Staples parking ticket.

Brit27

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have a look at the links in 'How to win at POPLA' in the 'NEWBIES READ THIS FIRST!' sticky thread!

Ok will do, I just don't want to make a mess of it, with that in mind should I post my appeal before sending ?

Coupon-mad

If you like, yes, lots of people do and we want to help you win.

Redx

Brit27 wrote: »

Ok will do, I just don't want to make a mess of it, with that in mind should I post my appeal before sending ?

always a good idea to have a good plan

many hands make light work !!

and in Baldrick`s case, he had a "cunning plan"

etc

so here is the shortened version to see where you are going

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Trespass
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. Business Rates
7. ANPR Accuracy

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Loss and no contract will beat G24 any day

Brit27

Thanks for the replies and pointers .........I'll be back before I send my appeal

Folkiedave

Perfick! That's how it should be done!

Brit27

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. 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.

1. Unclear and non-compliant signage.
2. Contract with landowner.
3. No evidence of parking time.
4. BPA Code of practice breach.
5. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
6. Unlawful penalty charge.
7. Business rates.

1. UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE.

Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand, especially in darkness as in this case. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms G24 Ltd are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and 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).

2. CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS.

G24 Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.
In their Notices and in the rejection letter, G24 Ltd 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 (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether G24 Ltd have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/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 the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

3. No evidence of parking time.

G24 Ltd are relying 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 to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is 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.


4. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED.

The Notice I have received make it clear that G24 Ltd is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 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 Ltd has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be G24 Ltd 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 Ltd has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
G24 Ltd 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). I 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.

5. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS.

G24 Ltd 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 Ltd cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can G24 Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. In this case the premises ‘Staples’ was closed and had been for more than an hour.

6. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE.
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
This transparently punitive charge by G24 Ltd is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.

7. Business rates.

As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by G24 Ltd, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for G24Ltd, I do not believe that G24 Ltd has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put G24 to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operator at Staples, 12/14 Medway Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4HA car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

Yours faithfully,

Redx

I would summarise the points in bullet format at the top, before the explanations lower down, numbering them and numbering each section too

so a brief summary of appeal points, followed by the expanded appeal points themselves lower down

copy and paste you letter into notepad and save it, before posting on here with suitable omissions like personal details, as clearly your copy and paste went wrong (maybe it came from a word doc ? )

Brit27

Redx wrote: »

I would summarise the points in bullet format at the top, before the explanations lower down, numbering them and numbering each section too

so a brief summary of appeal points, followed by the expanded appeal points themselves lower down

copy and paste you letter into notepad and save it, before posting on here with suitable omissions like personal details, as clearly your copy and paste went wrong (maybe it came from a word doc ? )

Ok will do, yes I just copied from a word doc, I will put it into notepad as suggested thanks.

I have just edited and re-posted the appeal above.

Redx

ok, thanks, quite a few spelling mistakes so I would address those and also see if anyone else on here wishes anything to be added to removed, in subsequent replies