G24 advice required please

bod1467

Guys_Dad wrote: »

And what are the signs non-compliant with? The Highway Code? Jamie Oliver's 15 minute recipes?

That made me proper LOL. :rotfl:

d3m0n333

Point taken, Guys Dad.

So here goes with my soft (albeit beefy) appeal draft... Please do let me know what you think!

Dear G24 Ltd,

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

1) On the date in question, the driver was a paying customer of XXXX, the retailer with which this invoice is associated (proof of receipt provided), and visited the store more than once within the duration of the supposed infraction.

2) This is not a 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 35 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 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.

3) The signage is unclear and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice:

The Appellant believes the signs and parking terms were unclear and requests G24 Ltd disclose 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.

4) You do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices:

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.

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.

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.

Yours Faithfully

The keeper

bod1467

I would change challenge to appeal. Yes, they mean the same thing and PPCs are supposed to accept a challenge as an appeal. But they're not the most customer-friendly of people so best to remove any wiggle room.

And if they still DO reject your appeal, that could just about go straight in as a POPLA appeal.

d3m0n333

Thanks bod1467, changed that now.

Just a thought... What if the signs, albeit they are too small, situated too high, too far away from entrance, etc, do in fact state the amount of free parking, and terms/conditions (I'm not saying they do, I'm going to have to go and investigate this, but what if)?

bod1467

Doesn't matter. It's for them to rebut your claim, not for you to prove it.

Guys_Dad

That is better. For my sins, I spent a career reading and writing reports, papers and other time-filling activities. Not a proper job some would say!

What it did do was give me some experience of well writted reports and badly written ones and I have seen a winning battle lost by bad format.

Now yours is not bad at all, but it could be improved as follows.

Summarise your appeal point headings at the beginning.

Use bold headings at the start of each appeal point.

When you are quoting sections and schedules, inset the paragraphs and possibly use italics.

It all goes to make your presentation more professional and may gain a bit of respect from the adjudicator.

On the other hand, they might prefer one of Jamie's recipes.

Good luck!

d3m0n333

Ok, scanned in my receipt, and I'm going to send this to them now... Fingers crossed!

Dear G24 Ltd,

With reference to the invoice XXXXX dated XXXXXX, I am the registered keeper and I deny all liability for this charge on the following points:

• Driver was a paying customer at XXX
• No genuine pre-estimate of loss
• Unclear/non-compliant signage
• No legal authority/contract

1) Driver was a paying customer at XXX:

On the date in question (07/12/2013), the driver was a paying customer of XXX, the retailer with which this invoice is associated (proof of receipt provided), and visited the store more than once within the duration of the supposed infraction.

2) This is not a 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 35 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 amount claimed by G24 is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that arises 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.

3) The signage is unclear and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice:

The Appellant believes the signs and parking terms were unclear and requests G24 Ltd disclose 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.

4) You do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices:

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.

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

If you do reject the appeal 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.

Yours Faithfully

The keeper

I've indented the paragraphs containing sections, but obviously it's not reflected on here.

bod1467

Change the bullets to numbers (matching the numbered items below). This'll make it easier for the assessor to go straight to 2 or 4 and allow your appeal.

d3m0n333

Ugh. Can't submit it via G24's web portal as it exceeds 5000 characters. Can I just submit it as a word doc (you can attach .doc files to the appeal) and have some leading text in the text box, summarising the points and telling them to look at the attached .doc file?

Coupon-mad

Nope I would reduce the points under each heading, just include a sentence or two for each one and say 'the points below will form my POPLA appeal if you do not cancel and I will expand my challenge further at that stage'.