G24 - pcn

Umkomaas

This is not your thread to post a new case on. You need to start a new thread of your own, otherwise in answering you, or answering the OP, neither of you will know who the advice applies to. Have three or four more randoms dropping in with their cases as well - and it's a complete road crash.

Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky - don't answer that here, but include whether you have when you start your new thread?

bazster

1. Please start your own thread rather than hijacking someone else's.

2. Court order? What are you on about? G24 has never taken anyone to court.

3. Up to you whether you bother appealing or simply ignore them. The IAS is a sham. That said, they did used to uphold appeals instantly when the charge was for breach, it's unclear whether they still do.

Coupon-mad

Fightingtalk wrote: »

I have begun prepping a stage one appeal...

Why 'prepping', when it's already written in the NEWBIES sticky thread?

You also seem to have missed the fact we know about every PPC and when they hopped to the IPC. Please jump off this thread using the Forum Jump, and read the sticky threads.

brutal_deluxe

OK so here's the NTK...

bazster

Bog-standard breach of contract. I don't know if the IAS is still upholding no-GPEOL appeals instantly for these, but personally I'd give it a try. G24 are pretty useless and toothless even if you lose on appeal.

brutal_deluxe

OK. So here's a very rough version of the main points of the appeal based on another winning IAS appeal from this forum. I have tried to cut it down to emphasise what I think are the main points, but I will warn that I'm not sure my basis for understanding what they are is 100% clear. So sorry in advance for any hopelessly confusing wording. Please feel free to criticise..



Dear Sirs.


I wish to appeal the PCN on the following grounds:


1/ No Contract
The sign says “if you breach any of the above terms and conditions..you agree to pay a £100 parking charge”. This implies that the driver is subject to a fixed fee. If so, then the fee must be based on a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’. In their initial reply, G24 refer to “evidence of a breach of contractual term..”. This is in fact not the case as the only signs referring to any restrictions or charges are old BPA regulated signs where G24 used to charge for breaches of contract. G24 state that they operate under IPC guidelines, however, their signage has not been updated. Therefore, no contract situation could have been formed and the driver did not enter into any contract to pay any parking charge.

2/ No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” With reference to the ‘fee’, it therefore must have been based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not liquidated damages. In their reply, G24 did not provide a breakdown of how the fee was calculated. The onus is on G24 to provide a full, unredacted breakdown of costs, not including business costs which would have been incurred whether or not the parking took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty ‘fee’ for “breach of contractual terms” and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I would like G24 to supply a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.

brutal_deluxe

Anyone?

bazster

Why cut it down? There are plenty of appeal examples in the Newbies thread, including one specific to G24. The fact that they are now in the IAS doesn't make a great deal of difference to the appeal wording since they are clearly claiming damages for breach of contract.

I would suggest that you:

- choose an appropriate appeal for ANPR/free stay circumstances

- make sure you refer to G24, the IPC and the IAS, and not some other company, the BPA or PoPLA

- enhance the "not a GPEOL" section to specifically draw attention to the wording on the signage and the NtK which make it clear this is a breach-of-contract claim

- enhance the "no standing" or "no landowner contract" section to state that (i) you are the appellant/defendant, not the claimant and therefore (ii) you don't need to prove anything, the burden lies entirely with the claimant to prove its claim, including that it has the necessary contract/authority in place with the landowner.


Do bear in mind there is no guarantee of success. Whilst the IAS used to uphold "no GPEOL" appeals within minutes of receiving them, their assessors are now in the habit of sticking two fingers up to any notion of fairness, justice or independence.

Coupon-mad

I would also say to add a bit more to it (may be not as long as some cases though). I think the IAS may find in your favour as G24 are such new members they are still using 'breach' signage.

Even if you lose, then ignore the decision and the debt collector letters of course. Nothing will have changed if you lose at the alleged 'kangaroo court' of IAS.

Dublindel

No geographical trading address so no contract, simple as that.