G24 LTD response to our challenge

Phil_E

Hi All,
got the below from g24 (first time ever) in response to our challenge (ideas/template used from this forum as before) regarding overstaying the retailer's car park. Was wondering if we can get some advice on how to play this from now on please?
thanks in advance.

Thank you for your email.

We respond as follows :

1. In relation to your suggestion that your parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss we confirm we have obtained legal advice in this regard and have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they are in line with the British Parking Association’s guidelines, and that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but they are likely to amount to liquidated damages (where the issue of pre-estimate of loss is not relevant). This is because the Court’s position is that where the parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract - which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage - a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is classed as liquidated damages. Either way, our parking charges are fully enforceable and no not amount to a “penalty”. You should also be aware that in accordance with the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving that an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party against whom the parking charge is claimed);

2. You do not specify in what regard you consider our signage does not conform to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. Accordingly, we are unable to respond specifically. However, we are able to confirm to you that we are confident that all our signage does comply with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice and this is supported by the fact that we have been successfully audited successfully by an independent assessor on behalf of the British Parking Association; and

3. Again, you do not specify in which way you allege we not have authority to issue charges over the land where the car park is located. However, we can assure you that the parking management at the car park where you received a parking charge has been contracted to us. Again, we are able to confirm that we have been successfully audited by an independent assessor on behalf of the British Parking Association.

You now have one of the following options available to you:

1. Pay the outstanding Parking Charge. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0845 452 7777 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days - The Independent Appeals Service by completing the accompanying form or by making your appeal online your POPLA verification code is: xxxxx. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case, the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate of £60.00 will be at end. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

4. Supply copies of your receipts for the day in question or your bank statement with your private details erased showing the transaction(s) on our client's site within 14 days. Please do not send in original documents as they will not be returned.

Customer Services
G24 Ltd

Umkomaas

Do you have another thread running on this? If so, please pm Crabman (forum guide) and ask that they be merged.

So, now its a POPLA appeal you heed to be working on - read NEWBIES sticky, post #3 'How to win at POPLA' and post up your draft appeal so we can give it the 'once-over'.

Also, amend your post to remove your POPLA code - no need to provide the PPC an easy point of reference to you. I've checked that your POPLA code is valid - it is - you have until 15/10/14 to submit your appeal to POPLA.

anh1904

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

Phil_E

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do you have another thread running on this? If so, please pm Crabman (forum guide) and ask that they be merged.

So, now its a POPLA appeal you heed to be working on - read NEWBIES sticky, post #3 'How to win at POPLA' and post up your draft appeal so we can give it the 'once-over'.

Also, amend your post to remove your POPLA code - no need to provide the PPC an easy point of reference to you. I've checked that your POPLA code is valid - it is - you have until 15/10/14 to submit your appeal to POPLA.

Thank you Umkomaas.

points noted and amended also the message by removing the POPLA code.
I am afraid I didn't have another thread relating to this case. This is the first one.

Rgds
Phil E

Phil_E

anh1904 wrote: »

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

Hi anh1904

I noticed you won your case!! Great result, very well done. And it seems the initial response you had from G24 also was not that different to the one we received? In which case, perhaps could I use some of the points that may be valid from your appeal, in ours? With your permission of course?

So you appealed to POPLA but you eventually received a response from G24 saying the charge has been waived is that so?

Cheers
Phil E

anh1904

Yes, I may have received an email response from POPLA, but wasn't monitoring junk mailbox, so it could easily have been archived.

I used the template from this thread, so of course you can use any or all of the points I used!

Good luck.

Coupon-mad

Just use/adapt a template POPLA appeal which includes ANPR camera arguments (such as a Highview one, I re-wrote that one recently and Highview are similar to G24!). Get the templates from 'How to win at POPLA' a link in post #3 of the NEWBIES read this first' sticky thread. Just change Highview to G24 and check it for anything not quite right for your case. Post a draft here first if you want feedback. You will win, Phil.

Phil_E

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Just use/adapt a template POPLA appeal which includes ANPR camera arguments (such as a Highview one, I re-wrote that one recently and Highview are similar to G24!). Get the templates from 'How to win at POPLA' a link in post #3 of the NEWBIES read this first' sticky thread. Just change Highview to G24 and check it for anything not quite right for your case. Post a draft here first if you want feedback. You will win, Phil.

Cheers for the reassurance Coupon Mad. I'll do the relevant homework as advised by you all here and come back for the check over..
Thanks everyone.
Phil

Hot_Bring

Phil_E wrote: »

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

G24 go to court ? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Proven liars and scammers. Get that POPLA letter written and you'll beat them easily.

Phil_E

Hi guys,

I have made a draft appeal for POPLA and would be very grateful if you could kindly check to see if I am on the right line and if there is anything you see that I need to change. I have mainly used the template kindly shared by anh1904.

Draft:

Dear POPLA Assessor,

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

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Failure to meet conditions for POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. ANPR accuracy


1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of £100 demanded by G24 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. As this is a free car park there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges and as the car park was virtually empty, no loss of retail revenue. I request G24 to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of £100.

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

Given that G24 charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 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 has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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

2. Failure to meet conditions for POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4 - The Notice to Keeper issued by G24 fails to meet the conditions required for POFA schedule 4 paragraph 4 to apply and they, therefore, have no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper;

If the Operator wants to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and has not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, the Operator's Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). The notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 29th July 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 22 days later on 19th August 2014. Even if the Notice To Keeper was posted by the operator on the day it is dated (18th August 2014), the earliest it could have been delivered by ordinary post would have been 20th August, which is on the 19th day.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - G24 do not own this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters G24 have provided me with no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put G24 to strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand G24 produce to POPLA the 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 parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, 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 or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. G24 could state the letter as an invoice 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 ones issued by Police and local authorities.

5. ANPR accuracy - Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and incorrect working order. I require G24 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.This is important as the parking charge issued is founded entirely on 2 photos of 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 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. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is unreliable and unsynchronised. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put G24 to strict proof to the contrary.

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


Yours Faithfully,

---

thank you in advance for checking:j

Coupon-mad

This bit doesn't quite make sense:


Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 29th July 2014, and the notice to keeper was received 22 days later on 19th August 2014. Even if the Notice To Keeper was posted by the operator on the day it is dated (18th August 2014), the earliest it could have been delivered by ordinary post would have been 20th August, which is on the 19th day.