our house!) I didn't know about this forum at the time. I have looked through this forum now and realise that that was not the best defence. Because of distance I have no photos of the signage and I have no idea what the wording is. I have had the case transferred to a court near my home I am just waiting to be given a date. Is there anything else I can do? Thanks. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 11:40
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 10:21
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,051 |
|
|
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 10:48
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No
The Judge may want to see it. |
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 13:20
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,051 |
It means theyre saving themselves some cash WHen you get into the hearing, you ask that the court strikes out the WS - it clearly holds no value as they werent a witness to the events, have likely neevr even beent to he site, and their WS contains the following guess / assumption / mistake meaning it is suspect. A new letter arrived today asking to disregard the last one, as they will now be attending the hearing. Surely though all the arguments you have stated still count, as they would not have been witnesses etc? |
|
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 14:09
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes of course
But you need to show how obviously theyve never been to the site - and this is part of your skeleton argument. Think of the skellie as a bullet of your defence and how their claim fails. Rip apart their WS in it by summarising all the faults. |
|
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 13:38
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 25 Sep 2018 Member No.: 100,051 |
Thanks for your help. Unfortunately I lost.
The judge said he questioned my credibility! As soon as i sat down he asked me why did I think I should be alloed to park across 2 bays. I said I did not believe my wheels in another bay meant that I had parked across 2 bays and the fact that there was a car there when I returned demonstrated that. This was despite the fact that SIP could not show evidence of signs they said were in the car park. He was not interested in hearing anything other than discussions about signage. He awarded them full costs and then SIP asked for travel costs of £243 as they had driven from Manchester. Thank fully they were refused, but only on the basis that they had previously said they would not be attending. I'm very disappointed that this seems to have been judged on being corporate and i a suit as opposed to the evidence. He even told them where they should put a sign to avoid confusion. |
|
|
Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 08:22
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
QUOTE SIP asked for travel costs of £243 as they had driven from Manchester. Charmless weren't they. And a bit of a blow as there wasn't much in it. It's the DJ lottery. Who attended for them. Did you get a name? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:39 |