GS4 Parking Charge Notice - Any advice?

nbrown26

Thank you for your responses so far, I'm maybe being really naive with this as I've always tried to break things down to a simple summary, however I think I just need to listen to you guys and go in with the full grounds that your providing.

I will sit down later and use one of the parking eye templates and revise to my needs.

I thank you in advance for all your help and dedication to all of us that have had to deal with these issues.

Stroma

Before you submit to popla, please post it up here and we can give you some pointers for this if needed. When you do submit you need to put your popla reference number in the email, and ensure you get a reply saying its been added to your appeal.

nbrown26

[FONT=&quot]I would appreciate any advice on the more detailed appeal below[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

POPLA appeal re G24 ticket number xxxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.

I am the registered keeper of the above car but due to the distance from our home I have not been able to visit the car park in question. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, clarity and positioning) will not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

As the registered keeper, I sent an email to G24 to appeal the ticket straight away but their email response gave no clear evidence that I am liable for the parking charge.

The Notice I have received make it clear that G24 is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Act. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. As already said, the BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance and G24 has failed to comply once more, in the wording of their Notice to Keeper, G24 indicate that it requires a payment to be made to them of which they are identified as the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be G24 or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, G24 has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

G24 has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. I would require POPLA to check whether G24 have provided a full copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check whether that contract specifically enables them to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” If the signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as G24 rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I further contend that G24 have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the stay they allege is 'authorised'. G24 are also on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'. I believe this is also the basis upon which G24 have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link. So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then G24 cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact unlawful attempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case with the Operator, Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). G24 will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.


Signed:

Dated:[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yep it's all looking stronger except some changes as this isn't Parking Eye:

''G24 indicate that it requires a payment to be made to them of which they are identified as the “Creditor”. Do they actually use that term in their Notice? If they do then this point about 'no creditor' will need to be removed. If they do not then remove that sentence as it's misleading and makes it seem that the Notice complies.

and this bit needs changing as the 'on record' only relates to Parking Eye:

''Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the stay they allege is 'authorised'. [STRIKE]G24 are also on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'.''[/STRIKE]

...replace the deleted text with 'G24 have claimed this is a breach of terms and conditions.' and then continue with 'I believe...' as already typed.

and this one just needs 'with the operator' deleted and replaced with 'of':

''and in the case [STRIKE]with the Operator, [/STRIKE] of Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).''

And just to check that yours was a free car park, like in the POPLA appeal template you've used? If so that's fine as the wording does say 'this is a free car park'.

nbrown26

Thank you for the update, I've made those changes but could you possibly advice me on the 'Creditor' section. The notice reads as detailed:

"By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private property the driver agreed, with G24 Limited ('the Creditor"), to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking shown..."

This has thrown me a little hence my use of wording.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

You also need to remove the entire first paragraph

Coupon-mad

nbrown26 wrote: »

Thank you for the update, I've made those changes but could you possibly advice me on the 'Creditor' section. The notice reads as detailed:

"By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private property the driver agreed, with G24 Limited ('the Creditor"), to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking shown..."

This has thrown me a little hence my use of wording.

So you will have to remove that 'creditor' paragraph then as surprisingly, they are compliant in that respect!

cbmb

Hi,

I received a contractual parking charge notice from G24 stating that i overstayed free parking limit by 46 minutes. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

They have sent pictures of what appears to be the registered car entering and leaving the car park and they have a time on them but it is clearly no part of the picture so could be made up, you can't see my number plate in the large picture, then there are close ups of the number plate

Can you advise if I should appeal as I was not the driver, ignore the letters?

I do not believe there are sufficient signs in the car park but I would have to visit to have a look.

Thanks for you advice.

Stroma

Please don't hijack others threads, create your own below - thanks
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

nbrown26

Again thank you for your devotion to this. My response now reads as below;

[FONT=&quot]POPLA appeal re G24 ticket number xxxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I am the registered keeper of the above car but due to the distance from our home I have not been able to visit the car park in question. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, clarity and positioning) will not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

As the registered keeper, I sent an email to G24 to appeal the ticket straight away but their email response gave no clear evidence that I am liable for the parking charge.

The Notice I have received make it clear that G24 is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Act. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'.

G24 has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. I would require POPLA to check whether G24 have provided a full copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check whether that contract specifically enables them to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” If the signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as G24 rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I further contend that G24 have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the stay they allege is 'authorised'. G24 have claimed this is a breach of terms and conditions. I believe this is also the basis upon which G24 have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link. So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal, which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then G24 cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact unlawful attempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case of Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). G24 will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.


Signed:

Dated:[/FONT]