Help needed with G24 contractual parking notice in a free carpark

Jenniferlee79

Hello, I've spent time reading through the newbies threads and I'm afraid I'm still a bt lost and unsure of how to procceed.

The car was parked in a car park that allows three hours of free parking. The car was there for 25 minutes past the three hours. The main sign at the front of the carpark is right next to a pedestrian crossing, so your attention is on anyone on the pavement in case they cross, not on the sign. The signs are all high up on the lamp posts apart from one on the very corner of a store at the begining of all the shops. They are old BPA signs, though as of Friday there are a couple of new signs but I haven't got photos of them, as they weren't there that day.

The retail parks website states that the free parking period can be extended if you speak to a member of security or the security office. None of this is mentioned on any sign. Nor is the security office easy to find. I got the letter on Friday.

As it's G24 who are IPC registered what should I do? I'm unsure as to what letter I should send and which points are relevant. Also I'm very worried about what happens if they reject the appeal. I'd be incredibly appreciative of any specific help and advice you can give me, as normally I'm good at understanding things, but at the moment I just can't seem to get my head round all the info on the newbies thread apart from the fact that the IAS is useless.

So I was wondering specifically what should I do now. Also what will be the next steps if the appeal is rejected? I presume I'll have to appeal to the IAS which may be rejected too. If that happens will I then have to pay an increased amount or go to court?

Also is it worth complaining to the retail park management company and also possibly complaining on Facebook? Thanks for your help.
https://flic.kr/p/qk5CH7
https://flic.kr/p/q3GhaR
https://flic.kr/p/q3GgSM
https://flic.kr/p/q3HQ22
https://flic.kr/p/po9nbu

Guys_Dad

Start here and when you have read the thread, you should know what to do. If stuck ((genuinely) come back

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Jenniferlee79

Hi Guys Dad, I'd read through that on Friday and again just now. I'm still not sure what to do. As that post mentions starting a new post with photos if the company is registered with the IPC. G24 is registered with the IPC, yet the signs at the retail park are old BPA signs. At the moment I just seem to be reading that IAS appeals are useless and that if I lose and don't pay up I may be taken to court.

The_Slithy_Tove

G24 don't do court. Their so-called contractural charge signs are rubbish and would never stand up in a court anyway. Especially as they rather helpfully state that you breached their terms, and so this is actually a breach of contract (if one existed anyway). So you can get them on the standard No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

Coupon-mad

Not by G24 you won't, they don't do court and anyway this would be defendable if they tried!

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

Spot which signage was yours. Two different types, one is 'arguable' at IAS (maybe) and one isn't worth bothering. I can see from your links which your signs are but I think it's important you look & understand the differences, also the 2 threads are worth you reading.

Guys_Dad

If they are old BPA signs, then you are in GPEOL territory and a standard appeal followed by a POPLA-worded appeal to the BPA should win.

You would draw attention to the wording on the signs . WE hit trouble with IAS when PPCs use IPC-wording for contractual cases.

If you look at page 38 here http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_b57f0768f7d9482db5b3c2de70e9f4b2.pdf paragraph 1 applies to the contractual position, paras 2&3 to the "normal" position with BPA PPCs.

So, a short initial appeal to the PPC along the lines of any pre-POPLA appeal will get a rejection from them but the right to fo to IAS.

At that point, come back with what the PPC wrote and we can help you with a suitable IAS GPEOL appeal.

Come back on this thread.

Hope this is clear.

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If they are old BPA signs, then you are in GPEOL territory and a standard appeal followed by a POPLA-worded appeal to the BPA (do you mean IPC) should win.

It won't - see brutal_deluxe's thread. That's why this OP (if they want to bother with IAS stage) could try the argument we didn't think of for brutal_deluxe = that the signs don't actually create a contract as to what happens after the free parking period advertised, nor even that staying longer is a breach. It's not listed on that sign (and wasn't in brutal_deluxe's thread either but we were trying the GPEOL argument).

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It won't - see brutal_deluxe's thread. That's why this OP (if they want to bother with IAS stage) could try the argument we didn't think of for brutal_deluxe = that the signs don't actually create a contract as to what happens after the free parking period advertised, nor even that staying longer is a breach. It's not listed on that sign (and wasn't in brutal_deluxe's thread either but we were trying the GPEOL argument).

Yes I meant IAS. Fingers faster than brain.

IAS have accepted GPEOL based on the IPC AOS in the past, although the PPC has to show how it is calculated, bearing in mind it is the loss at the time of contravention, not subsequently

"However, if the motorist uses the land other than in accordance with the terms and conditions then they agree to pay a fixed fee by way of damages to the operator. This is based on a genuine preestimate of loss that flows from the breach of contract by acting otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement the motorist entered into when deciding to park. "

But as you also write, IAS may be a waste of time and G24 don't do court. Costing them an IAS fee is worth it, though, regardless of outcome.

Castle

Based on the "brutal-deluxe" appeal, the IAS are not really bothered whether it's a GPEOL or not. If it's not GPEOL then the IAS deems it to be commercially justifiable and proportionate.


In light of the Parking Eye loss on the Snowdon Mountain Railway case, I wonder what the IAS would do with a pay and display car park!

Coupon-mad

The OP should read this example of an IAS appeal if they want to try - it's about the signs not creating a chargeable term or contravention to do with any overstay:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5119472

Also I included a link to Murphy on Evidence (apparently consulted by barristers & Judges) to try to stop Skippy the Bush Kangaroo at the IAS, from saying the GPEOL burden lies with the appellant.

Hot_Bring

Personally, as it's G24 and they are a bunch of no good lying douch bags who struggle to even put on their underpants let alone fill in a court claim form, I'd ignore them. Let them spend their money on wasteful letters.