(Yet another) G24 CPCN

Carthesis

Morning all.

After my last run-in with G24 Ltd., I wasn't going to be put off parking in the same place again, so when the missus and I decided to go to the cinema, we did just that.

The cinema car park was obviously full, and as I was meeting her there straight from work we had two cars. I didn't mess about and parked where I always park. She tried to be a good girl and looked for a space in the cinema car park first. No joy, so about ten minutes later than me, pulled into the space alongside me. We go to the cinema, and then obviously leave at about the same time as each other.

A week or so later, she gets one of the obnoxious letters from G24 Ltd. To date, I have not had anything through. I think I might now be on their "don't screw with him" list... which take some of the fun out of it.

Still, it means I get to play with them on the girlfriends behalf:

[FONT=&quot]Dear G24 Ltd.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the registered keeper of the vehicle (registration X NNN XXX) concerned on the correspondence detailed above, I have received your speculative parking invoice, which I decline your invitation to pay.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I deny any liability to your company, and wish to invoke your appeals process on the basis of the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] i. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In your correspondence, you allege that the driver of the vehicle "exceeded the maximum duration of stay at xxxxxxxxx". Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence of these allegations. Two photographs were provided with your invoice, however neither image shows the vehicle definitively in the location you allege;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The two photographs provided as ‘evidence’ of these allegations do not satisfy the civil evidentiary standard of ‘balance of probabilities’ that the vehicle was in the locations you allege for the amount of time you claim. While one image – the ‘entry’ image - clearly shows the registration markings on the vehicle, the remaining image - which purports to be the ‘exit’ image - does not. The smaller images intended to show the registration marks cannot therefore have been taken from the recorded images. There is therefore no preponderance of evidence that this is the same vehicle;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]iii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Further to item ii) above, the secondary image claiming to show the registration marks as part of the ‘exit’ image is illegible and does not clearly show the same registration number;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] iv. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Further to item ii) above, the entry image is distorted, which could indicate an error in your camera and/or recording equipment, which may well have incorrectly recorded the time at which you claim the vehicle was in the location you allege;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]v. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You additionally state that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed … in prominent places". The images provided as ‘evidence’ of your allegations do not show the “clear display in prominent places” of the terms and conditions. Furthermore, without a copy of the “terms and conditions” you claim exist, I am not satisfied the driver was in breach of them;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] vi. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Your signage does not comply with your ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] vii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] viii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]At this point, I invite you to withdraw your speculative invoice via issuance of a cancellation letter. If you do not wish to cancel this invoice, I will require notification via return letter detailing your reasons for rejection of my offer to cancel, which must state:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (POPLA) verification code to be used for any subsequent appeals on my part as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]b) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee) as your signage was not seen or accepted by the driver and your recent invoice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If alleging breach of contract, with your letter rejecting my offer of cancellation I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular ‘loss’ arose. Please also provide details of how and why these losses are recompensed by payment of a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious, and further how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]d) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If alleging trespass, please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum. I will further require evidence that the landowner has passed on the right to bring a claim for trespass.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]e) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if alleging ‘contractual fee’, I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. I will further require evidence that the landowner has passed on the right to offer contracts. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice following this request will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A failure to provide either of the documents detailed above within 14 days from the date of this letter will be deemed an implied agreement on your part of my rejection of your invoice. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Additionally, I draw your attention to the following points of which I invite you to take formal notice:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further contact requesting payment will constitute harassment. For the avoidance of doubt, any other contact by your company, other than the cancellation letter noted above, will be deemed a ‘serious and persistent unwarranted threat’ (as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 10/02/2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. This letter serves as your notification that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send any further letters demanding payment under threat of punitive action will reinforce the already abundant evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In addition to item a) above, further note that your unsupported, unsolicited invoice fulfils the four necessary criteria to pursue a criminal charge of ‘demanding money with menaces’ under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, in as much as:

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] i. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A demand for monies has been made – “… the driver is hereby required to pay a parking charge …”;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]With menaces – “… forward the outstanding debt to a debt recovery agency …” and “… Court proceedings may be issued against you …” is considered a high degree of coercion to force an individual to take a particular course of action;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]iii.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The demand for monies was unwarranted – my valid challenges to your claims are set out above, as is my belief that you have no legal standing with which to make these allegations. It is further my belief that you are fully aware of the fact that you have no grounds, reasonable or otherwise, to be making such a demand;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] iv. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]That the demand was made with a view to make a gain for himself or another or have the intent to cause loss to another – your own website and associated case studies refers to “Incremental revenue is … generated through parking fines …” (Case Studies 1 and 4)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Notwithstanding the above, if you fail to withdraw your speculative invoice and insist upon taking the matter further, I must inform you that I will seek to claim any costs from you, including my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment. By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]d) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Any obfuscation on your part, such as stating I have to name the driver; alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper; or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

This time I decided to go on the offensive rather than the defensive ...

bod1467

The "Hot Bring" appeal would stop G24 in its tracks anyway, but I like it.

Hot_Bring

Nice letter although my dealings with G24 would suggest they will struggle to understand most of it. Maybe a competition is called for ? If you finally get your paperwork use my brief appeal below and let's see which version takes the least time to kill the charge ?

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. The signage does not conform to the BPA CoP to which G24 has committed.
3. 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 ).

Carthesis

It's adapted from a letter I have used successfully on them previously. I just took out some of the politeness.

In some cases, bludgeoning them to death with words is just as effective :-D