G24 double visit

M.A.G

Thank you for your replies.
There is only one entrance and exit to this free car park. Is it worth appealing to IAS as I've heard they aren't very sympathetic ? Would it be an admission of guilt ( which I strenuously deny) if I started on about GPEOL ?
I'm not disputing that I visited the car park, I did but it was two separate occassions on the same day.
I can prove that I have access, through work, to a 300+ space free car park,24/7, 300 yds from this site. I can prove that I have access to a parking space in the middle of town through my secondary/casual employment.
I am more than willing to have my day in court over this.

Guys_Dad

When you appeal to the IAS, you will be doing this on a technical rather than mitigation platform.

To know what to write in your appeal, you need to know if the PPC is claiming breaking a contract or liquidated damages, hence my suggestion that you ask them.

Is it worth it? IAS have been known to grant GPEOL.

But the NEWBIES thread explains why you need to use technical arguments in any appeal to an independent appeal authority.

The_Deep

When you appeal to the IAS, you will be doing this on a technical rather than mitigation platform.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the facts are mitigating circumstances. Their cameras were on the blink, that is not mitigation.

Appeal on what happened, if they do not like it they can try to convince a judge that the mass od evidence we have about double dipping is hokum.

hoohoo

M.A.G wrote: »

Thank you for your replies.
There is only one entrance and exit to this free car park. Is it worth appealing to IAS as I've heard they aren't very sympathetic ? Would it be an admission of guilt ( which I strenuously deny) if I started on about GPEOL ?
I'm not disputing that I visited the car park, I did but it was two separate occassions on the same day.
I can prove that I have access, through work, to a 300+ space free car park,24/7, 300 yds from this site. I can prove that I have access to a parking space in the middle of town through my secondary/casual employment.
I am more than willing to have my day in court over this.

I would give the IAS rope to hang themselves.

ANPR cameras are only around 90% accurate, and no standards exist for accuracy. Thus it is perfectly possible for camera to miss some of the entries and exits of vehicles. Plus, any camera can only record what it sees. If a van drove reasonably close, then it will block the plate.

The Prankster has a useful document which can be submitted along with your appeal.
http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html

This is similar to the document POPLA use to educate their assessors.

You could direct the IAS assessor to this point in the document:

Assessor Point
If the operator merely states they have checked for a double visit and does not provide any other information, they either do not understand their own technology or are trying to misdirect away from the actual problem.

This is exactly what G24 have done - simply checked the vehicle log.

M.A.G

How does this look for sending to G24 ?


Can you please inform me as to the basis of your “charge”? Is it for alleged breach of Contract for parking or liquidated damages?
In order for me to consider this as a "contractual charge", then your letter is in effect an invoice for a service received from you. In that event, you must follow the law and supply me with an invoice that complies with Government legislation as laid out in the government requirements here
hxxps://.gov.uk/invoicing-and-taking-payment-from-customers

In particular, I draw you attention to the requirements for a simplified invoice of this amount which clearly states that if your company is VAT registered, you must provide me with your VAT registration number, your full business address and the rate at which VAT is being charged or a statement that the service for which you seek payment is VAT exempt. This is in addition to the requirements for all invoices, again covered in the link I provided above.
Without a compliant invoice, I would be unable to consider the matter further and await a revised invoice.
In addition, there is one other point I would like clarification on if you decide not to cancel this charge. It has been reported to me that the landowner's agreement with you on this site has certain limited rights at this site to pursue motorists for charges and restrictions included in the contract you have with them. As you are not the landowner, I think it only reasonable that you provide me with evidence that you do have the legal right to make contracts and charge motorists at this site and I would ask sight of any contract that confers that right upon you.
Again, this is required before I am able to consider this matter further.

I look forward to receiving the information and clarification in due course.

For the sake of clarity, and for appeal purposes, I would prefer that this be considered as a request for further information but should you choose not to supply me with the information I have asked, then please treat it as an appeal for IPC/IAS purposes.
I still contest this charge on the basis that the driver made two separate visits to this site on the same day.

M.A.G

hoohoo wrote: »

ANPR cameras are only around 90% accurate, and no standards exist for accuracy. Thus it is perfectly possible for camera to miss some of the entries and exits of vehicles. Plus, any camera can only record what it sees. If a van drove reasonably close, then it will block the plate.

log.

Lol strangley enough I work with and fit ANPR systems so I can get expert witnesses in this field. I MUST STRESS THAT I WORK IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOT FOR PARKING ISSUES

Guys_Dad

M.A.G wrote: »

How does this look for sending to G24 ?


Can you please inform me as to the basis of your “charge”? Is it for alleged breach of Contract for parking or liquidated damages?

In order for me to consider this as a "contractual charge", then your letter would be in effect an invoice for a service received from you. In that event, you must follow the law and supply me with an invoice that complies with Government legislation as laid out in the government requirements here
hxxps://.gov.uk/invoicing-and-taking-payment-from-customers

In particular, I draw you attention to the requirements for a simplified invoice of this amount which clearly states that if your company is VAT registered, you must provide me with your VAT registration number, your full business address and the rate at which VAT is being charged or a statement that the service for which you seek payment is VAT exempt. This is in addition to the requirements for all invoices, again covered in the link I provided above.
Without a compliant invoice, I would be unable to consider the matter further and await a revised invoice.

In addition, there is one other point I would like clarification on if you decide not to cancel this charge. It has been reported to me that the landowner's agreement with you on this site has certain limited rights at this site to pursue motorists for charges and restrictions included in the contract you have with them. As you are not the landowner, I think it only reasonable that you provide me with evidence that you do have the legal right to make contracts and charge motorists at this site and I would ask sight of any contract that confers that right upon you.
Again, this is required before I am able to consider this matter further.

I look forward to receiving the information and clarification in due course.

For the sake of clarity, and for appeal purposes, I would prefer that this be considered as a request for further information that I need to help me decide what course of action I should take re payment, .

I still contest this charge on the basis that the driver made two separate visits to this site on the same day.

As you have already appealed, no need to include the bit about treating this as an appeal.

Make sure you get your appeal into IAS, but as long as you are in time, give them time to reply.

M.A.G

Thanks, I have sent that to G24

Coupon-mad

M.A.G wrote: »

Thanks, I have sent that to G24

But when is your deadline to appeal to IAS? What info can you find about ANPR inaccuracy to add weight to that appeal?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

When you appeal to the IAS, you will be doing this on a technical rather than mitigation platform.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the facts are mitigating circumstances. Their cameras were on the blink, that is not mitigation.

Appeal on what happened, if they do not like it they can try to convince a judge that the mass od evidence we have about double dipping is hokum.

The point is that an "independent" appeal service will be faced with 2 versions. OP who claims double-dipping and cameras not working, and PPC who says "Yes they are - OP is lying". That is why technical points are always less judgemental than those around what may or may not have happened.

I agree that the facts are not mitigation, though.