DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 14, 2025, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You would be wise to get some photos of the signage at the site
detailing the relevant terms.
#Post#: 62569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 14, 2025, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorted thanks for the heads up! And thank you for all your help
I'll update the thread with anything else I get
#Post#: 62570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 14, 2025, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll be going tomorrow and getting a video of the site and the
functionality of the machine to show where it says you don't
need a ticket
#Post#: 62571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 14, 2025, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to get photos of the signage, as this forms the
basis of the alleged contract.
#Post#: 62626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 15, 2025, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After going back this morning I'm even more confused, there is
signage that all contradicts it's self
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 62630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 15, 2025, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Then there's this sign that contradicts the sign and operation
of the machine. Also when I looked around the carpark today.
Nobody had a ticket displayed and there was at least 30 cars.
Maybe they all paid on the app but I highly doubt that
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 62650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: March 15, 2025, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your letter just about gives it away that you were the driver so
that’s a wasted appeal point. For future reference, never
reveal who was driving. As the Keeper, you simply refer to the
driver in the third person. No “I did this or that”,
only “the driver did this or that”.
In cases where the operator has not fully complied with all the
requirements of PoFA, liability for the charge cannot be
transferred from the unknown driver to the known keeper. There
is no legal obligation for the known keeper to identify the
unknown driver to an unregulated private parking company. The
Keeper and the driver are two separate legal entities. The
Keeper may be both but there is no legal requirement to identify
the driver.
As the Keeper, blabbing that you were the driver, inadvertently
or otherwise, throws away a perfectly good appeal and defence
point.
Anyway, you are where you are and you still have some good
appeal and defence points you can use, even if you have
identified as the driver.
Have you managed to log into their appeals page as though to
appeal or pay and seen the evidential photos they have? Does any
evidential photo on the Notice to Keeper (NtK) show the vehicle
with a Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the windscreen?
Before we move on to what you need to do now you must get it
into your head that what you have received is not and never was
a “fine”. By referring to it as such in your
correspondence you are alerting them to the fact that you are
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, ripe for the picking.
What you have received is simply a speculative invoice from an
unregulated private parking operator. I will give you £100 for
every occurrence of the word “fine” you can show me
in their correspondence.
So, reviewing your case, you parked and paid for a parking
session using their P&D machine which does not print a receipt
unless requested. You returned to your vehicle and departed
within the period of parking you paid for.
You have since received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) delivered
as an NtK which claims that your vehicle had already received a
PCN which had been affixed to your vehicle as a Notice to Driver
(NtD). However, you are adamant that there was no NtD affixed to
the vehicle when you returned and led the car park.
You now realise that you are being scammed by a rogue operator,
SIP. Why? Because their operator either took some photos of a
notice attached to your vehicle and then removed it or never
attached one in the first place. Had you been able to try and
appeal (without actually completing it) you should have been
able to review any evidential photos they intend to rely on.
However, their NtK does not provide any opportunity to appeal.
You also need to ask, why did their attendant believe that your
vehicle needed targetting? I suggest that you made a keying
error when inputting your VRM into the P&D machine. As you have
no receipt to prove otherwise, you cannot refute that
suggestion. However, there are ways that they can be made show
their logs for a VRM that is almost but not identical to yours,
which we will come to.
I hope you are beginning to realise that you are in a scam by a
firm of ex-clampers with an intellectual malnourishment that we
use against them. However, you must realise that this will be a
protracted process but if you follow the advice we give, you wil
not be paying a penny to SIP.
As SIP are IPC members, there will be no secondary appeals
process that is worth attempting. The most likely outcome is
going to be that they eventually issue a debt claim in the
county court. This is where you win. If they issue a claim, it
is in the hope that, as low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree,
you will simply pay up out of ignorance and fear once litigation
commences.
So, before I move on to what you need to do now, I need to know
whether you are prepared to fight this all the way? It will be a
protracted process but one which we are very familiar with and
has a greater than 99% probability of being successful.
There is no risk of a CCJ, even if, in the less than 1% chance
you are not successful. So no need to worry about anything
except to do as we advise, within the deadlines we advise. In
the meantime you get on with your life as normal and gain a
valuable life lesson on your rights and how to protect against
abuse of them by cowboy parking companies.
So, are you prepared to fight this unfair PCN?
#Post#: 62667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 15, 2025, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for such a detailed response. Something
fishy is clearly going on and your understanding of what's gone
on is exact. I'm willing to fight this and won't fall for their
scammy tactics. Once again thank you for such a detailed
response
#Post#: 62677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: b789
Date: March 15, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. As you have not received any NtD and their NtK is flawed as
it doesn't comply with the PPSCoP, you need to submit a formal
complaint to SIP, which they are bound to also consider as an
appeal.
Send the following as a PDF attachment in an email to
info@sipcarparks.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> SIP Car Parks (1) Limited
> Peter House
> Oxford Street
> Manchester
> M1 5AN
>
> By email to: info@sipcarparks.co.uk
>
> [Date]
>
> FORMAL COMPLAINT
>
> PCN number: [PCN number from the NtK]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> This is a formal complaint from the Keeper of vehicle [VRM]
and you are required to also treat it as an appeal as per the
BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 11.2.
>
> False Claim That a Notice to Driver (NtD) Was Affixed
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely claims that a Notice to
Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle at the time of the
alleged contravention. This is patently false. The driver has
confirmed that no such notice was found on the vehicle. Given
the well-documented practices of unscrupulous operators like
yours in this industry, I put it to you that your operative
either failed to place an NtD at all or removed it after taking
a staged photograph, thereby deliberately denying the driver the
opportunity to appeal within the reduced charge period. If you
maintain that an NtD was affixed, then I require timestamped,
unedited photographs clearly showing the NtD attached to the
vehicle, including wide-angle images that confirm both its
presence and the vehicle’s surroundings. Failure to provide this
evidence will confirm my position that your operative acted
dishonestly, further highlighting your company's already dismal
conduct.
>
> Deliberate Misrepresentation of Appeal Rights – Unlawful
Conduct
>
> Your NtK states that the driver had 21 days to appeal. This is
an outright falsehood and a blatant breach of the PPSCoP Section
8.4.1(a), which mandates a minimum of 28 days to appeal. By
deliberately misrepresenting the appeal period, you have
invalidated the entire PCN, rendering it null and void. More
critically, this breach means you have also violated your Keeper
At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. My follow-up
complaint to the DVLA will highlight your total disregard for
both the DVLA’s requirements and the conditions under which you
are permitted to access Keeper data. Your unlawful actions must
be thoroughly investigated, and I will be requesting that the
DVLA withdraw your access to Keeper data for gross
non-compliance with your contractual obligations.
>
> Unlawful Use of My Data – Breach of GDPR
>
> As your processing of Keeper data was unlawful—due to your
non-compliance with the PPSCoP and KADOE contract—you are in
direct breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR). As you have obtained and used my personal data
unlawfully, you are now liable for a claim for compensation
under data protection law. I will be reporting this to the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Furthermore, should you
attempt to litigate any enforcement action against me based on
this unlawful PCN, I will file a Part 21 counterclaim against
you for a GDPR breach, seeking damages for your misuse of my
personal data. If you want to be so foolish as to take this all
the way to court knowing that your position is completely
indefensible, then you do so at your own risk. You will not only
lose but will be met with a counterclaim that will ensure you
suffer financial consequences for your unlawful actions.
>
> PCN Issued for "No Ticket Displayed" in a Ticketless Car Park
>
> If your intellectually malnourished operative believed that no
payment had been made against the VRM, then they should have
stated exactly that on the PCN. However, your NtK shows that
they didn't. Instead, proving their incompetence, they have
simply written "No ticket displayed"—which is not a
contravention of any terms and conditions. Your own signage
explicitly states that no ticket or permit is required to be
displayed when payment is made, yet your, so called operative,
has issued a charge on that basis.
>
> If the actual issue was that no payment was matched to the
VRM, then that should have been clearly stated. The fact that it
wasn’t means one of two things: either your operative was too
mentally impaired to understand the basic requirements of their
job, or this is yet another example of your company’s well known
practice of issuing unlawful charges in the hope that the
recipient won’t challenge it.
>
> Furthermore, if there was a minor keying error when the driver
entered their VRM, it was your responsibility to check your own
payment logs before issuing the Notice to Keeper. But, as
expected, SIPs incompetence shines through once again. Rather
than performing even the most basic level of due diligence, you
have instead ploughed ahead with a charge that is demonstrably
invalid.
>
> This blatant breach of the PPSCoP proves once again that SIP
has failed to comply with the standards required. Section 6.3 of
the PPSCoP states:
>
> [indent]"6.3. Keying errors
>
> Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply
their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by
telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a
documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a
parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors. This
should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying
errors."[/indent]
>
> As the driver has evidence that payment was made, meaning your
PCN is not only baseless but also a clear abuse of the DVLA data
access you have been granted, I require you to provide suitably
redacted copies of your payment logs for this car park for the
period of parking, assuming you have a period of parking to
refer to, another requirement for PoFA compliance.
>
> No Keeper Liability as Notices are not PoFA Compliant
>
> Without having been able to review the NtD for PoFA
compliance, I am confident that it is not and most likely is in
breach of paragraph 7(2)(a) and your copy of that NtD which you
are now required to provide, will prove my point. As your NtK
also does not fully comply with all the requirement of PoFA, you
are unable to hold me, Keeper, liable and I will not be
providing you, an unregulated private company, the drivers
details as I am under no legal obligation to do so.
>
> Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Regarding Payment Deadlines
>
> The NtK states:
>
> [indent]"If payment is not received within 28 days beginning
with the day after the date of sending this notice, additional
admin charges or overdue fees up to the value of
£60..."[/indent]
>
> This is yet another direct breach of the PPSCoP. Section
8.1.2(e) states that the 28-day period must begin from the date
the notice is 'received', not from the day after it is sent.
Your NtK is therefore invalid on this basis alone. I now require
you to provide evidence of the date the NtK was actually entered
into the postal system as required by the PPSCoP section
8.1.2(e) Note 2. The relevant point being:
>
> [indent]"parking operators must retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator
actually put it in the postal system.)"[/indent]
>
> Required Action
>
> To resolve this complaint, I require the following:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was
allegedly affixed to the vehicle.
> 2. Full evidential photos of the vehicle showing the alleged
contravention, including timestamped images proving the presence
of an NtD and unedited metadata proving no tampering.
> 3. A full payment log, redacted only as necessary for data
protection requirements, from the date and time in question that
the vehicle was on site, including any transactions that closely
match the VRM, to rule out a keying error.
> 4. An explanation as to why the appeal period was unlawfully
restricted to 21 days, contrary to the PPSCoP.
> 5. An explanation as to why a PCN was issued for "No ticket
displayed" when your own signage states there is no requirement
to display a ticket.
> 6. An explanation as to why the NtK states that payment is
required within 28 days of sending rather than receipt, in
direct contradiction of the PPSCoP.
> 7. An explanation as to why no checks were made for possible
minor keying errors before the NtK was sent.
> 8. Evidence of the actual date the NtK was entered into the
postal system.
> 9. A clear explanation of who you are pursuing, the driver or
the keeper and on what basis[/indent]
>
> This formal complaint is made in accordance with Section 11.2
of the PPSCoP, which requires operators to treat complaints as
appeals if they relate to a parking charge. I expect a
substantive response within 14 days.
>
> Should you fail to address this complaint appropriately, I
will be taking the following actions:
>
> [indent]• Escalating a complaint to the DVLA, highlighting
your disregard for the PPSCoP and KADOE contract.
> • Reporting you to the ICO for unlawful processing of my
personal data in breach of GDPR.
> • Filing a Part 21 counterclaim for GDPR breaches if you
attempt to pursue any enforcement action.
> • Escalating a complaint to the IPC, although given their
track record of siding with operators, I have no expectation of
genuine scrutiny from them.[/indent]
>
> You are now on notice that I will not tolerate the misuse of
my data for an unlawful charge. Consider this your formal
warning.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 62693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sip carpark ticket for no ticket displayed on ticket less
carpark
DIR By: Mrcoreyd
Date: March 15, 2025, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much! It has been sent and I'll update on any
response
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page