Clarification "Date issued to RK, or date post recieved"?

ColliesCarer

bod1467 wrote: »

Search this forum for G24 ... there's a specially-worded appeal (by Hot Bring as I recall) for G24 that has worked to get almost every PCN cancelled at appeal, without even needing to go to POPLA.

Seems the worm may be turning. Saw this post yesterday where OP got a rejection and a POPLA code after using HB's letter.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4987509

Which I was very surprised at

bod1467

That's why I said almost.

anh1904

OK, appeal part 1 sent, cut and paste the longer version from the NEWBIE post, and added part 4:


4) Your Notice to Keeper fails to meet theconditions required for POFA schedule 4 paragraph 4 to apply and you,therefore, have no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper; Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on16th May 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 19 days later on 4th June2014.

anh1904

G24 rejected my first appeal.

They have said on point 1 (estimate of loss) their parking charges (it was a free car park) are justified in that they are in line with British Parking Assoc guidelines

On point 2 they have said my appeal didn't state why I thought their signage does not conform so can't answer

On point 3 they say I don't specify in which way I allege they do not have authority to issue charges (so haven't answered)

On point 4 (received after 14 days) they haven't directly answered, instead quoting lots of POFA stuff
a) Parking charge
in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee charged and

b) in the case of relevant obligation arising as a result of tespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages ...
..."relevant obligation"
blah blah blah

In this instance a parking charge has been issued based on the fact that the driver of your veehicle entered into a contract with us (by the act of parking the vehicle) and our signage (which states the terms and conditions of parking) having been clearly displayed in the car park

NO MENTION of being outside the 14 days allowed.

They have sent a POPLA code.

I think my appeal points should be:

1. Non genuine pre-estimate ofloss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Business rates
6. ANPR accuracy
7. ANPR usage
8. Proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed and ANPR system
9. Failure to meet conditions forPOFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4

da_rule

Remove business rates but other than that you have it nailed (assuming you'll expand on those points obviously).

anh1904

Yes, will go to town about the height and invsibility of signage (unclear as it is) to any driver on entry from any direction, and indeed the lack of clear signage when parked where the vehicle was ... do I submit photographic evedence showing the flaws, or just state them for G24 to have to prove otherwise?

da_rule

anh1904 wrote: »

Yes, will go to town about the height and invsibility of signage (unclear as it is) to any driver on entry from any direction, and indeed the lack of clear signage when parked where the vehicle was ... do I submit photographic evedence showing the flaws, or just state them for G24 to have to prove otherwise?

Personally, I would just state it. It is then up to G24 to prove otherwise.

anh1904

Signage for comment for the POPLA appeal

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/vvn67njp5w1i6ym/AACd6V3AGA8Kf6c4emXIusk1a?n=83211218#lh:1-2014-06-18%2014.56.58.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/vvn67njp5w1i6ym/AACd6V3AGA8Kf6c4emXIusk1a?n=83211218#lh:0-2014-06-18%2014.57.41.jpg

Coupon-mad

It's not exactly in your face signage but POPLA appeals are usually won on 'no GPEOL' or 'no contract with landowner allowing the PPC the standing to enforce charges in the courts'. Not on signage, very rare. Go to town on the 'no GPEOL' argument. Then you have the contract with landowner paragraph & arabesque's paragraph as well which is a slam dunk win on its own for a registered keeper. Put 'unclear signage' last as it's least important, get rid of 'Planning Consent' and 'Business rates'.

Maybe include that pic of the entrance as an attachment.

anh1904

DRAFT 1 - comments appreciated:


POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Car Park:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against theparking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on thegrounds stated below, I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. ANPR accuracy
6. ANPR usage
7. Proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed and ANPR system
8. Failure to meet conditions forPOFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4



1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of £75 demanded by G24is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon lossfollowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, lossof parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. As thisis a free car park there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking chargesor retail revenue. I request G24 to provide a full breakdown of how these costsare calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from thealleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demandedof £75.

As in previous cases the parking company has included day to day running costsof the business (for example Wages, Uniforms, Signage erection, Installation ofANPR cameras, Office Costs, Maintenance Costs) these would have occurred hadthere been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in thispre-estimate of loss.

Given that G24 charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they wouldfor 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention(whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there hasbeen no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimateof loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' isnot automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parkingcharge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPACode of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent agenuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage - Following the receiptof the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and the signageat this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate for numerous reasons.

The signage at entrance of the car park has no lighting and doesn't have a reflective background and this makes it possiblefor drivers to enter the car park with out seeing the signs thus no contractcan be formed between the driver and G24. The entrance sign is also situated onthe passenger side of the road on a standard right hand UK car and is situated threelane widths from the left kerb, this makes it difficult for drivers to see anddue to the size of the text, quite impossible to read from inside the carregardless of which side of the road the car park is entered from. All thesereasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing thesignage upon entering.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'Signsshould be readable and understandable at all times ,including during the hoursof darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place atthose times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by directlighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself isnot directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of aretro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described inthe Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.'

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

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read andaccepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA Assessor would be led tobelieve that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchangefor paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. Theidea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyondcredibility.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - G24 do notown this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. Intheir notice and rejection letters G24 have provided me with no evidence thatthey are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put G24to strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from thelandowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name ascreditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand G24 produce to POPLAthe contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the G24.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parkingmanagement, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or theirappointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. Theauthorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of themanagement and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. Inparticular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code ofPractice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

4. Unlawful penalty charge - Since there is no demonstrable loss ordamage yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it canonly remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawfulcharge to impersonate a parking ticket. G24 could state the letter as aninvoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice'in an attempt for it to be deemed as an official parking fine such as the onesissued by Police and local authorities.

5. ANPR accuracy - Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, itrequires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and incorrect working order. I require G24 to provide records with dates and times ofwhen the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised withthe timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.This is important as the parking charge issued is founded entirety on 2 photosof my vehicle entering the car park and leaving the car park at specific times.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 to showevidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of myvehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remoteserver added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and donot have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proofthat the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operatorappears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so"live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronisedtime stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with anaccurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from thecameras in this car park is unreliable and unsynchronised. As their wholecharge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 to strict proof to the contrary.

6. ANPR usage - Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practiceit states 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforceparking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable,consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell driversthat you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured byANPR cameras for'

G24 fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparentmanner'. As G24 place signs too small to be read on arrival, there is noopportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed thatthis technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured byANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is anon-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at theentrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parkingspaces, nor any parking event at all.

7. Proof of planning consent for limited time parking allowed and ANPRsystem - I request G24 provide proof that they have the necessary planningpermissions from the local authorities to operate this car park as a limitedtime (45 minutes) period free parking zone, and for the installation of theANPR cameras used on this site.

8. Failure to meet conditions for POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4 - The Notice to Keeper issued by G24 fails to meet theconditions required for POFA schedule 4 paragraph 4 to apply and they,therefore, have no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper; Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on16th May 2014, and the notice to keeper, dated 30th May, wasreceived 19 days later on 4th June 2014, outside of the 14 day period required.

If the Operator wants to make useof the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and has notissued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park wherethe parking event took place, the Operator's Notice to Keeper must meet thestrict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particularparagraph 9). The notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 dayperiod from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breachoccurred on 16th May 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 19 days lateron 4th June 2014. Even if the Notice To Keeper was posted by the operator onthe day it is dated (30th May 2014), the earliest it could have been deliveredby ordinary post would have been Monday 2nd June, which is on the 17th day.




This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld andthe charge be dismissed if G24 Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessaryevidence as requested in the points highlighted above.


Yours Faithfully,