Parking Charge Notice - Unsure if IPC or BPA

Qwert.

Hi,
I recently received a parking charge notice for overstaying in a car park by 56 minutes.

The invoice is from G24 Limited, and it's based on ANPR. I'm unsure if I should follow the IPC or BPA appeals process; as the letter says they are accredited by IPC, but when I've revisited the car park the signs have BPA on them but G24 aren't listed on the BPA website.

I have never noticed that there was a 3 hour time restriction on the car park before, and I have parked in that car park at least once a week for several months!

Where I park the car, the sign is poor at best

I have tried to upload a picture of the invoice, and signs but MSE says I don't have enough posts.

Which process do I follow?

Many thanks
Q.

Umkomaas

G24 is an IPC operator from 1/10/14. So if your ticket is on or after that date it will need to go through the IAS at the second stage appeal.

If you ever want to check which ATA a PPC comes under use these:

IPC - http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75

BPA - http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators

HTH

Coupon-mad

It's a good thing if the signs are old - hope you got photos of the signs (readable wording)? IPC ones are not worth trying beyond the first appeal to the PPCs stage, in many cases, as the Newbies sticky thread tells you, EXCEPT where old signs are up!

Qwert.

Thanks

I have read through your thread. I do have photos.

The first one, you can barely read the wording at all - then I managed to find one where you can read it.

Coupon-mad

Let's see then - on this thread, not by pm, please.

Just CHANGE THE HTTP TO HXXP AS YOU CAN'T POST LINKS YET!

Qwert.

Here is the sign you can hardly read

dropbox .com/s/xxxh8nknbije1zx/2014-11-22%2010.41.02.jpg?dl=0

Here's the sign you can read, but has the bpa logo on

dropbox .com/s/z31zt93vzwmrecu/2014-11-22%2010.43.25.jpg?dl=0

There's a space before and after dropbox

hoohoo

the two signs are different.

The unreadable one establishes the charge is contractual.
The readable one is for breach of contract.

The address are different. I cannot read all the address but some of it is
'12 barley ... London W1N 1AA'

The unreadable one says 'We are concerned you can't always find a parking space when using our facilities'. The only possible inference is that this signage is from the landowner.

I would therefore appeal to G24 and send them a picture of the unreadable sign stating you are appealing as keeper on the basis the signage is not readable, but that in any case any contract the driver made would be with the landowner and not them, according to the readable part of the signage.

If they are stupid enough not to cancel then come back here for an IPC appeal.

IPC used to uphold your appeal within a few minutes if the signage stated the charge was for breach of contract, and there is nothing to suggest that has changes (yet)

Qwert.

Hi,
I've received a response from G24 today, and as you may have expected, my appeal has been declined with what looks to be a very generic response with a few minor tweaks.

Here is the letter I received

Page 1

dl. dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_1.jpg

Page 2

dl. dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_2.JPG

Page 3

dl. dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_3.JPG

Space before 'dropbox' again.

Shall I now appeal to IAS? Although I expect that to be declined too.

Many thanks
Q

Coupon-mad

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_2.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_Response_Page_3.JPG

So I would try an IAS appeal in your case as there are several features of interest, not least due to the 2 conflicting signs as explained by hoohoo, and the fact they have made no attempt to set out their GPEOL sum or explain when it was calculated in advance. And the rejection letter talks about the car park being operated in accordance with the BPA CoP yet they weren't BPA AOS members on the material date and have not shown the signs are in accordance with the IPC CoP, which they can't be due to the glaring differences between the signs and the fact one version is almost unreadable (you would need to attach your pictures and literally spell it out).

Could you show us both sides of the Notice to Keeper you received please?

Qwert.

Many thank for your response, your time is really appreciated

Front

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_NTK_Front.jpg

Rear

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_NTK_Back.JPG

Coupon-mad

NTK

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_NTK_Front.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54352977/G24_NTK_Back.JPG

OK so they are pursuing the keeper under the POFA 2012 which is stated on the back. It's actually not a bad attempt at a NTK; I can see the IPC influence in that newer wording.

The unreadable sign is well worth including in your evidence as part of the IAS appeal:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xxxh8nknbije1zx/2014-11-22%2010.41.02.jpg?dl=0

That almost unreadable one was the nearest sign in the vicinity to where the driver parked, and says 'We are concerned you can't always find a parking space when using our facilities'. The only possible inference is that this signage is from the landowner but it conflicts with the other sign, the one you can read. It's an old BPA version, talking about 'breach of the above terms' but it seems to make no contract to pay a £50 PCN for overstaying, neither as consideration nor as damages for breach:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z31zt93vzwmrecu/2014-11-22%2010.43.25.jpg?dl=0

So as part of your IAS appeal you could state about signage:

- some signs are weather worn and unreadable, this was the nearest sign to the car apparently, according to the driver - so no contract was formed (see attachment 1)
- the sign that is readable (see attachment 2) is an old BPA version which creates no contract to pay £50 for staying longer than 3 hours. It says 'if you breach any of the above terms & conditions of use you agree to pay a PCN' yet the above terms say:

(a) customer parking only (the use of the word 'only' sets an obligation - and the driver was a customer which is not under dispute)
(b) exclusive use of customers while shopping (the use of the word 'exclusive' might be said to set an obligation - and the driver was shopping at the site)
(c) '3 hours free parking' is merely stated in capitals as a headline - but not as a contractual term or an obligation, or agreement to do anything or be liable for anything. There is nothing about what happens after 3 hours, nor about not being allowed to stay longer under other terms, or being penalised for staying longer, or even paying a fee to stay longer. None of those possibilities can be assumed from that sign which is a fault of the person drafting it, not the fault of the driver.
(d) then 5 pictograms of other rules (none of which applied).

As the signage is inadequate to form a contract to charge £50 for staying longer than 3 hours, then the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of the sign as drafted, which most favours the consumer must prevail. And that would be that the phrase '3 hours free parking' is merely a statement of fact, an advert to attract people to park and shop. There is no phrase covering any applicable term or obligation, which could easily have been written as: 'if you stay over 3 hours you agree to pay £50' or even '£50 fee for parking for between 3 hours and 12 hours'. No consideration flows from the driver to pay any sum (neither as damages for breach, nor as a contractual fee) for parking as a genuine customer, while shopping on site, and in accordance with the 5 pictograms.


I would not bother with the 'no contract/standing' argument at IAS as they never consider it.

I would include the fact the readable sign is setting out certain behaviours as 'breach of terms' and yet G24 has failed to set out their GPEOL calculation or state when this was calculated in advance, if the matter of GPEOL was ever considered. They have said that proving a sum is a penalty is up to the appellant, but you are not only saying it's a penalty you are saying there was no GPEOL. And it is trite law that proving that a sum claimed for damages for breach is based on a GPEOL, is the burden of the claimant (in this case G24) and they have not even attempted to do so.


And the rejection letter is misleading as it tells you that the car park is operated in accordance with the BPA CoP yet they weren't BPA AOS members on the material date (so cannot operate only in accordance with a Code of Practice to which they are not signed up). And, in the rejection letter they have not shown the signs are in accordance with the IPC CoP. It is clear they cannot be in accordance with either CoP, nor form a contract at all, when some signs are so faded as to be almost unreadable and the readable parts are contradictory with the other sign. And neither forms a contract about 'overstay'.

Show us your draft and obviously write it as registered keeper, talking about the driver in the 3rd person. If you do lose you don't want to have given away who was driving.