After being shouted at ;-)

Boult22

Thank you! :-)

How about this? :-

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have received your invoice dated xxxxxxxx.
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg. xxxxxxx and wish to appeal the charge made in your invoice.

The driver, who was a first time visitor to St. Helens that evening, merely followed the road signs for the municipal car park into N John Street, saw the 1st ‘Car Park’ sign and negotiated the convoluted entry way to the car park.

Due to the inclement weather on the evening in question the single sign, above the line of sight of the driver, on the post at the entry point (where most drivers are concentrating on the tight restricted entry road), was not seen or noticed by the driver.

My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. The amount of the charge (£100.00 reduced to £60.00 on prompt payment) 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 £100.00 charge is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Schedule 2 of said act gives an 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 host 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.

The signage is inadequate and too high to be viewed clearly from a car on entry to the car park, therefore not allowing the driver to assess if he / she wish to remain. Indeed, in this instance, the sign is place at a point where the driver is negotiating a convoluted entry road.

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.
You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld. 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 and my time at the court rate of £20 per hour. 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.

I have registered my displeasure with xxxxxxxx, who are serviced by this car park, and xxxxxxx Head Office and I have sent them full details of the event, who I am expecting to contact you with instructions to cancel the charge.

Redx

firstly , edit out any personal info in the above, the REG NUMBER for one !!

secondly, a typical soft appeal looks like this (from stroma I believe so credit to him , not me)

Dear PPC,

As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to you company is denied on the following:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

These points and others will be raised with Popla should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

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.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or forward a popla verification code.

Faithfully

yours seems far too wordy for me, buy hey, its your appeal , not mine , so if you feel it is what you wish to do , go ahead , dont worry about it

as long as it gets a popla code it doesnt matter too much (but be nice if they cancelled it)

Boult22

Following now sent - will keep you posted.

As the registered keeper of xxxxxx I am in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated 23rd December (received at this address xxxxx). I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your company is denied on the following points :-

• The amount being claimed is NOT a genuine pre estimate of loss to your company or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal.
• Your signage does not comply with the BPA code of practice.
• You are not the landowner and therefore do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss and your full unredacted contract with said landowner.

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may seek to claim expenses from you. These will not be exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and possible legal fees. By continuing to pursue me you agree to be liable for these costs when I prevail on this issue.

Please issue your cancellation of this invoice within 35 days of this letter, or forward a POPLA verification code. Alternatively please respond to confirm cancellation of this invoice.

I have also registered my displeasure with xxxxxx), who are serviced by this car park, and xxxxxx Head Office and I have sent them full details of this event.

Boult22

OK - here we go - reply from said company verbatim is as follows :

Thank you for your recent correspondence.
Our claim is not based on trespass, but on a breach of contract.

We have taken legal advice and we have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss but are likely to amount to “liquidated damages”. This is because the Court’s position is where the parties to a contract agre to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract – which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage – a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is likely to be classed as liquidated damages. Either way, our parking charges are enforceable and do not amount to a “penalty”. You should also be aware that in accordance with the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving that an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party against whom the parking charge is claimed).

We confirm that it is not necessary for us to provide you with a breakdown of our parking charges at this time. This information is confidential, but is available and will be provided to the court in the course of Court proceedings, if necessary, and if payment has not been made before then.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. You are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you too adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when you visit the site.
Our signage complies with the British Parking Association’s requirements.

We manage the car park on behalf of our client – and our client is not involved with the issue nor enforcement of our Notices to Keeper.

After consideration of the information provided by you, your dispute has been unsuccessful as you have not provided proof of purchase for the day in question so the Contractual Parking charge Notice still applies. As we have extensively investigated this Contractual Parking Charge Notice and provided you with the results of our investigation, no further investigation will be undertaken.

You now have a number of options from which to choose :

1 : Pay (the usual blurb re reduced amount within 14 days etc)

2. Make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days by competing the accompanying form or by making your appeal online at https://www.popla.org your POPLA verification code is :xxxxxxxxx Please be 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.

3. 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.

4. Supply copies of receipts for the day in question or your bank statement with your private details erased showing the transactions on our clients site within 14 days. Please do not send in original documents as they will not be returned.


I'll start sifting through the POPLA appeals stick though any fast track pointers would be appreciated.

Si.

bod1467

Typical scare tactics. I don't know why though - it is obvious that you know what you're talking about (i.e. forum help) and that they will LOSE at POPLA (and you even told them that).

Oh well - it's their money to throw away as they wish.

Boult22

Additionally - checked the popla code on the helpful / useful link supplied by C-M - turns out this was applied for the day before the date on the letter (ie not allowing me the full time to appeal) - the checker recommended making a complaint about this - would be right in presuming this complaint is made to BPA?

Hot_Bring

bod1467 wrote: »

Typical scare tactics. I don't know why though - it is obvious that you know what you're talking about (i.e. forum help) and that they will LOSE at POPLA (and you even told them that).

Oh well - it's their money to throw away as they wish.

That's because G24 like throwing away £27+VAT because they are stupid. That reply is nothing but bluff and bluster. Taken legal advice indeed :rotfl:

If they were so sure of their legal position why have they NEVER taken anyone to court :cool:

Let's also remember that G24 actively and purposely lied to Nominet and nearly lost their domain name by doing so.

4consumerrights

What a load of tosh their contradictory reply was - it would appear that the PPCs are now all trying also the commercial justification route as an alternative to GPEOL as disguised.

We have taken legal advice and we have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss but are likely to amount to “liquidated damages”. This is because the Court’s position is where the parties to a contract agre to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract – which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage – a sum stipulated in this way

Gosh G24 have taken legal advice have they?
They should ask for their money back then.
Do you think it's because of the new clause now being put on the initial appeal regarding claiming costs?
You haven't agreed to any of the terms they put on their signs nor did you negotiate any of them ( basic contract law and unfair contracts etc.)

As we have extensively investigated this Contractual Parking Charge Notice and provided you with the results of our investigation, no further investigation will be undertaken.

We manage the car park on behalf of our client – and our client is not involved with the issue nor enforcement of our Notices to Keeper

. Good so you are merely agents with no proprietary interest or legal standing to pursue claims.

After consideration of the information provided by you, your dispute has been unsuccessful as you have not provided proof of purchase for the day in question so the Contractual Parking charge Notice still applies. As we have extensively investigated this Contractual Parking Charge Notice and provided you with the results of our investigation, no further investigation will be undertaken.

You now have a number of options from which to choose :


4. Supply copies of receipts for the day in question or your bank statement with your private details erased showing the transactions on our clients site within 14 days. Please do not send in original documents as they will not be returned.

Well those two statements contradict themselves. Do you have any proof of purchase for the day in question?


Regarding the one day delay in POPLA code - you could make a complaint but TBH I would concentrate on compiling a POPLA appeal and complaining again to retailer - have you done this yet?


Research POPLA appeals and G24 successful ones and post up here before submitting

4consumerrights

Hot_Bring wrote: »

That's because G24 like throwing away £27+VAT because they are stupid. That reply is nothing but bluff and bluster. Taken legal advice indeed :rotfl:

If they were so sure of their legal position why have they NEVER taken anyone to court :cool:

Let's also remember that G24 actively and purposely lied to Nominet and nearly lost their domain name by doing so.

Just seen your post Hot Bring crossed when doing mine! How did they lie to Nominet?

Boult22

Thanks again folks - tomorrow mornings project now sorted.
No proof of purchase for day in question. Apparently the driver did not see the signage when entering the car park (it was dark and rainy and empty), they did look for a meter / method by which to pay but saw neither or, indeed, any signage within the park - the sign is at the entry point apparently (not in the line of sight / headlamps).....