Best option?

nigelbb

Wouldliketoknow wrote: »

My question - is it worth continuing the G24 appeal route - or should I go straight to POPLA - now that I have the code....

There is no longer any G24 appeal route that's why they sent the POPLA code when they rejected your appeal.

Wouldliketoknow

Thanks for the advice - I realise I chopped it off - but I do find this part of the email most confusing then if POPLA is my only option!

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, if you wish to continue your appeal visit our appeals website at w.appealyourcharge.c.

I will draft an appeal and pop it back on here for hopefully some of your advice pointers on what I might improve.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Base it on the examples in the 'Newbies read this first' sticky thread under the link 'How to win at POPLA'. But in your introductory paragraph, include these facts (can you get email or written evidence of the agreement to park there as POPLA will only consider that bit if it's evidenced with documentary proof. What was the alleged 'contravention?'):


''So the PCN, from G24 ltd, has an obvious flaw in that it states that my vehicle was outside the Tile company in Ashton Under Lyne at 18:09:59 according to the photographs submitted.

Now - my vehicle was parked outside a Tile Giant, but in a completely different location in London. Furthermore, Tile Giant has an agreement with the company (a banqueting suite) who reside on the top floor of the building, that on event nights specific patrons can park in front of the building. This is on a number plate basis -and ours was provided in advance as the hosts of the event.

The car park is shared by two business' the one that we were visiting takes ownership at 18:00 and the other is Tile Giant. Having been directed by a member of staff to park in front of the business, the car was then vacated and we went to attend to our duties.
Apparently, the manager / owner of Tile Giant was 'blocked in' by the car and someone was dispatched to find the driver and ask them to move. The driver complied with the request to move the car - and thought no more of it.
Apparently the person who was blocked in then took it upon themselves to alert G24 - despite this being after 18:00.''

Wouldliketoknow

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Clause 9.2 (a)
2. Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Clause 9.2 (c)
3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. No authority to levy charges
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. Data Protection

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (a)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (a) states, “The notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
The notice specifies that the car was parked on private property at: Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW.
The keeper declares that this notice is incorrect and therefore invalid as the car can be proven to be at a different location at the time specified.
The keeper declares that the photographic evidence provided by G24 LTD supports the keeper’s claim that the notice is incorrect and therefore invalid. The location provided by G24 LTD as evidence depicts the parking outside xxxxxx.
Furthermore, the keeper has an email from xxxxx, a business of that address, stating that the driver had express permission to be parked at this address after 18:00. Furthermore, they have CCTV of the car at this address at 18:09:59 on the 23rd of November making it impossible for the PCN to be compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the car was not in the location stated. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and charge dismissed.

2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (c)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (c) states, “The notice must describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;”
The notice specifies “Term Breached: Unauthorised Parking at Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW.
The keeper declares that as the car can be proven to be in a different location than that stated on the PCN, G24 LTD has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore respectfully requests that my appeal is upheld and charge dismissed.

3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If the parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
I require G24 LTD to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate of loss.
I am also aware that it is improbable that the Landowner of Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW can reasonably claim a loss when it is proven the car was never parked there. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No authority to levy charges

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
G24 LTD must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location: Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles G24 LTD to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the G24 LTD to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the G24 LTD produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the G24 LTD. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between G24 LTD and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that G24 LTD can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Should G24 LTD demonstrate their proof to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf to enforce breach of contract at Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW. I humbly suggest that as it can be proven that the car was not parked at this address on the alleged date and time and that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. 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 extorting an unlawful charge by impersonating 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 or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.



6. Data Protection
It can be proven that the car was not at the location stated by G24 LTD. The fact that they used this fiction to apply to the DVLA and use the vehicles registered keeper’s details so inappropriately is mind boggling. This is a clear attempt at extorting an unlawful charge and is harassing in tone and nature The registered keeper will be complaining to the DVLA and The Information Commissioner’s Office on this matter. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Wouldliketoknow

So what do you think? I used a basic template and added in specifics

Many thanks to Rizzoface - from whom I borrowed paragraphs from his /her template.

Is the Data protection angle too much?

Please be kind but ruthless in you evaluation.

I still don't understand how they can state that they "carefully considered" in their review when they don't accept that the wrong location is a BIG issue.... IS there anything I can put on that in there?

Coupon-mad

I think it's good, and I think POPLA will want to see the proof that the car was elsewhere. Make sure your POPLA appeal explains that the car was actually in London not Lancs - and see if the CCTV image can be hosted on youtube and then submitted as evidence in the online POPLA appeal.

Wouldliketoknow

OK - so I' have run into a few problems - i.e. the company who held the CCTV have managed to delete it before issuing it tome - so I now don't have a copy. (This is still within the 29 day window)

Will photos of the location and an email stating that permission had been granted to park there be enough for point 1?



As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Clause 9.2 (a)
2. Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Clause 9.2 (c)
3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. No authority to levy charges
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. Data Protection

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (a)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (a) states, “The notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”
The notice specifies that the car was parked on private property at: Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW.
The keeper declares that this notice is incorrect and therefore invalid as the car can be proven to be at a different location at the time specified.
The keeper declares that the photographic evidence provided by G24 LTD supports the keeper’s claim that the notice is incorrect and therefore invalid. The location provided by G24 LTD as evidence depicts the parking outside xxxxxx.
Furthermore, the keeper has an email from xxxxx, a business of that address, stating that the driver had express permission to be parked at this address after 18:00.
Additionally, we have a wedding invite and photos of the location parked which prove the car was outside xxx as the location is identical to that pictured as "evidence" by G24 LTD. As xxx is located at xxx G24 LTD's assertion that the car was parked in Lancashire can be proven incorrect. Therefore, it is impossible for the PCN to be compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the car was not in the location stated. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and charge dismissed.

2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (c)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, clause 9.2 (c) states, “The notice must describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;”
The notice specifies “Term Breached: Unauthorised Parking at Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW.
The keeper declares that as the car can be proven to be in a different location than that stated on the PCN, G24 LTD has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore respectfully requests that my appeal is upheld and charge dismissed.

3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If the parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
I require G24 LTD to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate of loss.
I am also aware that it is improbable that the Landowner of Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW can reasonably claim a loss when it is proven the car was never parked there. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No authority to levy charges

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
G24 LTD must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location: Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles G24 LTD to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the G24 LTD to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the G24 LTD produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the G24 LTD. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between G24 LTD and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that G24 LTD can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Should G24 LTD demonstrate their proof to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf to enforce breach of contract at Tile Giant, 107 Cavendish Street, Ashton Under Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 7SW. I humbly suggest that as it can be proven that the car was not parked at this address on the alleged date and time and that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. 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 extorting an unlawful charge by impersonating 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 or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.



6. Data Protection
It can be proven that the car was not at the location stated by G24 LTD. The fact that they used this fiction to apply to the DVLA and use the vehicles registered keeper’s details so inappropriately is mind boggling. This is a clear attempt at extorting an unlawful charge and is harassing in tone and nature The registered keeper will be complaining to the DVLA and The Information Commissioner’s Office on this matter. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Coupon-mad

I guess you will have to (but you'll beat G24 on 'no GPEOL' anyway)!

Wouldliketoknow

One last question - Am I right in thinking that if you pay within 14 days the fine should be reduced by 50%? As the sign that they use at the location we were actually parked in says 40%. I'm not sure whether to include this in my evidence or not....

Sigh misread on my part it is 40% Uggghhhh

Coupon-mad

Nope it's supposed to be 40% so no mileage in that argument. Glad you are thinking of all avenues though. You will win in February, and the Assessor will say that G24 have failed to show their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


(P.S. submit it online of course, to be sure it's in time).