G24 Parking fine ... help needed please.

queenyjay

Hi all,
So glad that I have come across this site, with very knowledgeable advisors here to help, I was stupidly looking for G24's phone number to talk to someone about paying off the charge I have been sent in monthly installments, as I can not afford it.

I parked in a Staples car park, at night, quite late, due to suffering with really bad pains, I was very heavily pregnant at the time. My 1st priority at the time was to park up asap, and then walk towards some friends that lived nearby in case an ambulance needed to be called. I wobbled up to their home which was the opposite end of the high street as to where Staples was, (which has no parking outside) and sat round there house until the pains eased off, then returned to my car and drove home.

Obviously not once did it to occur to me to look for signs.

I have sent a letter explaining this, they obviously didn't care and sent a letter explaining that the charges still apply, as I left my car and walked to the town centre (which I didn't state that at all).
I then sent another letter a few days after giving birth, explaining that I had not stated that I walked into town and repeated everything that I had stated in the first letter and obviously they did not care.

I have now received a third letter stating...

Your dispute has been unsuccessful as you stated in your letter that you did go into town. ... (they obviously can not read)

You now have a number of options from which to choose:-

1. Pay the parking fine at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days other wise it goes up to £100

2.Make an appeal to POPLA-

3.If you chose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.



I am guessing by posts that I have read on here, just to simply ignore or.... is my case different because it was out of store opening hours?

Guys_Dad

queenyjay wrote: »

I am guessing by posts that I have read on here, just to simply ignore or.... is my case different because it was out of store opening hours?

You have not been looking at the latest posts as the current advice is to request the POPLA code and then, with our help or pepipoo's submit a POPLA appeal.

So request the code and come back.

In the mean time, you need to look at the signage or get your friend to do it and see if it complies with the BPA COP here, Appendix B

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2013_v1.pdf

POPLA will not accept your mitigating circumstances as they stand. In fact, you could have given birth in the car park and they still wouldn't have granted your appeal without other points, so that's why you need to come back here for help.

Not sure about G24's current track record on going to court - someone else may have better info.

Umkomaas

In view of the OP's pregnancy at the time, I'm sure this is covered by the Equality Act 2010. I guess Coupon-mad will be along later to confirm and advise on this.

Meantime OP, do not go immediately paying this as you need to understand all the options open to you. Definitely don't go phoning the PPC.

The_Slithy_Tove

queenyjay wrote: »

2.Make an appeal to POPLA-

This is the route to go down where, with the right advice to create the right appeal, you will win.

Have they provided a POPLA reference code & details on how to appeal? They should have (rather than just say you can)? It's up to them to provide, not you to ask.

When did you first appeal, i.e. how long ago? They must give you the POPLA code within 35 days. If not, you can tell them to *** off, as they have breached the BPA code of practice. If they haven't sent a code yet, wait for that 35 day timeout, then tell them to *** off.

Coupon-mad

The only things I wonder are, did you receive the first notice within 14 days of the incident? And did they cough up the POPLA code within 35 days of the date they would likely have received your first appeal? If not then I can add more to the suggested POPLA appeal below.

Here you go, you a covered by the Equality Act 2010 (you still are until the baby is six months old).

You are protected under the maternity section of the Act - which is mainly there to protect working mothers but also applies outside the workplace where harassment is concerned. But don't rely upon that alone, hence I have bunged in the usual arguments as well!




Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re G24 ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

This is my appeal as I am the driver of this car (already admitted) but I am not legally liable for the parking charge. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.

SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT AND BREACHES OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The situation is that I was forced to stop in a Staples car park, at night, quite late, due to suffering with really bad pains. I was very heavily pregnant at the time and I now realise these were very strong pre-labour contractions (Braxton-hicks) which meant I could not safely continue to drive.

It was an emergency and my first priority at the time when hit by these sudden waves of pain was to park up somewhere safe within short walking distance of a friend's house - as I thought an ambulance may need to be called. I sat in my friend's house until the pains eased off, then returned to my car when I felt well enough to drive home.

When I received a postal ticket out of the blue I wrote and explained my genuine emergency, expecting G24 to understand and cancel the charge. They refused but did not consider my appeal properly, which is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. Their reply stated that I had left the car to 'walk into the town centre' which is completely wrong, not based on my case at all and showed that G24 had completely ignored my appeal.

They also failed to provide me with a POPLA Code when rejecting my appeal, which is another breach of the Code of Practice.

Upset about this, I then managed to send another letter just days after giving birth, explaining that I had not stated that I walked into town and repeated everything that I had stated in the first letter, but they rejected this again. Once more they ignored my circumstances, saying again: 'Your dispute has been unsuccessful as you stated in your letter that you did go into town.' (I did not and could not have done so!). This appears to be a template rejection, finally offering standard options including a POPLA code (sent late and only when I appealed a second time).


BREACH OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 (MATERNITY PROTECTION)
As well as the breaches of the BPA CoP I wish to point out to POPLA that in ignoring my circumstances and continuing to harass me, this Operator has breached UK maternity protection law as covered in the Equality Act 2010. The maternity section of the Equality Act makes it unlawful to harass a pregnant lady (in or out of the workplace) for any reason connected to her condition.

My emergency was completely caused by my condition, at a very vulnerable, late stage of pregnancy when I was experiencing contractions. Operators - and indeed POPLA adjudicators - have to abide by UK laws, which take precedence over any 'contractual' terms & conditions (rendered null and void if the effect is to harass a pregnant lady).

I realise that POPLA cannot normally consider mitigating circumstances but in fact this 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as the Operator breached the Equality Act as soon as they knew about my protected condition.


OTHER POINTS AGAINST AND IN RELATION TO THIS CHARGE
In case the adjudicator requires more information as to why this parking charge should not be paid - I have researched the matter and would like to point out the following:


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
I have subsequently noticed that the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I would repeat that I parked my car in a state of pain and emergency at night, but even at the best will in the World, any driver would struggle to make out any terms on any signs in the dark. Under the BPA CoP, signs must display clear terms & conditions - which would mean being lit if enforcement takes place in the dark - and must be placed at the entrance and also, near to all parking areas.

I saw no such signs - I believe G24's signs here to be inadequate - and did not enter into any 'agreement' or 'contract' with G24.


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
G24 do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, G24 have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a 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 the legal standing to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012).

I would require POPLA to please check whether G24 have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name in the court system.

Also I suggest the contract does not specify that G24 can issue charges after the shops have closed - if so on what basis, as there can have been no loss to the retailers. And POPLA should check whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as I allege that it is not.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
G24 are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my emergency constituted a breach of contract. As such, they 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 the shops were closed and no damage was caused, there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can G24 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.

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. However, as I have raised this point, G24 are required to explain and answer it in their evidence.

In any case, no claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply to an 'Equality Act protected' person who has stopped in an emergency for a reason wholly caused by pregnancy. No contractual terms and conditions on a sign can be upheld if the effect is to unlawfully harass a pregnant woman.


ANPR SECTION 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.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as 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).

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008, the Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law. It is unfair and punitive and, as such, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.




Signed:

Dated:

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad - one word in your ear.....

Brilliant :T

How lucky is this site and Pepipoo?

Stroma

Brilliant stuff there coupon, I'm bookmarking this thread for reference . Thanks

27col

We will all be very interested in the outcome of this POPLA appeal.
Congratulations C-M on your well worded effort.

NtG

Ignore them completely and get on with enjoying your beautiful new baby

Stroma

NtG wrote: »

Ignore them completely and get on with enjoying your beautiful new baby

And you will be here for the next 6 years to help with a small claim defence, if they do the same as parking eye and civil enforcement ltd ?

NtG

So why did you write this on 24th May? Now you say write to them! Your advice is like the wind...stop trying to scare the girl

"They are just useless scamming scumbag debt collectors with absolutely no powers to enforce anything. All they do is write templated letters, that means all the letters are pre-printed then they just add your name to it, then post it out, that is it! They can be considered like Nigerian kings asking you for your bank details. Just ignore them!"