Exceeds Marked Bay (Another one)

NapeDog

Hi,I have just received a PCN from G24 for parking outside of a marked bay. Having read the guidance on here, I plan to challenge this with a letter which covers:

1- Did not happen - The car is on the line and within the bay area.

2- Insufficient/Unclear Signage - A sign contains very small picture/reference to parking within marked bays however there is nothing to suggest that parking on the white line would be considered as being outside of a bay.

3 - Mitigating Circumstances - The car in the adjacent spacehad itself parked on the white line and as a result the driver parked as far over as they felt it safe and reasonable to do so to enable 1) their children to exit the car safely and 2) to allow all passengers of both vehicles to exit/enter their vehicle without the risk of damage to either vehicle.

4 - The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner. According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In this case, the £70 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £0.

I think it's a bit unfair to be penalising the driver when their parking hasn't hindered or caused a problem or danger to other drivers.but does anyone think an appeal has legs?

i don't seem to be able to post a link to the picture though

NapeDog

http://s666.photobucket.com/user/napedog1979/media/imagejpg1.jpg.html

wiogs

NapeDog wrote: »

http://s666.photobucket.com/user/napedog1979/media/imagejpg1.jpg.html

As to your "defence" I certainly wouldn't go with point 1 as the car is clearly over the line.

Details of how to fight this on the NEWBIES thread.

Fruitcake

Items 1 and 3 are irrelevant so don't include them. I think you need to go and have another look at the NEWBIES thread as there are normally four appeal points not including the two you should delete, so you appear to have missed some out.

Coupon-mad

IAS appeals are not always worth trying AT ALL, as the decision are considered unfair, allegedly biased towards the IPC members. You won't get POPLA and you won't win it unless the signs are old signs with BPA logo which talk about 'failure to comply' or 'contravention' or 'breach'.

So show us the signage wording to see if IAS appeal is worth a punt or whether to stay under the radar and ignore the chancers.

We assume you have read the NEWBIES thread, and have seen the first appeal template there in that top sticky thread? Why not use it.

NapeDog

OK, so i've gone back and used the example letter on there I now have the following:


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:
a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b) As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.

c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

f) This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.
Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.
Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.
The purpose of this communication is:
• Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.



• Drop hands offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

• Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.
You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.
By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.
I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Is this better? Should I go with this?

Many thanks for any help. I'm a bit dim and having read loads of info I am finding it a bit confusing.

Coupon-mad

Is this better? Should I go with this?

Yes...what can I say...I wrote it!

Please show us the signs otherwise we can't tell you whether to bother with 'Skippy the Bush Kangaroo' at the IAS.

NapeDog

Ok. Thanks. I hadn't seen your reply at 6:09 before mine later on.
The sign is here

http://s666.photobucket.com/user/napedog1979/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image.jpg.html

Thanks

Coupon-mad

It says 'if you breach any of the above terms & conditions' so you could try an IAS appeal with that sign attached as evidence, and say the charge is not a GPEOL. There can be no initial loss where a car's wheels are on the white line and do not even encroach into another bay as it was the end of the row - therefore no other car was prevented from parking. So no loss whatsoever and no consequential loss can flow from the parking event. And as the sign says, this is an allegation of 'breach of the terms & conditions' so the only sum that can be reclaimed would be the loss to the landowner/retailer = zero.

So send the first appeal and then come back when you get a reply from G24, to put together an IAS appeal in your own words at the time - best to avoid templates for IAS, just say it like it is without saying who was driving.

BTW can you now show us the Notice to keeper, front and back? I am curious to know if G24 have gone the same way as VCS and stopped bothering with the POFA/keeper liability.

Finally, EDIT the words I quoted first of all above about who was driving and I will delete the quote. This thread should not state who was driving.

NapeDog

great, thanks for your help.
So I'll send that letter off and see what happens from there and report back when i receive a response.

I have edited the post.

Fruitcake, can you please edit/remove the quote in your post?

I'll scan a copy of the notice later/tomorrow.

thanks again

NapeDog

Hopefully you can read this ok.

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv21/napedog1979/Mobile%20Uploads/image-1.jpg