-
It won't cost you anything to at least discuss this with Jackson. He is the expert in these situations.
If he thought there was a good prospect of success, he would claim the costs from the claimant.
-
How do I prove the predisposition? It'd be my word vs the solicitor and the judge, right? Unless the hearing is recorded?
I appreciate the recommendation but i doubt the legal services will be free, i do not want to fall into a legal fight that will cost me more than time.
I've never been remotely involved with anything like this before, it's unfortunately made it clear that judgements are not always fair, despite the evidence.
-
Based on what you have reported, the following concerns arise from the conduct of the hearing:
1. Apparent predisposition and impartiality concerns
It is deeply troubling that the judge volunteered that he "knew the car park well" and agreed with the solicitor representing the Claimant regarding the signage and site conditions. A judge’s personal familiarity with a location subject to dispute — especially when untested by evidence and based on personal experience — raises a real risk of apparent bias. The correct course for the judge would have been to recuse himself if he considered he could not be wholly objective. The test for apparent bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased (Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67).
2. Failure to address the pleaded issues
Your witness statement raised cogent legal challenges regarding:
• The Claimant’s lack of standing to enforce parking terms (absence of landowner authority).
• Serious defects in the signage (including non-compliance with the IPC Code of Practice).
• The incoherent escalation of amounts demanded (£100 / £115 / £125 / £160).
• Procedural unfairness in the Claimant’s pleadings and conduct.
The Defendant is entitled under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to have pleaded matters properly considered. The court is obliged by CPR 1.1 (Overriding Objective) to ensure that cases are dealt with fairly and justly. A failure to engage with key issues raised may amount to an error of law.
3. Weight attached to signage and contract formation
While it is correct that a driver may enter a contract by parking and paying, it must still be a fair and lawful contract with adequate and transparent signage. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 was predicated on very clear, prominent, and simple signage, unlike here where you evidenced small print, unreadable signs, and lack of entrance signage.
4. Possible grounds for appeal
There appear to be arguable grounds that the judgment was unjust due to:
• Apparent bias or predisposition (familiarity with the car park and agreement with the solicitor without relying on evidence presented).
• A failure to consider critical issues properly (e.g., landowner authority, signage defects, contradictory amounts).
Breach of the Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1).
However, appealing a small claims judgment is not easy. Permission to appeal would be required, and the standard is whether the decision was wrong in law or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity (CPR 52.21). There is usually a 21-day deadline from the date of the hearing to apply for permission to appeal.
It is important to note that appeal courts are reluctant to interfere with a judge’s findings of fact unless there is clear evidence of material error or injustice.
Given the circumstances of the hearing and the potential concerns regarding apparent bias, procedural unfairness, and the dismissal of key arguments without proper consideration, I strongly recommend that you now seek formal legal advice.
In particular, I would suggest that you contact Contestor Legal Services (https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk) and ask to speak with Jackson Yamba. Jackson is a barrister with considerable experience in parking litigation and small claims appeals. He has successfully acted in several notable appellate cases, including Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], Civil Enforcement v Ming Tak Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44], CPM v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], and VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C]. He is particularly experienced in issues relating to procedural irregularities arising in parking claims.
Jackson will be well placed to advise you on:
1. Whether an appeal is realistically viable;
2. The prospects of obtaining permission to appeal;
3. The potential risks and costs associated with appealing;
4. Whether a formal complaint about the hearing procedure would also be appropriate.
He can assess your situation fully, including whether it is worth pursuing an appeal based on the judge's apparent predisposition and failure to address material issues. Given the strict 21-day deadline to apply for permission to appeal from the date of the judgment, I recommend you make contact without delay.
As a disclaimer, I have no connection with Contestor Legal Services but I do occasionally communicate with Jackson Yamba.
-
The judge said he knew the car park well, early on. Which i thought was odd, as he was agreeing with the solicitor who said the same (both clearly Leicester locals). I think this predisposition put me at an unfair advantage as he basically disregarded all of my points in the WS, he kept reiterating the signage was clear etc.
-
We try to keep a record of the courts that are up to speed with these rogue operators and those where there appears to be a dismal lack of understanding.
What made you say that the moment you walked in, the judges mind was made up?
-
Leicester county court. I don't recall the judges name, he was rather young for a judge, truth be told. I should be able to get his name if I do a little digging.
-
Which county court and which judge?
-
He didn't want to set a precedence.
County Court judgements do not set precedent. One County Court judge is not bound by the judgement of another.
But they do often want an easy life, which depending on 'judge bingo', can work against you.
-
My WS was heard and considered but like i said, I could tell from the moment I walked in, the judges mind was made up. He didn't want to set a precedence.
Appreciate all your help.
-
Sorry to hear that. Was your WS even considered? What were you asked? What did you say?
Judge bingo can be a problem.
As long as the judgment is paid within 30 days, there will be no CCJ on your credit record
-
I've got out of the hearing. The judge ruled in their favour effectively arguing that I entered into a contract when I parked there and bought a ticket. His mind was made before I got into room, i was in the room with their solicitor too.
He didn't acknowledge really any of my arguments, specifically the land registry argument, he said "it doesn't help my case" in fact. The signage argument was dismissed, he simply argued that i entered into a contract and therefore I'm liable.
I tried.
-
Perfect, thank you.
-
If you carefully read the Land Registry document you showed us the information about the lease dates and the parties to the lease was sourced directly from Entry 2 of the A: Property register section of the Land Registry Title LT504504 for the car park at Nelson Street, Leicester (LE1 7BA).
Here is the exact text from that section:
Entry 2 – Short particulars of the lease(s) (or under-lease(s)) under which the land is held:
Date: 23 March 2018
Term: Commencing 23 March 2018 and expiring on 24 March 2028
Parties: (1) Culsom (U.K.) Limited and Sansom Enterprises (Midlands) Limited
(2) SIP Car Parks Limited
This confirms:
• The lease start date: 23 March 2018
• The lease end date: 24 March 2028
• The lessors (landlords): Culsom (U.K.) Ltd and Sansom Enterprises (Midlands) Ltd
• The lessee (leaseholder): SIP Car Parks Limited
Paragraph 22 should be "version 8". Unfortunately, this forum software tries to replace some text as smileys and the "8)" is the text for that smiley. I've asked for smileys to be turned off, so it should appear normally now. Even with that, I hope you sent it yesterday.
-
I have a couple of points I'd like clarified please.
Point 12 in the WS references lease holders that are not referenced in the document I got from the land registry, where was this information gleamed from?
Point 22 in the WS doesn't reference the actual version, it looks like a keyboard short cut for a smiley face emoji accidentally got inserted, can you confirm the version number please? (Sorry, I didn't notice this in my rush to get this WS submitted).
-
Unless the claimant discontinues, you will be expected to attend the hearing. If you're unsure about what this involves, here is a short video that explains what will happen on the day:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
It would be worthwhile calling the court the day before to double check that the hearing hasn't been vacated. Arrive early at the court and find out at what time your hearing has been listed. You can let the usher know you have arrived.
The Claimant themselves are not likely to be there but they will have engaged a local gun-for-hire legal rep, who may try and make contact with you before the hearing. My advice is don't engage with them but be polite. It is also likely that they will not know much about your case and will have had very little time to prepare.
Make sure you fully understand your case and the points being made in your WS. Your main points are that the claim did not comply with SCR 16.4 as it did not adequately explain the claim against you. It was not until you received the claimants WS at the latest minute that you were able to fully understand the claim.
You should understand why the claimant, from what we can tell from the contract they have evidenced, does not actually have any right to make the claim as they are not a party to the contract itself. The Land Registry records have revealed this and you need to understand that point.
The other argument you are making and their own evidence proves it is that their signage at the location is terrible and unreadable, especially in the dark.
Let us know how you get on.
-
Thanks for this. It has been submitted.
What happens next, I expect I need to attend the hearing? What usually happens? - I've never been engaged with anything remotely related to what I'm going through right now.
-
I've not had much time to fully consider all the failures in the claimants WS but this is what I suggest you email to the court ASAP. You will need to include a copy of the land registry document you obtained and mark it an exhibit XX-01 (where XX is your initials) and also edit in the WS at paragraph 12.
You must save it all as a single PDF and email it as an attachment in an email addressed to both hearings.leicester.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and info@sipcarparks.co.uk and also CC in yourself. The email subject will have to have the claim number in it and you will have to explain in the body of the email that it contains the Witeness Statement for the claim referenced:
IN THE COUNTY COURT LEICESTER
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
SIP Parking Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the date in question. The facts stated in this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge, belief, and recollection.
2. On 2 August 2022, I parked at Nelson Street, Leicester and paid for a 3-hour parking session using the method prescribed at the location. I made a genuine attempt to comply with the advertised terms of parking by paying for a substantial period in advance.
3. I left the site and returned later that day. Based on the times the Claimant has now disclosed, the total stay may have slightly exceeded the paid-for period. However, I acted in good faith and never intended to avoid payment.
4. Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), I recall submitting an appeal via the Claimant’s website explaining the situation. I believe I offered to cover any underpayment should there have been a minor overstay. I have searched but cannot locate a copy of that appeal or any response. Nonetheless, I acted promptly and in good faith.
5. The Claimant is SIP Parking Ltd, a company incorporated in England and Wales with company number 08456205, whose registered office is Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester M1 5AN. The Claimant asserts that it has authority to manage the site and issue PCNs.
6. However, when I received the Claim Form, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) were extremely vague. They did not include a copy of the contract or PCN, did not state how or where I was said to have breached any terms, and did not make clear whether I was being pursued as driver or keeper. There was also no breakdown of the amount claimed or how it had been calculated.
7. As a result, I filed a defence focused on the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4. I also submitted a draft order requesting that the court require the Claimant to provide further and better particulars. However, the court did not make such an order and instead allocated the matter to a hearing.
8. This course of action disadvantaged me significantly. The overriding objective under CPR 1.1 requires the court to deal with cases justly and fairly, ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and that proceedings are conducted efficiently and proportionately. I submit that allowing the claim to proceed without requiring proper PoC was not consistent with those principles.
9. It was not until 9 April 2025, just two days before my own witness statement deadline, that I received the Claimant’s witness statement and exhibits. That was the first time I saw any evidence relating to the alleged contract, signage, and the basis for the sum claimed. Only then did I finally understand the legal and factual basis of the claim.
10. Due to the lateness and volume of material disclosed by the Claimant at that stage, I required time to properly review and respond. My own witness statement is therefore being filed one day after the court deadline, and I respectfully request that it be accepted in the interests of justice and in accordance with CPR 1.1.
11. The Claimant relies on a document titled “Parking Management Service Agreement,” stated to commence on 1 August 2018. However, the signature page of this document is undated, casting doubt on when it was executed, if at all. More significantly, the agreement is not between the Claimant and the leaseholder of the site. Instead, it is a purely internal arrangement between two separate and legally distinct companies:
• SIP Parking Ltd (Company No. 08456205), the Claimant; and
• SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd (Company No. 08482680), which is not the landowner or leaseholder.
12. The Land Registry title for the site—exhibited at XX-01—confirms that the leaseholder of the car park at Nelson Street, Leicester (postcode LE1 7BA), under title number LT504504, is SIP Car Parks Limited (Company No. 11244191). The lease was granted by Culsom (UK) Ltd and Sansom Enterprises (Midlands) Ltd, commencing on 23 March 2018 and expiring on 24 March 2028. Neither SIP Parking Ltd nor SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd is mentioned in the lease title.
13. It follows that the Claimant, SIP Parking Ltd (08456205), holds no proprietary interest in the land. Nor does SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd (08482680), the party named in the contract with the Claimant. The two entities are distinct from SIP Car Parks Limited (11244191), which is the actual leaseholder.
14. The Claimant has not produced any documentary evidence—such as a sublease, a licence to manage, or a formal agency agreement—granting it authority from SIP Car Parks Limited to operate the site or enforce parking terms in its own name. No such agreement has been exhibited.
15. This absence of evidence is crucial. It is well established that a party seeking to enforce a parking contract must either have a proprietary interest in the land or possess valid written authority from the landholder to do so. In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, the Court of Appeal held that a party without landowner authority cannot offer contracts or enforce them.
16. The Claimant attempts to circumvent this legal requirement by relying on a contract with SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd. However, this is legally ineffective. SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd is neither the landowner nor the leaseholder, and there is no evidence that it holds any assignable interest or authority from SIP Car Parks Limited.
17. Furthermore, entry 3 of the Land Registry title expressly states that the lease is subject to restrictions on alienation. This means that SIP Car Parks Limited cannot assign, sublet, or licence the land—or any rights under the lease—without the landlord’s consent. The Claimant has not produced any evidence that such consent was sought or granted, nor that any such delegation of authority was even attempted.
18. In light of the above, the Claimant lacks the legal capacity to offer parking contracts to motorists, to enforce any alleged terms, or to bring this claim in its own name. The alleged contract between the Claimant and the Defendant is therefore void, as the Claimant had no legal standing to enter into it. Any purported agreement is ultra vires and unenforceable.
19. Even if authority could somehow be inferred, the signage provided by the Claimant does not create a fair or transparent contract. The core parking charge is buried in dense text and is not prominent. The sign fails to meet the standard required under ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the charge amount was large, prominent, and unambiguous.
20. It is not credible that I could have seen and understood the full terms, including any liability for a £100 charge, particularly in a short-stay car park where drivers are not expected to spend time reading large blocks of small print while under time pressure to pay and park. The alleged event occurred after dark, and the Claimant has not produced a single photograph showing the site in nighttime conditions.
21. The Claimant’s signage photographs are all taken in daylight and are of poor quality. The text is small, cluttered, and mostly unreadable even in ideal lighting conditions. None of the photographs are date-stamped or time-stamped. There is no evidence that they accurately reflect the signage present on the date of the alleged contravention or that they represent the visibility conditions as they were at the time.
22. Crucially, there is no entrance signage shown or referred to in the Parking Management Service Agreement, nor is any entrance sign visible in any of the images. This is a fundamental omission. Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (Version 8) requires that “where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs.” The Claimant has failed to comply with this basic requirement.
23. IPC Code of Practice Section 8.1 states: “The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.” Section 8.2 requires that the signage conform to the layout and presentation standards set out in Schedule 1. These include that signs must be clear, legible, and visible to motorists in the conditions in which enforcement occurs. Schedule 1 also requires that the text must be of an appropriate size and that signs used at night must be illuminated or otherwise made visible. The Claimant has not satisfied any of these requirements.
24. There is no evidence before the court that the signs were illuminated, nor that they were visible in darkness. No evidence has been produced of the lighting conditions in the car park, and the Claimant has provided no photographs showing visibility of the signage at night. It cannot be presumed that terms were effectively communicated, especially when all images are in daylight and of unreadable quality.
25. The Claimant seeks £100 for the alleged parking charge and a further £60 described variously as “debt damage,” “debt recovery,” or “enforcement” costs. There is no evidence that these additional sums were part of any contract I entered into, nor that they represent any genuine or incurred loss. At no point do the signs refer to a £60 surcharge being imposed in addition to the core charge.
26. Section 15.3 of the IPC Code of Practice permits a “reasonable sum” to be added to a parking charge once it becomes overdue, capped at £70 unless court proceedings have been initiated. However, the key requirement is that the added sum must be reasonable. The Claimant has provided no breakdown, no supporting documentation, and no explanation of how or why £60 is a reasonable or proportionate addition. It appears to be a pre-set figure imposed automatically, contrary to the requirements of the Code.
27. The £60 add-on is therefore arbitrary and unsupported. It is not referenced in the signage or PCN, nor has it been shown to relate to any specific loss or cost incurred. Its inclusion renders the claim unfair and potentially unlawful under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires contract terms to be fair, transparent, and not cause a significant imbalance between the parties.
28 In addition to the above, the Claimant’s own documentation is inconsistent and contradictory in terms of the amount demanded. The original Parking Charge Notice dated 2 August 2022 refers to a charge of £100. However, a letter dated 8 September 2022 demands £115 without explanation. A further letter dated 26 September 2022 demands £125, composed of a £100 charge plus a £25 “overdue fee.” A letter dated 14 October 2022 then demands £160, comprising the £100 charge plus a £60 “overdue fee.” These amounts differ significantly without any contractual or evidential justification.
29. The Claimant has therefore variously demanded four different amounts for the same alleged contravention—£100, £115, £125, and £160—without consistency, explanation, or transparency. These discrepancies were not disclosed at the time and only became apparent through the contents of the Claimant’s witness statement.
30. The shifting and inconsistent presentation of the debt is both confusing and prejudicial. It has made it impossible for me to know what was actually being demanded or on what basis. The claim lacks clarity, fails to meet the standards required by CPR 16.4, and falls well short of the transparency obligations imposed by both consumer law and the IPC Code of Practice.
31. The court is respectfully invited to find that the additional £60 fee is not recoverable and that the cumulative failings in signage, evidence presentation, and procedural conduct cast serious doubt on the credibility and enforceability of the entire claim.
32. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that the claim is entirely without merit. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate authority to operate at the site, has not produced reliable evidence of any contract being formed, and has pursued an incoherent and inconsistent claim based on unreadable signage and unjustified fees.
33. I invite the Court to dismiss the claim.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
-
Sorry, please try this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gghsqjmAqygxS3_g4b51cuJKVJCOh7yb/view?usp=drivesdk
-
You need to grant access to all
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gghsqjmAqygxS3_g4b51cuJKVJCOh7yb/view?usp=drive_link
This is all 74 pages, i hope its all legible. Unfortunately I do not have a printer or scanner, otherwise it'd have been easier to share the document!
-
OK thanks. I will aim to get you the rest of the document later tonight.
-
That you for that. The car park at Nelson Street, Leicester (LE1 7BA) is leased by a company called:
• SIP Car Parks Limited
• Company Number: 11244191
• Address: Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester M1 5AN
Their lease runs from 23 March 2018 to 24 March 2028, and it was granted by two companies: Culsom (UK) Ltd and Sansom Enterprises (Midlands) Ltd.
The lease also includes a condition that prevents or restricts the leaseholder (SIP Car Parks Limited) from giving away or transferring rights to other companies without the landlord’s permission.
This matters because the company that is suing you is SIP Parking Ltd [06752126], which is not the same company as SIP Car Parks Limited (the leaseholder)[08456205].
SIP Parking Ltd:
• Does not own or lease the land.
• Has not provided any contract showing they have permission to run the car park or issue parking charges.
• Only included a document showing an internal agreement between two SIP companies, neither of which actually holds the lease.
This is important because only the landowner or someone they have properly authorised in writing can:
• Put up signs offering parking contracts, and
• Take people to court over unpaid charges.
Since SIP Parking Ltd has not shown they have that authority, they may not be legally allowed to bring this claim.
In the meantime please get the rest of the claimants WS up on DropBox or Google Drive.
I don't have any more time now to deal with this but I will try and get something put together for you overnight so you can send to the court in the morning.
-
Found it, it was under a different post code but it's definitely the right place; https://imgur.com/a/A1FFgIn
-
Doing just that. 3 addresses show for that post code; 1, 1A and 3 Nelson Street, so trying to work out which to review.
-
I suggest you urgently check Land Registry for £3 for the landowner details of: Nelson Street LE1 7BF.
This could be crucial for your WS:
The Claimant relies on an internal agreement between SIP Parking Ltd and SIP Car Parks (1) Ltd. Neither of these parties is the landowner, and no evidence has been provided to suggest that either holds a lease, licence, or other proprietary interest in the land at Nelson Street, Leicester.
The absence of any signed agreement with the landowner or a title register extract confirming ownership by the Claimant fatally undermines their ability to offer parking contracts or pursue enforcement. This is a fundamental requirement established in Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186.
It is telling that the Claimant—who bears the burden of proof—has not stated anywhere in their Particulars of Claim or witness statement that they are the freeholder or leaseholder of the land in question. Nor have they exhibited a contract with the actual landowner. The Court is invited to draw the reasonable inference that neither SIP Parking Ltd nor its related company has the requisite authority to pursue this claim.
-
It does - i won't be able to get you that part of the WS until later tonight, as I'm currently butI will however.
The appeal i made back in 2022 was an email, simply stating i was slightly late getting back to my car and that the fine was ridiculous.
-
Does their WS include copies of correspondence/appeals that you made at the time? It is very important that I can see what is included with their WS in full (only redacting your personal info).
You will be able to submit your WS, albeit a bit late but that should not be fatal to your case. This is the small claims track and there is a bit of leeway for unrepresented lay persons.
However, I only have limited time for the rest of today and will need to work on this now.
-
Do you need the full 72 page document?
I've uploaded the first 14 pages which seemed the most pertinent in my previous post, the rest of the document seems to be either contract or the previous cases they cite.
-
Host the their WS on DropBox or Google Drive.
-
Have you received a copy of the claimants Witness Statement (WS) yet? Do not do anything until you receive a copy of theirs. You have until Friday 11th April to submit your WS. On Thursday 24th, remind us and we can put something together for you.
I received the WS via post on 9th of April 2025, however, I was away with work! Its a 72 page document, I was expecting an email. Surely this must be a tactic, to leave so little time in between receiving their WS and preparing my own? Can I argue this?
I believe I have now missed the deadline to submit my WS, which was meant to be on the 11th of April :(
What should be my next steps?
Here's the first 14 pages of their WS that I think are relevant: https://imgur.com/a/h1BS87k - just let me know if you need anymore information.
-
I've received nothing to date.
-
Have you received a copy of the claimants Witness Statement (WS) yet? Do not do anything until you receive a copy of theirs. You have until Friday 11th April to submit your WS. On Thursday 24th, remind us and we can put something together for you.
-
I hadn't heard anything so called the court.
It appears that the court fee has been paid by them. What should be prepared?
-
Thanks. Will do.
-
Good. So now you know the deadlines. You will have until 4pm on Friday 11th April to submit a Witness Statement (WS).
It is unlikely that you will have to prepare a WS because if they haven't paid the hearing fee by 28th March, the claim is struck out. However, even if they do pay it by the deadline, you do not want to provide your WS before you see theirs. If you have not heard anything by the 4th April, call the court and ask whether they have paid the hearing fee and/or whether the hearing has been vacated.
Keep us in the loop.
-
It says the following:
"Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents ( including any
experts' report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.
The original documents shall be brought to the hearing"
-
Is there any mention in there, probably in tiny font, that all submissions must be received by the court no less than 14 days before the hearing date? You have to read it thoroughly. It is highly unlikely that a hearing date would be made without an order for WS/bundles deadline.
-
You're absolutely right, most of the form is about what to do if I want to opt for mediation, as the court seems to think the case is ideal for mediation. The rest of the form is about if i do continue, how i should prepare for court etc.
The hearing of the claim will take place 10:00 on the 25th of April 2025, though.
-
The order will also contain more than what you’ve shown us. What date has been set for the hearing and what deadlines have been been set for witness statements/bundles to be submitted by?
Please don’t leave us trying to guess this information.
As the defendant, you are supposed to be copied in on anything the claimant submits to the court, as you are obliged to copy them in also. If the discontinue, they are supposed to copy you in on their Notice of Discontinuation (NoD) form N279. However, they are notorious for failing to always do so, which is an abuse of process and sanctionable by the court.
If you have not received a copy of the N279 by 28th March, call the court and ask whether the claim has been discontinued and the if hearing has been vacated.
-
Will I get notified? Or is this something I need to check proactively? (if so, how?)
-
Clearly check after 28 March that either the fee has been paid or the case has been struck out for non payment. Often the latter is the case.
-
Hi
I have received N157. Please see attached.
https://imgur.com/a/2JAwIry
Please advise on next steps.
Thanks.
-
All normal. Now wait to hear for the orders from the case management judge. Show us when you receive this.
-
I've received a letter stating the claim has been transferred to my country court for allocation and that it will be allocated to a procedural judge, to give case management direction. It's a N271 form; "Notice of transfer of proceedings".
Is this all normal?
-
You wait to find out the date of the hearing and the deadline to submit your Witness Statement (usually 14 days before the hearing). However, it is expected that the case management judge will issue the draft order for the claimant to submit fully particularised details of the claim and you should then be given time to respond with a proper defence to those detailed PoC, assuming they fully comply with the order.
I have not yet seen any claimant able to fully comply with the order and they have either discontinued at this stage or had the claim struck out. Either way, even if they are able to fully comply with the order, you will be able to submit a detailed defence.
For now, we wait and see what the case management judge orders. Which is your local county court?
I see, thanks.
My local court is Leicester County Court and Family Court.
-
You wait to find out the date of the hearing and the deadline to submit your Witness Statement (usually 14 days before the hearing). However, it is expected that the case management judge will issue the draft order for the claimant to submit fully particularised details of the claim and you should then be given time to respond with a proper defence to those detailed PoC, assuming they fully comply with the order.
I have not yet seen any claimant able to fully comply with the order and they have either discontinued at this stage or had the claim struck out. Either way, even if they are able to fully comply with the order, you will be able to submit a detailed defence.
For now, we wait and see what the case management judge orders. Which is your local county court?
-
Just say that you deny any liability for the alleged debt and you will defend the claim unless the claimant accepts £0 and cancels the PCN.
You do not have to go into any of the detail of the claim as it is not part of the judicial process and the mediator should not be asking for any detail. If they do, ask them what legal qualification they have.
Just had the call, I followed your advice. The PCN issuer did try and offer settlement which i refuted.
The next step now according to the mediator is I will hear from the "small claims court process". What should I expect?
Thanks.
-
Thanks again!
-
Just say that you deny any liability for the alleged debt and you will defend the claim unless the claimant accepts £0 and cancels the PCN.
You do not have to go into any of the detail of the claim as it is not part of the judicial process and the mediator should not be asking for any detail. If they do, ask them what legal qualification they have.
-
Understood, thank you. Is there anything I should refrain from saying, apart from not offering any sort of settlement? Should I prepare a statement to confirm my position perhaps?
-
For mediation, it is only mandatory that you "attend" the call. It is not a trial and there is no involvement of a judge or solicitor. You only offer £0 and it is over within minutes. It has absolutely no bearing on the subsequent hearing, should it ever get that far.
Do not let the mediator try and persuade you that you have little chance or anything. They shouldn't, but if they do, ask them what is their legal qualification for their opinion and that you will be making a complaint about them for interference.
-
A mediation appointment has been booked for the 11th of November.
How should i best prepare for this? What should and shouldn't be said?
Thanks.
-
Thank you. :)
-
I don't think HC Andersen can reasonably be described as being judgemental here... It is important to make sure that when using a template defence, OPs aren't inadvertently including statements, signed by a statement of truth, that contradict other statements they have previously made in writing.
That seems to be the point upon which clarity was being sought, which, thankfully, it now seems to have been.
-
At this stage it matters not what you know about the alleged breach of contract. What matters is that the claimant must comply with CPR 16.4 when issuing a claim.
Instead of sitting on the sidelines and trying to be judgmental, HC Andersen could try and offer some useful advice on what the OP should do. The advice provided so far, has come from a real judge and you are following it.
The defence has been submitted and we await the next step.
-
I'm saying that if you know the truth of the matter, as appears in your first post, then you could not submit the draft if it contains incorrect statements and sign a statement of truth. You'd have to modify it.
By all means assert what you have reason to believe is true.
-
Apologies if I'm being dense.
Are you saying if I did appeal and they have that on record, my defence is baseless, however, if I didn't appeal I stand more of a chance of defending the claim?
-
We only have your account, we weren't there. As your first and last posts are at odds, I don't know what to make.
Maybe you'll bluff them and they'll not pursue to a hearing. I'm told it happens. Who knows?
But if your first post is correct, then I don't see how you could present any defence which includes some of statements being suggested.
-
And If they do not have the appeal because I didn't log one? This was over 2 years ago, I cannot confirm either way but can say I have nothing in email or any other form to say I appealed.
I didn't realise I had overstayed, until I got the PCN.
-
But you recall clearly paying and overstaying which is the alleged breach and which would undermine the first statement in the draft which is to deny the contravention.
The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.
The creditor has your appeal.
-
I have no evidence of this, so cannot confirm if I actually did.
-
The OP's first post contains the following:
I legitimately paid for 3 hours of parking, however, I was late getting back to my car by 30 minutes. I recall appealing the PCN back when I got the notice, stating it was a genuine mistake and that i was happy to pay for the additional 30 minutes of parking.
How could they now submit to the court the following(and what would the court's reaction be if the OP's appeal included the same admission and is subsequently produced):
The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.
-
All normal. Next will be allocation to your local court and then a case management judge will issue directions. THat's when the draft order comes into play.
-
I've received a response from Sipp Parking:
"We are the Claimant in the above matter.
Please find attached our completed directions questionnaire, as we will be continuing to pursue you for the unpaid parking charge.
We confirm our directions questionnaire has been filed with the Civil National Business Centre"
I assume this all expected and now it's just a waiting game for the hearing?
-
This is expected. You should download a copy of the N180DQ here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a8b019ce1fd0da7b592f43/N180_0724.pdf
No need to print anything. Most of the questions and boxes are fairly self explanatory. For the name of the court, put "Civil National Business Centre". It is being completed by the "defendant".
Mediation is now compulsory. However, it is only compulsory to "attend" the call. The mediator is not a judge or legally trained person. You simply off £0. If they try to suggest or persuade you to settle, ask them what their legal qualifications are and if they cannot or do not tell you, tell them you will be making a complaint as it is not their job to act as a judge or a lawyer. It will be over in less than five minutes and you will have complied with the requirement to "attend" the call.
C1, the claim is suitable for the "Small Claims Track".
D1, the claim is NOT suitable for determination without a hearing, so "NO". In the text box simply put "Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question."
The rest is family self explanatory. For F, put the name of your local county court. Use the Court Finder to find your local county court: https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal
You can sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box. When complete, attach it as a PDF file to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@sipcarparks.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the email subject.
After sending, make sure that you receive and auto response from the CNBC.
Thank you, all done. I'll keep you posted.
-
This is expected. You should download a copy of the N180DQ here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a8b019ce1fd0da7b592f43/N180_0724.pdf
No need to print anything. Most of the questions and boxes are fairly self explanatory. For the name of the court, put "Civil National Business Centre". It is being completed by the "defendant".
Mediation is now compulsory. However, it is only compulsory to "attend" the call. The mediator is not a judge or legally trained person. You simply off £0. If they try to suggest or persuade you to settle, ask them what their legal qualifications are and if they cannot or do not tell you, tell them you will be making a complaint as it is not their job to act as a judge or a lawyer. It will be over in less than five minutes and you will have complied with the requirement to "attend" the call.
C1, the claim is suitable for the "Small Claims Track".
D1, the claim is NOT suitable for determination without a hearing, so "NO". In the text box simply put "Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question."
The rest is family self explanatory. For F, put the name of your local county court. Use the Court Finder to find your local county court: https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal
You can sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box. When complete, attach it as a PDF file to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@sipcarparks.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the email subject.
After sending, make sure that you receive and auto response from the CNBC.
-
Hi Again
I've received the following from the court: https://imgur.com/a/Ovk0JQH
Along with form N180, 'Directions Questionnaire'. I need to get the form back by the 4th of November 2024.
Is this what you were expecting? How should I approach this?
Thanks.
-
Thank you so much for this. I will let you know how it goes.
-
Here is the defence and link to the draft order. You only have to edit the header in the defence for your name, the claim number and to sign it my typing your full name for the signature and dating it. There is nothing to edit in the Draft Order.
Both documents should be attached as PDF files to an email which is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC to yourself. The email subject must contain the claim number and in the body just say that attached is the defence and draft order in the matter of SIP Parking Limited v [your name] Claim No.: [claim number].
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
SIP Parking Limited
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim. The allegation that the vehicle was on site in excess of the paid-for time or parked without making a valid payment is refuted.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has
breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC does not adequately explain the basis for the £60 claimed as 'debt damage costs,' nor does it provide details of how this amount was calculated or justified;
(f) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
(g) The statement of truth in the Particulars of Claim does not comply with Practice Direction 22, paragraph 2.1. The form of the statement does not include the required wording that 'the Claimant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.' This omission renders the statement of truth invalid, and consequently, the Particulars of Claim do not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o1xbmqxzmgn4dv9el96kd/Draft-Order.pdf?rlkey=td1ajprejse2mgq6z9x0fgahr&st=0y4y0a6n&dl=0)
-
Here's the claim forms without the claimants name redacted: https://imgur.com/a/j0937my
-
Please show us the signature that you have redacted on the claim form. It is not necessary to redact that and it could also make the claim and the statement of truth invalid. It is in the public domain so no need to redact it.
-
Just to confirm I have filled my AoS as instructed.
What should he the next step? Or should I hold on longer before filing my defence?
Thanks.
-
You do not have to "find your appeal" or anything. you are supposed to be able to understand exactly what the claim is about based on the Particulars of Claim (PoC). As you can see, they are woefully inadequate and fail to comply with CPR 16.4.
We'll come back to the defence after you have submitted the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Please follow the directions in the linked PDF document to submit the AoS and then come back for the defence and accompanying draft order.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
With an issue date of 3rd October, you have until Tuesday 22nd October to submit the AoS. There is no advantage to delaying the AoS but by submitting it, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 5th November to submit the defence.
Thanks. I have filled a AoS as there was no point in delaying, as you say.
-
You do not have to "find your appeal" or anything. you are supposed to be able to understand exactly what the claim is about based on the Particulars of Claim (PoC). As you can see, they are woefully inadequate and fail to comply with CPR 16.4.
We'll come back to the defence after you have submitted the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Please follow the directions in the linked PDF document to submit the AoS and then come back for the defence and accompanying draft order.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
With an issue date of 3rd October, you have until Tuesday 22nd October to submit the AoS. There is no advantage to delaying the AoS but by submitting it, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 5th November to submit the defence.
-
Check the address on the vehicle registration document, not your driving licence, actually in the flesh. Is it correct for your current address?
-
Hi
I've just received an N1SDT Claim from against me from the county court , for an unpaid PCN from August 2022(!).
Charge Notice: https://imgur.com/a/GwHFHU8
Google Maps Location of Car Park (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vX4gbwe5fJp3k17w8)
I legitimately paid for 3 hours of parking, however, I was late getting back to my car by 30 minutes. I recall appealing the PCN back when I got the notice, stating it was a genuine mistake and that i was happy to pay for the additional 30 minutes of parking, this would've equated to a couple of pounds. I cannot find my appeal though or a response to it, I've searched everywhere.
The charges equate to £195, which is mind blowing to me, all things considered.
How do I approach this? This seems wildly unfair.
Thanks.