G24 PCN Company Car Driver

neilystew

I have my POPLA code it was in the letter...

Dee140157

Put together a draft appeal based on the other link if you wish, but put it here for checking before you send it.

ColliesCarer

neilystew wrote: »

Right I have my appeal rejected form G24, with a lovely popla appeal form attached. I presume my next step is to get my POPLA code and appeal as in the above link to another Staples car park...

Hi neilystew,

Check the deadline for submission for your POPLA appeal by checking your code using the link to the POPLA code checker in post #3 of NEWBIES thread.

Then yes draft your appeal. The link above - whilst it's for Staples is actually for JAS parking not G24. It's also now 3 months old and there are newer examples which take recent developments into account.

Here's a couple of G24 appeals for you to take a look at

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65998771#Comment_65998771

see the appeal in post #16 in the above link

and see post #8 for the appeal in this one below which is G24 and Staples

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65870549#Comment_65870549

neilystew

Hello again, busy at work but still have time. heres my popla code checker result:-
Code summary
Issuing operator: G24 Ltd (Code: 271)
Date code generated: Mon Aug 11 2014
Code sequence number: 010
Deadline information
Your appeal deadline is Mon Sep 08 2014
You have 12 day(s) remaining for your appeal to reach POPLA
Grounds for complaint
This code was generated 2 day(s) before the date of your appeal rejection letter. This means that you have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that you are entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. Please consider making a complaint.

Coupon-mad

OK so when you've done the POPLA appeal (the priority) then the complaint email to the BPA can swiftly follow. All complaints tot up against PPCs.

neilystew

Is there a draft Popla appeal somewhere or do I use the docs G24 sent me? so confused!!!

HO87

neilystew wrote: »

Is there a draft Popla appeal somewhere or do I use the docs G24 sent me? so confused!!!

There are several drafts in the Newbies thread. Once you have a suitable template, personalise it (to your circumstances - don't include personal details) and post here for comments. You will need to get a move on as your deadline is Monday!

neilystew

I know Im cutting it fine as i need to send tonight really.
The only thing im not sure of is that Im a company car driver. Im not really the registered keeper? should i change the wording accordingly or doesnt it mater at this stage?

appeal draft below:-



I have checked my appeal deadline and this is the 8th September 2014, providing me 1 day to appeal to yourselves. The POPLA code was generated 2 days before the date of the appeal rejection letter, meaning I have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that I am entitled to under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice.
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from G24. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
5) Unreasonable/unfair terms

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not even half full, so the fact that the vehicle was parked for an period of time over the maximum time period (which is denied as I am the keeper and it is up to G24 to show as much) there was no loss of potential income in a free car park.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

The G24 Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shop if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was approximately half full on arrival and almost empty when the driver left.
The fact that the Occupants of the car purchased items from the shops during their stay and have a receipt as “proof of purchase”, questions if rather than a loss being made as indicated by G24, that in actual fact the shops at Central Six Retail Park actually made a profit from the occupants having parked to in their store car park.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that G24 charge the same lump sum for a 10 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. G24 cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, G24 must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that G24 merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put G24 to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unreacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between G24 and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed between G24 and the driver
The occupants of the vehicle state that there was inadequate signage on behalf of the Operator. The BPA code of practice February 2014 clearly states that "Specific parking terms signage must tell drivers what their terms and conditions are, including their parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".
The occupants having entered the car park, and subsequently parked the vehicle within the car park, in question, they did not notice or were made aware of any of the Operator’s signage. It is stated after the event that in actual fact signs are placed to high and are illegible, I put G24 to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos of the placement of the signs, the wording and show measured mounting heights of the signs as well as measured heights of text. One can only surmise from this that the Operator’s signage is, quite clearly, inadequate - as the signs fail to properly warn/inform drivers of the terms and any consequences for breach.

Appendix B of the BPA COP 2014 states that“ The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”.
Therefore nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that G24 have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition, the BPA Code Of Practice contains the following:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking 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 drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

G24 fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As G24 place signs too high to see on arrival, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that G24 present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require G24 to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronise.

5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

A sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from 'transparent'.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at 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." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "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".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs placed too high in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.


I request that my appeal is allowed.

neilystew

Ive changed the opening paragraph to this:-

I have checked my appeal deadline and this is the 8th September 2014, providing me 1 day to appeal to yourselves. The POPLA code was generated 2 days before the date of the appeal rejection letter, meaning I have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that I am entitled to under the British Parking Associations Code of Practice.
I am the keeper of Vehicle Registration Mark &*%$ &** and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from G24. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

neilystew

Hi
OK I have the evidence pack sent to me from G24 directly not Popla? Is that normal?
So G24 have rejected my appeal, but do i still wait for Popla decison?
In the evidence they have given it mentions nothing about my grounds of not been given the full 28 days?
Also there is alarming issues with their evidence, I don't want to say too much on here as this might just work in my favor but who can PM me that I can talk to?

Any help appreciated