Parking Charge Notice at Freeport Braintree

Coupon-mad

No probs, G24 are easy to beat at appeal. Why not just put 'G24' into the forum search facility on page one next to 'forum tools' just above the sticky threads we mentioned you and the other poster need to read, then the search will show you lots of cases like yours. You'll soon see a pattern that confirms the advice in the Newbies sticky thread, to send an appeal as registered keeper (not driver) as per the examples in that 'sticky'.

(A 'sticky' is an information thread permanently stuck at the top of the thread list).

trisontana

The BPA is not a "group", It's the trade association (or old-boy's club) for the parking "industry"

noo.noo_4

Thanks for your reply.

Never used this before......So step learning curve for me here.

But will learn how it works now.

Cheers

noo.noo_4

Ive read through a lot of threads on this subject.

I have cut & pasted this from Guys Dad.......Is this ok to do? pls Advise

All help welcome.....Thanks in advance. :A

"APPEAL RE: CPCN No * * * *

G24 CHARGE NOTICE £100. At Freeport Braintree
CAR PARK 14/12/2013, VEHICLE REG: E

---

R

This Notice is Dated 31/12/2013......Over 14 days from the parking date.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.


1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards andt here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")
2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

This concludes my appeal.

Coupon-mad

You've saved yourself some time by starting to draft your second stage appeal, early (that's a POPLA appeal, not quite there yet but a great start for POPLA stage!). Good practice for you, but I don't think you will need it as I think G24 will cancel sharpish in view of the appeal you will send them.

So for the first appeal to G24 you need a 'short and sweet' version to either get them to cancel it or to send you a POPLA code (= green light to win!).

So a short appeal to G24 could just have the headings, without the Planning Consent one (which isn't always relevant anyway) and something I have added to prod them to cancel:



Dear G24,
PCN number xxxxxx
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. The driver will not be identified in this appeals process but I am aware I am entitled to appeal to POPLA, as confirmed in 22.14 of the BPA code of practice. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:

1. I believe G24 has no contract with the landowner that assigns title in this land nor specifically permits you to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts. Without those clauses, your contract is not BPA-compliant and the charge is unenforceable.

2. The signs at the car park were unclear and too high. These are not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract formed at all between the parking company and the driver, since no signage was seen and this Notice to Keeper has been an unwelcome surprise.

3. The driver/passengers were patrons (involved in shopping/food and film while on site) and so the time allowed was insufficient just before Christmas and the charge unjustified harassment. A complaint will be made to the Centre Manager and all Managers of the premises visited if G24 do not cancel this charge immediately. I will not send receipts to you, a third party, partly because the driver (unaware of G24) did not keep the ones from the meal and film but also because you have no prospect of success so I have no reason to prove anything to you.

4. Your Notice to keeper was sent too late to establish any 'keeper liability' under POFA 2012. Clearly I am not liable and will win at POPLA.

5. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss. Clearly I am not liable and will win at POPLA.

As my challenge is in part based on the assertions (4 and 5) that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and your NTK arrived too late to establish any keeper liability, you are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld by POPLA. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that (as well as the complaints indicated above) I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour, since this is a pointless exercise by G24. 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

registered keeper's name

noo.noo_4

bod1467 wrote: »

Possibly not. But this isn't how you'll beat them anyway. Check out the NEWBIES thread for advice. The basic process is:

Soft appeal to PPC (which will probably be rejected, so get a POPLA code. Advice and examples linked from NEWBIES)

Winning appeal to POPLA (with forum advice - post your draft here for advice)

Laugh at the PPC because they were stupid enough to try and scam you - instead YOU will have cost THEM £27 + VAT for the POPLA appeal.

Thanks very much for your reply.

Yes New to this. So sorry I did not get it right 1st time.

Ive looked at a lot of threads. I hope Ive got it now.

I will contact the owner as well now & see how I get with them as well.

Thanks for your advise & help.

noo.noo_4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You've saved yourself some time by starting to draft your second stage appeal, early (that's a POPLA appeal, not quite there yet but a great start for POPLA stage!). Good practice for you, but I don't think you will need it as I think G24 will cancel sharpish in view of the appeal you will send them.

So for the first appeal to G24 you need a 'short and sweet' version to either get them to cancel it or to send you a POPLA code (= green light to win!).

So a short appeal to G24 could just have the headings, without the Planning Consent one (which isn't always relevant anyway) and something I have added to prod them to cancel:



Dear G24,
PCN number xxxxxx
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. The driver will not be identified in this appeals process but I am aware I am entitled to appeal to POPLA, as confirmed in 22.14 of the BPA code of practice. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:

1. I believe G24 has no contract with the landowner that assigns title in this land nor specifically permits you to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts. Without those clauses, your contract is not BPA-compliant and the charge is unenforceable.

2. The signs at the car park were unclear and too high. These are not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract formed at all between the parking company and the driver, since no signage was seen and this Notice to Keeper has been an unwelcome surprise.

3. The driver/passengers were patrons (involved in shopping/food and film while on site) and so the time allowed was insufficient just before Christmas and the charge unjustified harassment. A complaint will be made to the Centre Manager and all Managers of the premises visited if G24 do not cancel this charge immediately. I will not send receipts to you, a third party, partly because the driver (unaware of G24) did not keep the ones from the meal and film but also because you have no prospect of success so I have no reason to prove anything to you.

4. Your Notice to keeper was sent too late to establish any 'keeper liability' under POFA 2012. Clearly I am not liable and will win at POPLA.

5. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss. Clearly I am not liable and will win at POPLA.

As my challenge is in part based on the assertions (4 and 5) that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and your NTK arrived too late to establish any keeper liability, you are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld by POPLA. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that (as well as the complaints indicated above) I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour, since this is a pointless exercise by G24. 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

registered keeper's name

Oh thats fantastic.

Im really grateful to you for your help & advise.

noo.noo_4

This below is the reply that I have received from G24.

NOTE the date they Quote 2008. Is this the last time they won ?
....Now I need to go to the next step.

Dear noo.noo

RE: Contractual Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the contractual terms of the car park, however you have failed to inform us who was.

Judge Ackroyd, 2008, Oldham Court, Combined Parking Solutions versus Mr Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, but did not state who was, ruled that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ordered the Charge to be paid plus additional court costs.

If, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the date on which this correspondence is issued), you have not complied with the above, then we have the right to take recovery action against you.

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

The nature of our contract with our client is confidential but will be supplied during any Court proceedings.

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 that where the parties to a contract agree 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 fully 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. That 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.

After consideration of the information provided by you, your dispute has been unsuccessful as you have not been able to provide receipts for the day in question, 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 Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the discounted rate will no longer apply and the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0845 452 7777 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days - The Independent Appeals Service by completing the accompanying form or by making your appeal online at xxxx your POPLA verification code is: xxxxxxxxxx. 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 your receipts for the day in question or your bank statement with your private details erased showing the transaction(s) on our client's site within 14 days. Please do not send in original documents as they will not be returned.

Customer Services
G24 Ltd

To Pay your Parking Charge visit xxxxx or call our payment line on 0845 452 7777.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, if you wish to continue your appeal visit our appeals website at xxx

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Registered in England. Company Registration number: 5457196. Registered Company address: Batchworth House, Batchworth Place, Church Street, Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 1JE.

This email (and any attachments) is intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Any statement or opinions therein are not necessarily those of G24 Ltd unless specifically stated. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Security and reliability of the e-mail and attachments are not guaranteed. You must take full responsibility for virus checking

trisontana

As you see , it wasn't even their case back in 2008. What they don't quote are the many court cases lost by various PPC's since then. I wonder why?

minniemoo

noo.noo wrote: »

I have just received this notice by post today.

Entrance on 14th Dec @ 12.02 EXIT TIME 18.34

32 minutes over after our shopping food & film.

Charge Notice £100 If Payed in 14 days £60.

Issue Date ofthis notice is 31st Dec....As this is over 14 days from the parking date.....Should they have got the keepers details from DVLA ???>?

Can I ask which side of the road did you park on? Did you park on the left where Halfords, Next and B&Q are, or adjacent to the Outlets? I'm not sure what times are allowed beside the Outlets but I can't even see a time indicated on the signs at the retail park.
I normally park on the left near Halfords and I was there today. Just in case it was there that you parked, I have taken photos of the signage for you on that side and it is woeful. The entrance sign is hidden behind the double gates as you go in and most of the signs in the parking area are high up on poles and of course in very small lettering. Sorry that I can't post it here as the photos are linked to my PB account with my name on it.