No way, G24 Ltd refuse my appeal

Custard_Pie

Updated version. Any comments welcome as not filing until tomorrow:

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal ref invoice number xxxx POPLA code xxxx

I have researched the matter, have revisited the land in question and would like to point out the following:

UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance or exists to any of the shops.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms G24 are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA 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 on this land (wording, position, clarity) do 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 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES
G24 do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal 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 or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. They make reference to being a Creditor of an “agreement”, but nothing regarding a contract.

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 and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

G24 also make reference in their appeal refusal of 3/7/13 to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.

NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER
There is no contract between G24 and myself, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

UNFAIR TERMS
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

UNREASONABLE
The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was only at 30% capacity and there was no physical damage 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.

The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges of £4.50 for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge 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), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) . The operator could state the letter as an invoice for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE
I contacted G24 on 1/7/13 and clearly stated that I denied all liability to their company and required a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice. I had nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code. I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time frame stipulated above.

G24 ignored this requirement and considered the appeal “on-going” until I provided them information regarding the alleged incident. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on to further attempt to bully me by “ advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate of £60.00 will be at end. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.” “If you choose 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.”

SUMMARY
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 UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

Signed:

Dated:

Guys_Dad

Edit. Just noticed the references to various acts at the end "CPUTR 2008, the UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010"

Think I forgot to remove them from c-m's original. Not relevant to you, but POFA2012 and contract law should be there.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It's for POPLA appeal, not appeal to PPC.

So? Should the POPLA appeal fail then they could pursue him as driver, even if we find ways of nullifying the keeper liability. Best never admit who was driving.

bazster

Post up the NtK! You can send it to me if you wish but I'd rather it was here so others can help with it if I'm not around.

Herzlos

You've spelled exits wrong in the first paragraph:

Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance or exists to any of the shops

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Post up the NtK! You can send it to me if you wish but I'd rather it was here so others can help with it if I'm not around.

You can trust bazster. But if posting here, remember to remove all identifying dates, addresses, reg numbers, codes etc.

Coupon-mad

I would remove this line as it's out of place and not needed:

'They make reference to being a Creditor of an “agreement”, but nothing regarding a contract.'

G24 do identify the Creditor on their notices and this has nothing to do with the heading of that paragraph.

Here's a thread where a new poster researched it - having been prodded by us! - and came up with a good POPLA appeal wording against G24 last month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4645375

I didn't see any reference in you version to the ANPR system used by G24. In this example linked, the person does have a suitable paragraph about that which you can copy & paste. Also check they haven't got anything relevant that you may have missed. If not then send it off!