G24 advice required please

Coupon-mad

d3m0n333 wrote: »

Quick update - I've read through Coupon-Mad's n00b sticky, and my postal NTK appears to adhere to POFA 2012 section 4.

As I mentioned, I believe I still have a receipt from said retailer in my possession, so should I complain in person to the store manager? And am I within my rights to state that, even though I initially only made a small purchase from their store, I then returned later on and was browsing (although no further purchase was made)?

Yes, include a copy of the receipt attached to the email appeal to G24 as well if you can. But talk about 'the driver' in the third person (e.g. the driver was a customer and I attach a copy of their receipt and I have made a complaint to the Store manager about this harassment of paying customers...).

Definitely complain to the Store Manager quickly because some will cancel a batch of these for customers every single week, and if so, you won't even need to bother with POPLA. Some Stores only have a short window of time to cancel these so ask sooner rather than later.

Redx

soft appeal to the ppc with the added info about the car occupants shopping locally with attachment of photocopied receipt etc should suffice as you are really asking for the charge to be cancelled, but insist on the popla code if they do not cancel it (so you give them the chance to cancel like I did on mine)

also you should be complaining to the shop and landowner if its not the shop, to get a cancellation that way

popla is your last resort if all else fails , which you will win following this forums excellent advice

so its shut up (with evidence) or put up (with popla code) , meanwhile underhandedly playing "mister aggrieved and outraged shopper" with the landowner/shops

d3m0n333

Is there a rough template I should be using in my initial appeal email?

**Edited to add - I will be visiting the store to speak to the manager tomorrow or Saturday latest**

Redx

d3m0n333 wrote: »

Is there a rough template I should be using in my initial appeal email?

**Edited to add - I will be visiting the store to speak to the manager tomorrow or Saturday latest**

this is a baseline one with the key points

Dear Sir,

With reference to the invoice XXXXXXX dated XX XXX , I am the registered keeper and I deny all liability for this charge on the following points

1) This is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) The signage is unclear and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices

I require that you immediately cancel this invoice. If you reject this challenge, please forward a POPLA verification code to appeal to them independently. As you are aware Popla always uphold appeals on the above.

yours Faithfully

The keeper

OBVIOUSLY you add the extra details about the driver going in the shop more than once and purchasing items etc, the receipt is attached , blah blah before the main "stick"

I used the carrot and stick approach, that they should cancel the charge because (with proof) like going about their lawful business as a genuine shopper and then the stick being , BUT IF blah blah then I must mention the following

then reiterate its cancel or issue popla code, so there are no buts or to-ing and fro-ing going on

Guys_Dad

I think that your chances of G24 folding with your appeal based on being a genuine shopper not spending much will fail.

However, the points made Redx and the template seems enough to get a POPLA code.

You might also add the previous suggestion of adding

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

But only add that (a) if you are appealing on GPEOL and (b) you have the bottle to see it through if you win at POPLA.

Oh, and do appeal to the retailer as suggested as well.

d3m0n333

Ok, so... Based on related threads that I've dug up over the last couple of hours, I've pre-emptively drafted up a POPLA appeal letter, looking something like this:

G24 PCN Number XXXX
POPLA Code XXXXX
Vehicle Registration XXXXXX

On the XX of December 2013 G24 issued this £XX parking charge for overstaying XX minutes in a car park with 90 minutes free parking.

The basis of appeal is as follows:

1. NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The amount of the charge (£XX) is disproportionate to the loss incurred by G24 Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Terms Act 1997. The Appellant also considers the charge to be a penalty because G24 have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss which cannot include business running costs (as found in Vehicle Control Services vs Mr R Ibbotson 16th of May 2012) only the costs resulting in overstaying XX minutes in a free car park.The £XX charge is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 gives and indicative but not exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair.

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'

Regulation 5 (1) says:

'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'

Regulation 5 (2) says:

'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'

Private parking tickets unrelated to any genuine pre-estimate of loss are unenforceable penalties.

The Appellant requests G24 Ltd to provide POPLA a full breakdown of this specific £XX charge and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

2. NO CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER 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. G24 Ltd have not provided the Appellant 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 the title of the land in question. The Appellant does not believe G24 Ltd 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 vs HMRC 2012). The Appellant puts G24 Ltd to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location. This would be in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier specifically evidencing the ability of G24 Ltd to pursue parking charges to the courts. The Appellant requests this to be scrutinised by the POPLA adjudicator.

3. UNCLEAR AND NON COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

The Appellant believes the signs and parking terms were unclear and requests G24 Ltd show POPLA their evidence and signage map/photos specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. The Appellant believes the signage onsite is too high, too small and not affixed within a close enough radius of the entrance and therefore easy to miss. It does not state any terms and conditions nor the amount of free parking. The signs in the car park are also too high and too small and it’s not reasonable that any driver of any age or height can read and understand them. The Appellant believes the signs are unclear and non compliant.

The amount claimed by G24 is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that arise from the alleged contravention.

The Operator charges include a basket of costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the BPA, DVLA charges, wages and uniforms which are Operational costs of running the business.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.

I contend, therefore, that you should allow the appeal on this ground.

So that's all saved and ready to go... So firstly I need to send off a 'soft' appeal, yes? If anyone can clue me up on that please, that'd be great!

Many thanks for all your help so far!

Coupon-mad

Use Redx's version above (adding in your info about the driver having shopped on site) OR use a version more like your draft POPLA appeal, as I suspect G24 will fold!

d3m0n333

Thanks guys!

So, if I beef up/expand on Redx's points made above, as well as citing info on driver shopping onsite, and attaching a scan of receipt (if possible), submitting it via G24's suggested web portal, we should be off to a good start?

Will draft something up now, and post here before submitting!

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Yep, you got it. I would use a beefed up version because it may make G24 scuttle back under their stone nice and early.

Guys_Dad

Have you really read your appeal? It is all over the place.

You start off with GPEOL. Very good.

You then go through a number of points and finish with UNCLEAR and NON COMPLIANT SIGNAGE which includes the following

"The amount claimed by G24 is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that arise from the alleged contravention.

The Operator charges include a basket of costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the BPA, DVLA charges, wages and uniforms which are Operational costs of running the business.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same."

Isn't that GPEOL????? And what are the signs non-compliant with? The Highway Code? Jamie Oliver's 15 minute recipes?

There is nothing wrong with cut'n'paste as long as you finish up with something that isn't obviously that.

Have another read. Get things in the right place and if you don't understand something in your appeal, ask or take it out.

We want you to win.