We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
POPLA for G24 - please can someone check
BeccaLF1985
Posts: 6 Forumite
Hi,
I received a CPC from G24 on 12/9/2014. I appealed using the template on your newbies thread, and surprise surprise have heard back today with my POPLA code. I have checked the code and it was generated today so I have the full 28 days to appeal to POPLA.
This is the draft which I have taken and amended from another thread on here. Can someone check and see if they think this is okay please?
Many thanks
Re: G24 PCN, reference code: *********
POPLA Code: *******
Dear POPLA assessor,
I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I submit that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds, as further detailed below:
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) ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
5) ANPR usage
6) Unreasonable/unfair terms
Most of the below points have already been communicated to the Operator, who has failed to adequately address any of them in their communication with me.
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 less than half full on arrival and when the driver left.
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, 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 too 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) ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy.
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require G24 Ltd. to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. The only photographic evidence that G24 Ltd. have produced to justify their charge are two photos, taken by cameras on top of the entrance/exit to the car park, together with time stamps. It is therefore crucial to know that the cameras are fully functional and the time stamps are accurate.
5) ANPR usage.
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: "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 Ltd. fails to operate the system in a "reasonable, consistent and transparent manner". As G24 Ltd. uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be safely "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. It is far from "transparent", the cameras being positioned well above the driver's view without clear signage, unreasonably collecting data about moving vehicles at the entrance and exit and neither "managing, enforcing nor controlling parking". Indeed, the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.
6) 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 too 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.
On all these grounds, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
Yours faithfully,
I received a CPC from G24 on 12/9/2014. I appealed using the template on your newbies thread, and surprise surprise have heard back today with my POPLA code. I have checked the code and it was generated today so I have the full 28 days to appeal to POPLA.
This is the draft which I have taken and amended from another thread on here. Can someone check and see if they think this is okay please?
Many thanks
Re: G24 PCN, reference code: *********
POPLA Code: *******
Dear POPLA assessor,
I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I submit that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds, as further detailed below:
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) ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
5) ANPR usage
6) Unreasonable/unfair terms
Most of the below points have already been communicated to the Operator, who has failed to adequately address any of them in their communication with me.
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 less than half full on arrival and when the driver left.
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, 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 too 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) ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy.
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require G24 Ltd. to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. The only photographic evidence that G24 Ltd. have produced to justify their charge are two photos, taken by cameras on top of the entrance/exit to the car park, together with time stamps. It is therefore crucial to know that the cameras are fully functional and the time stamps are accurate.
5) ANPR usage.
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: "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 Ltd. fails to operate the system in a "reasonable, consistent and transparent manner". As G24 Ltd. uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be safely "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. It is far from "transparent", the cameras being positioned well above the driver's view without clear signage, unreasonably collecting data about moving vehicles at the entrance and exit and neither "managing, enforcing nor controlling parking". Indeed, the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.
6) 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 too 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.
On all these grounds, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
Yours faithfully,
0
Comments
-
No, becca, you didn't receive a 'f---'.
The f-word is banned here, because it is incorrect. You received a fake invoice.
Don't use vernacular language, or 'further', before you've listed anything, so:
''As registered keeper of Reg.No.xxx, I appeal against this speculative invoice on the following grounds:' is fine and concise.
I'd lose this: 'Most of the below points have already been communicated to the Operator, who has failed to adequately address any of them in their communication with me.' If you must have it, switch to 'points below', but the sentence is not a sound one.
#
'There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not even half full, so [STRIKE]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)[/STRIKE] there was no loss of potential income in this free car park.'
#
'redacted' - typo shows 'reacted' in para 2. of point 2.
#
Occupants of the vehicle state that signage was inadequate and non-compliantCOLOR="Blue"]are you supplying your own pics?[/COLOR . 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".
No signs were evident within the car park in question. A subsequent visit specifically for the purpose of this Appeal, shows that signs are placed too high and are illegible. G24 must demonstrate otherwise by providing to POPLA and the Appellant, a contemporaneous site map, photos of the exact placement of all signs, wording, text-size and measured mounting heights.
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”.
This Operator’s signage is further inadequate and non-compliant as the signs fail to properly warn/inform drivers of the terms and any consequences for breach.
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.
#
It is unacceptable enough to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss occurred in a largely empty free car park, relying on non-compliant signage.
A further serious matter must be noted about this operator, whose Trade Body has also been informed of their completely untrue statementCOLOR="Blue"]quote the exact wording[/COLOR that the keeper's right to appeal applies 'only if the car is stolen'.
In sum, I contend that this speculative invoice, issued under the circumstances described, constitutes 'a significant imbalance to my detriment' COLOR="Blue"]attribute this quote[/COLORand I require the Operator to prove to POPLA that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act, as required by...[etc.]
y/f
#
Wait for others' suggestions. You have time on your side.CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0 -
A further serious matter must be noted about this operator, whose Trade Body has also been informed of their completely untrue statementCOLOR=blue]quote the exact wording[/COLOR that the keeper's right to appeal applies 'only if the car is stolen'.
.
Thanks one question about the bit above, where should I be quoting from? I can't find anything on the 2 pieces of correspondence I have from G24 that is similar to this.
Cheers for your help. Will wait for any other suggestions but need to send asap as I have a new baby due any day now and might end up forgetting in a bubble of sleepless nights if I don't do it before! Lol.0 -
There are more than several Congratulations on Imminent Births flying on these Threads atm:-)
Quote exactly what they wrote re:
'the keeper's right to appeal applies only if the car is stolen', You have the letter, so copy this threat out for POPLA assessor to read.
Call this good prep. for labour and contractions, Becca. New babe's bound to be less arduous. Special care to you both:-)CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0 -
I don't think G24 do state that. The wording about 'stolen' is from a UKCPS template!BeccaLF1985 wrote: »Thanks one question about the bit above, where should I be quoting from? I can't find anything on the 2 pieces of correspondence I have from G24 that is similar to this.
Cheers for your help. Will wait for any other suggestions but need to send asap as I have a new baby due any day now and might end up forgetting in a bubble of sleepless nights if I don't do it before! Lol.
And this if from a ParkingEye template and needs removing too:
'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.'
The rest is fine I think, and I know you will win so get it submitted once you've removed the 'UKCPS and ParkingEye specific' bits.
Enjoy your time with your new baby and some time in October or November you will hear from POPLA that you have won! PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I can't find it in the letter, that is why I was asking, I only have 2 pieces of info from them, the original PCN and the rejection of my initial appeal, and I have read both numerous times and can't find that quote anywhere, so maybe it's another company?
I will check that bit and the other bit as suggested by Coupon-mad.
Last thing I have a cinema stub and bank statement to show I was in the cinema then eating at Pizza Hut after, are POPLA bothered about these? Not sure whether to include them or not.
Thanks for all your help 0 -
Oh and the other bit about images, signage in the car park? I haven't got any photos as yet, but I can easily get some if they should be included too.
Then it's ready to go 0 -
Is anyone able to help on my last couple of questions, then I can send to POPLA.
Many thanks 0 -
The appeal will win anyway. But signage photos are good if they make a difference to your case. (Eg photo shows sign totally overgrown by ivy, or face down on the ground, or says something different to what they claim. But i wouldn't worry too much.
You can send redacted evidence of spend,but again not really something popla will bother about as they will focus on the legal issues, which you have written about.
so stop stressing, make the ammendments C-M said and send off!Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
Thanks Dee, will send off tomorrow now it is all finalised.
Fingers crossed!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards