G24 Popla draft letter help please

luluthezulu

Hello

Here is my first attempt at my draft POPLA appeal. Would somebody kindly give it the once over and let me know if it's good enough to send? Many thanks for your help.

Just to note, this is where the driver has already been outed and appealed to G24 however G24 sent the refusal email to the keeper and as the NTK was sent day 13 and therefore taken to be rec'd day 15, the keeper is appealing to POPLA as below:

[FONT=&quot]To whom it may concern,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the keeper of car *** and on the 19th August 2014 the car was parked at Salford shopping city car park. The car unfortunately overstayed due to an emergency at work. Consequently I received a Parking Charge Notice from G24 on 4th September dated 1st September. The driver of the car appealed to G24 at the time as the overstay was not their fault. They included a copy of a letter from their place of work in support of their appeal however G24 did not appear to even consider this information. The email they sent back (which they sent back to me, the keeper) was just a standard email.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have since looked into this further and can see that the Parking Charge Notice is not justified for the following reasons:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Parking Charge notice was received after the 14 day period by which the keeper should receive the notice to keeper[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The parking charge of £100 is not an accurate pre estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.Notice to keeper not received within 14 days[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that G24 Ltd. is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. G24 Ltd has failed to comply since they have failed to send the notice to keeper within 14 days of the parking incident. Therefore there is no keeper liability under the POFA 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.No Genuine pre estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. G24 notices allege '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. 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. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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.

I therefore respectfully ask that my appeal is allowed and my Parking Charge Notice be cancelled for the reasons mentioned above

I look forward to hearing from you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

In fact day 15 is on time, as POFA adds 14 days to the date of the parking event = if a NTK arrives by day 15 it is just in time.

You need the usual stuff about no contract/standing with landowner, and dodgy signs and dodgy ANPR (yes, every time no matter what the signs and ANPR were like).

And this is the keeper appealing so they should change the first point to 'no keeper liability because the driver's name and address has already been provided to the Operator...so the keeper's potential liability has already been discharged, not that G24 seem to have noticed...' or words to that effect. And add the flaws with the Notice wording (as in the example G24 POPLA appeal that's linked in post #3 of the Newbies thread).

Guys_Dad

Actually, to slightly correct c-m, POFA says that the NtK needs to arrive on the date c-m says, but it allows for a standard 2 day delivery from date of posting. If it takes more time, then tough luck on the motorist. So always beware of back dated NtKs !

So, if the NtK was dated 2nd September and you still received it on the 3rd if the mail had been super efficient, it would be out of time .

luluthezulu

Thanks so much for your responses. I'm a tad confused though- so my 'offence' was 19th aug and notice sent out 1st sept and taken to be delivered 3rd so is this not out of time? I get day 14 to be 2nd sept?

Do I still need to add in incorrect wording as when i checked the notice, i can't actually find any incorrect wording eg they've added creditor, dates, times etc

Guys_Dad

luluthezulu wrote: »

Thanks so much for your responses. I'm a tad confused though- so my 'offence' was 19th aug and notice sent out 1st sept and taken to be delivered 3rd so is this not out of time? I get day 14 to be 2nd sept?

Do I still need to add in incorrect wording as when i checked the notice, i can't actually find any incorrect wording eg they've added creditor, dates, times etc

Make sense of this from POFA2012.

(4) The notice must be given by:
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current
address for service for the keeper, within the
relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service
for the keeper so that it is delivered to that
address within the relevant period.
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph
(4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after
that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given”
for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second
working day after the day on which it is posted; and for
this purpose “working day” means any day other than a
Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales

luluthezulu

Thanks, I've read this. So are you agreeing with me?

Guys_Dad

Your offence was a Tuesday The 14 days they have begins the day after which is a Wednesday. (20th)

That means that the Wednesday is the 1st of the 14 days
The NtK needs to be with you on a Tuesday - which would be the 2nd September, so it needed to be posted the previous Friday.

So they are out of time.

luluthezulu

Few! was starting to get panicky there. Thanks ever so much, I really appreciate the help. I'll add those bits in and get it sent off