G24 Parking fine.. sent email which they claim never to have received.. no POPLA code

jonny_rotten

Hi everyone just after some advice..
Having been issued with a invoice on the 22/1/14 by g24 i put together using the good advice on here, a email requesting my POPLA number and various points towards an appeal..
At the time i wasn't quite unsure whether the email had sent as i had not got a receipt off there webpage even though i'd sent it via google chrome & internet explorer
They have sent me a FINAL NOTICE & demanded i pay the fall charge £90 & informed me that it is now to late to contest my charge & i have forgone my right to a POPLA code

I have draughted a letter to themselves which i have put below & wondered if anybody could look over it for me


Dear G24,
Please find below the email that I forwarded to yourselves on the 4/2/2014 in response to my receipt of parking invoice XXXXXXXXXX. You claim that you have never received this email which details my appeal and, subsequently, as a result of no further correspondance from yourselves led myself to believe you had cancelled my invoice.
I again request a POPLA verification code & would also like to make a complaint that your email address box does not allow you to send emails & once again with this FINAL NOTICE letter you ask to provide mitigating circumstances via appealyourcharge.co.uk which then directs you to a page which then states that you cannot contest the charge as your beyond 28 days appeal..
I will be complaining to the manager of B&M stores about this harassment & about how your website does not work properly, only for collecting money..
I will also be complaining to the BPA about your website



Dear G 24,

As the registered keeper I'm in receipt of your parking invoice XXXXXXXXXXX dated 30/1/14 I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your 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...
The shop to which car park is linked is shut at night & the car park is empty!..
The driver drove onto the dark unlit car park & had a puncture off a smashed bottle on the car park..The driver then had to wait for nearly 2 hours for a replacement tyre..
The amount of the charge (£90) is disproportionate to the loss incurred by G 24 Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Terms Act 1997. The Appellant also considers the charge to be a penalty because G 24 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 v s Mr R bots 16 of May 2012) only the costs resulting in overstaying 35 minutes in a free car park.The £90 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 G 24 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 signs and the cost of membership of the B P A, D V LA 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 signs, would still have been the same.


2) Your sign age does not comply with the B P A Code of Practice
The car park is in complete darkness with no lighting especially where any signs are!
The Appellant believes the signs and parking terms were unclear and requests G 24 Ltd disclose their evidence and sign age 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 sign age 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. 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.




3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
G 24 Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. G 24 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 G 24 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 V CS v s 2012). The Appellant puts G 24 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 G 24 Ltd to pursue parking charges to the courts.


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.
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 XXXXXXX

Hot_Bring

Or you can use this much shorter version ( successful at least 6 times so far ) :

Dear G24,

This is an appeal against the charge issued to the vehicle with the registration XXXXXX, charge reference XXXX.

It is the registered keepers assertion that :

1. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. That the signage does not conform to the BPA CoP to which G24 has committed.
3. That G24 has no authority to issue charges over the land in question.

As such the charge is rejected. You should now either cancel said charge or provide a POPLA code for the registered keeper to appeal to the independent adjudicator.

Any further correspondence other than confirmation of cancellation or a POPLA code will be considered harassment and could result in legal action being taken against you.

Yours,

Print name ( don't sign ).