G24 - pcn

brutal_deluxe

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes that sums it up - ignore G24 and ignore debt collector letters - but if Gladstones or G24 themselves send a 'Letter before County Court Claim', respond formally to that as per the LBCCC Fightback sticky thread.

I think you may be in with a chance as the IAS don't like PPCs to use the 'breach/GPEOL' business model and behind the scenes you never know if the IPC has told new AOS members that they won't uphold charges where an appellant mentions GPEOL (who knows, but we certainly saw PCM lose every case at IAS at first, when they had old BPA signs up).

I suppose I do have the BPA signage on my side, however I just hope the appeal point isn't too brief, and that the PCC only get 1000 words too!

Thanks again to all for all the help thus far..

BD

bod1467

Never having done one of these (and no wish to do so either), doesn't the online appeal system allow attachments? If yes then your appeal is very basic - My general appeal points are as below [put in the numbered list of headings]; please see attached document <filename> for the full appeal wording.

Coupon-mad

bod1467 wrote: »

Never having done one of these (and no wish to do so either), doesn't the online appeal system allow attachments? If yes then your appeal is very basic - My general appeal points are as below [put in the numbered list of headings]; please see attached document <filename> for the full appeal wording.

Yes it does, and you can put a brief synopsis in the box then add attachments (just do NOT click 'submit' without ALL pics & attachments!).

brutal_deluxe

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Apparent reasons:

"This appeal raises a number of well rehearsed arguments, which I shall respond to in turn.

1 & 2 It is arguably a contractual term if the Appellant was not a customer, which is the Operator’s argument. The onus is on the Appellant not the Operator. If it is a breach the test to establish whether the charge is enforceable is not genuine pre-estimate of loss, but whether the charge is proportionate to loss, has a tendency to deter rather than compensate and is commercially justifiable and fair.

The store and the Operator clearly do not wish any parking beyond a certain time frame to ensure parking is only by customers and to create turnover of custom. Therefore the intention is clearly to deter. The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claim and they have provided nothing to substantiate their argument. There are clear costs in maintaining checking and enforcing compliance, not to mention the wider social costs of non compliance. Consequently, the charge is both commercially justifiable and proportionate.

3 This is arguably irrelevant but the Operator has provided a copy of their contract.

4 Flawed ANPR. If the Appellant had provided some evidence it was flawed they may have an argument. In this appeal the onus is on them therefore in the absence of any evidence the appeal is dismissed.

5 The Appellant as keeper has failed to name the driver. Whilst the Operator has claimed the keeper is liable to pay the charges under POFA, I can infer from the Appellant’s refusal to name the driver that they were driving the vehicle, and on that basis I am satisfied the Appellant was the driver. This means POFA is irrelevant.

A breach of the code of practice does not necessarily invalidate the charge.

The appeal is dismissed."

BenefitMaster

brutal_deluxe wrote: »

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Apparent reasons:

"This appeal raises a number of well rehearsed arguments, which I shall respond to in turn.

1 & 2 It is arguably a contractual term if the Appellant was not a customer, which is the Operator’s argument. The onus is on the Appellant not the Operator. If it is a breach the test to establish whether the charge is enforceable is not genuine pre-estimate of loss, but whether the charge is proportionate to loss, has a tendency to deter rather than compensate and is commercially justifiable and fair.

The store and the Operator clearly do not wish any parking beyond a certain time frame to ensure parking is only by customers and to create turnover of custom. Therefore the intention is clearly to deter. The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claim and they have provided nothing to substantiate their argument. There are clear costs in maintaining checking and enforcing compliance, not to mention the wider social costs of non compliance. Consequently, the charge is both commercially justifiable and proportionate.

3 This is arguably irrelevant but the Operator has provided a copy of their contract.

4 Flawed ANPR. If the Appellant had provided some evidence it was flawed they may have an argument. In this appeal the onus is on them therefore in the absence of any evidence the appeal is dismissed.

5 The Appellant as keeper has failed to name the driver. Whilst the Operator has claimed the keeper is liable to pay the charges under POFA, I can infer from the Appellant’s refusal to name the driver that they were driving the vehicle, and on that basis I am satisfied the Appellant was the driver. This means POFA is irrelevant.

A breach of the code of practice does not necessarily invalidate the charge.

The appeal is dismissed."

Sit on it, wait for court papers, then talk to us. I'll come and help with this one in court.

StaffsSW

Was this a Wickes' car park by any chance?

The reason I ask is that this morning I had an appeal upheld by POPLA (event was prior to October 1st) because of no binding contract between G24 & Wickes.

Although I also had a similar rejection from the IAS on another G24/Wickes issue last week, but I'm not losing sleep over that one.

I somehow doubt I'll be getting a Christmas card of G24 this year, 5 appeals upheld (POPLA) & 1 IAS rejected....

Coupon-mad

Complain to the retail Store managers and landowner, leaning heavily on the fact you & colleagues/family were going to visit again for the sales but forget that for a game of soldiers, unless they step in to cancel this fake PCN, seeing as Skippy the Bush Kangaroo at IAS has decided against you (what a surprise).

And complain to the DVLA in a very detailed email about why the IAS is not transparent or fair, and showing them your case an an example as to why you feel the IAS is not fit to be the appeal service for any ATA.

Such as :

- the decision is anonymous which is open to massive abuse and deliberate selection of the 'Assessor' which appears to be another Solicitor firm friend of Gladstones (= seems to be known contacts of Mr Hurley of the IPC).
- they expect the appellant to produce evidence they cannot know about, such as the reliability of the ANPR system and whether they have locus standi!
- they expect the appellant to show the GPEOL instead of the Operator = impossible.
- it is trite law that it is not for an appellant/defendant to prove no GPEOL (it is different if just saying 'it's a penalty' but you were NOT saying that).
- they accept anything the PPC says as Gospel, e.g. not bothered about any contract with the landowner = ?bias maybe?
- they say the charge is commercially justified (no case law whatsoever to back this, PE v Beavis is not case law and is set for the Court of Appeal which Mr Hurley knows full well).
- the Operator was arguing under 'keeper liability' in the POFA but instead the IAS twisted it and decided the keeper might have been driving so the POFA doesn't matter. Yet there was no evidence of same, and in fact you were not the driver, so this is laughable if it wasn't so serious.
- they don't share the evidence from the PPC with the appellant, nor allow them time to respond to point out anything they wish to rebut.
- there is no Scrutiny Committee, no recourse to complain except to Mr Hurley, which would be pointless.
- the decisions are patronising to appellant; loads of examples of a snooty retort: 'these well rehearsed arguments are without merit', yet nothing similar said about the PPCs' badly-rehearsed template rubbish.
- the IAS is without merit.
- the decisions are seemingly unfair and against the current Consumer Rights Directive, part of which has been enabled already on 13th June and 1st October.
- How can the DVLA allow this lottery, where POPLA and the IAS are poles apart? e.g. where there is no initial loss, a POPLA appeal will win but an IAS appeal will lose.



P.S. can you get a picture of the sign? Which version was it out of these two completely different ones?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67132845#Comment_67132845

You do know G24 have never sued anyone?!

DollyDee_2

Picture of sign in Post #9

Coupon-mad

Thanks DollyDee! I had forgotten. So that's the sign which does not seem to create any obligation or consequences of parking longer than 90 minutes. That's good. Brutal_deluxe should sit it out & keep all this evidence in case G24 actually decide to try a small claim (never heard of from G24). Anyway I can't see them wanting to use that useless IAS decision in front of a Judge, nor that sign. If your defence covered the fact it doesn't show the consequences of any overstay then I would be surprised if Judge thought it does, plus the commercial justification rubbish instead of a GPEOL would be very risky for G24, unless Beavis loses his CoA case v ParkingEye.

Hot_Bring

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Sit on it, wait for court papers, then talk to us. I'll come and help with this one in court.

G24 do court ? Really ? Pull the other one :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Adrian King is a scummy liar who can only just write his name - he's hardly going to be able to work out how to fill in a court claim !