G24 - pcn

brutal_deluxe

Right here's one..

NTK received in post alleging an overstay.
ANPR used as evidence.
£100, or 60 if paid within 14 days.

Initial email to G24:

---

Thank you for your letter,

Unfortunately the name and address of the driver cannot be supplied.

Liability has been denied on the following grounds:

• The charge is not a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.
• The signage does not conform to the BPA CoP to which G24 has committed, and therefore no contract could have been formed.
• G24 has no authority to issue charges over the land in question.
• The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and does not bear sufficient evidence of any parking activity.

As such, the charge is rejected. Please now either:

- Cancel the charge
or
- Provide a POPLA code or IAS so that further details can be referred to an independent assessor.

Yours faithfully,

---

Got a reply within TWO HOURS:

---

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 Independent Parking
Committee'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. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal
to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal the IAS will
need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date
the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS
within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit https://www.theias.org for
full details.

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 Independent Parking Committee.

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed in prominent
locations throughout the car park. Any vehicle found in contravention of
these terms and conditions is subject to a Contractual Parking Charge
Notice. Vehicles entering and exiting the car park are monitored and
details of their registration number and time of entry/exit are recorded.
Your vehicle was logged entering the car park on the 23 Oct 2014 at 09:48
and exiting 23 Oct 2014 at 12:33. Photographic evidence of the breach of
contractual term is provided on your Contractual Parking Charge Notice.

After consideration of the information provided by you, your dispute has
been unsuccessful as proof of purchase has not been supplied for the day
in question therefore the Contractual Parking Charge Notice still applies.
As we have extensively investigated this Contractual Parking Charge
Notice and provided you with the results of our investigation, no further
investigation will be undertaken.

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. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal
to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal the IAS will
need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date
the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS
within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit https://www.theias.org for
full details.

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

---

An appeal is being put together as I speak (based on this forum).

Was thinking definitely no gpeol and anpr.

Just wondered if anyone had any points or comments based on their response?

Thanks!

BD

Hot_Bring

You blew it with mentioning the BPA as they no longer belong to the BPA. That said G24 are a bunch of shisters who struggle with lego and felt tips. Personally I'd ignore them. They have have never done court.

PS - they haven't 'obtained legal advice' - they and their equally idiotic owner, Adrian King, are a bunch of liars. Tell them Hot Bring is STILL awaiting his three sets of court papers.

brutal_deluxe

Ah damn so used to referring to BPA. Don't they belong to any kind of regulating body? Surely it doesn't matter anyway as that wasn't the main point?

Note taken re this company tho, I like it!

bazster

They belong to the Independent Parking Committee, with it's sham Independent Appeals Service.

If it's very clear from the signage that the basis of their charge is breach of contract then a no-GPEOL appeal might work. If it's dressed up as a contractual charge then you're probably wasting your time.

The_Slithy_Tove

G24 signage tries to pretend it's a contractural charge, but any examination of the text proves it's nothing of the sort. To a court, anyway, should G24 be dumb enough to try it (which they haven't done to date).

Coupon-mad

You need to decide whether to bother with IAS or not. Kangaroo court, we reckon. To help you decide, read some recent PCM threads as they discuss the pros and cons of bothering with an IAS appeal (read cases in the past 6 weeks maybe - nothing older). I realise yours isn't PCM!

If you do we'll need to see the signage, readable pics of the wording. And the NTK front and back. And you would need a way of proving the keeper wasn't the driver (i.e. is a friend or colleague prepared to sign to say you were elsewhere). IAS stuff needs evidence from you at every turn, or they won't even consider flaws in a NTK!).

If you don't want to bother with the kangaroo court, you could go for the 'I cancel the contract' fun & games that I've been suggesting recently, covered in the PCM threads and in any thread talking about the new Consumer Contracts (Information and Cancellation) Regs 2013 which took effect from June 2014.

bazster

I want someone to go to court on one of these contract cancellations. That would be soooo interesting! But which PPC has the cojones for it?

Coupon-mad

I also want a PPC to try court, where a victim has sent a perfectly good Notice of Cancellation! My reading of the new Regs suggests to me that implied consent is dead in the water for consumer contracts. Seems simple to me - a contract must either be 'negotiated' face to face OR concluded off premises or by distance method (an undefined term, now, not just restricted to telephone/online/etc. like the DSRs were).

And the latter two types of consumer contract must involve 'express agreement' AND information about the right to cancel AND certain other defined information.

brutal_deluxe

Not sure what to do about this! A week left to appeal to IAS. Here's the signage. Any further thoughts?

brutal_deluxe

PS the sign says BPA but according to their email reply they quote regulation by IPC guidelines - would IAS be interested?

Coupon-mad

Easy peasy decision now having seen that sign - YES you can/should do an IAS appeal because that is an old BPA sign talking about 'if you breach the terms'! NICE ONE.

So go and look at 'IAS decisions' which is a sticky collated by Crabman near the top of this forum.
Find one we actually bothered with which won, talking about old BPA signage and the fact the charge is not a GPEOL.
Copy and amend it to suit your case and post it here for us to comment on before you submit it.

Remember an IAS appeal has to show proof of everything you say - e.g. a copy of that sign, a copy of the NTK (both sides) and a copy of their rejection email
which also gave away the fact the charge is meant to be for breach/contravening terms, but there is no evidence that the PPC has shown that the charge is a GPEOL:

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed in prominent
locations throughout the car park. Any vehicle found in contravention of
these terms and conditions is subject to a Contractual Parking Charge
Notice. Vehicles entering and exiting the car park are monitored and
details of their registration number and time of entry/exit are recorded.
Your vehicle was logged entering the car park on the 23 Oct 2014 at 09:48
and exiting 23 Oct 2014 at 12:33. Photographic evidence of the breach of
contractual term is provided on your Contractual Parking Charge Notice.

Oh, and don't click 'submit' on the IPC submissions for IAS webpage until you have attached everything as you don't get a second chance to add more.

Hence let's discuss the draft appeal thoroughly first.

Could you edit the sign to make it smaller, or just show a link instead, as it's too big for the page! You will get less responses like this!