G24 IAS appeal rejected, what to do now?

rnmed

Hello,

Following the advice on these forums WRT dealing with G24 (I followed the guide on the newbies page), who have rejected my appeal to a ticket and IAS also rejecting an appeal I am posting the IAS response and wondered what to do now .

The Appellant raises various grounds of appeal which I will deal with in the order it appears in the correspondence.

1. Excessive chargeThe Operator does not pursue the Parking Charge following a breach of contract. The Parking Charge has been issued pursuant to a specific contractual term and therefore the question of loss is not a relevant consideration for this appeal.For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

2. Signs not seen. As keeper of the vehicle how can the Appellant know what was or was not seen by the driver? I have seen photographic images of the signage which exists on the site and am satisfied to the required standard that the signage on site was sufficient and that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the terms contained within these signs. The Appellant chose to park on private land and must therefore abid e by the terms of parking on this private land.

3. Proprietary interest. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that that the Operator has the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on this site.It is worth noting on this point, more recent case law is provided by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v. HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para, 22 per Lewison LJ. In this case the contract between VCS and the landowner gave VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge there is no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

4. Breach of PoFAThe Appellant raises this ground but fails to specify why the notice breaches PoFA. From the dates provided I am satisfied that the correspondence is in order.

5. No contractI am satisfied that a contract has been formed in this instance. If the Appellant, on considering the terms, was not happy to accept them, because they felt they were unreasonable, they did not have to accept them. The Appellant had the option to park elsewhere, or they could accept the terms and abide by the maximum stay limits, or to overstay and agree to pay the charge. They chose the last option.For the reasons stated above, this appeal I dismissed.

Now do I ignore and risk court action as per the MSE news article here (unable to post link from these forums) private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists, or pay? Please could you advise, many thanks.

Quentin

The IAS rejection was the response you expected.


Nothing to lose by waiting to see if they send you a letter before court action. If they do then is the time to decide whether to defend or pay.

The_Deep

The usual guff. Was v.a.t. mentioned in the paperwork? If not then it was probably not a contractual charge and GPEOL, (loss), certainly applies.

Was the decision signed? If not, how can you be sure that the Adjudicator was a barrister or solicitor. With a decision like that, they are almost certain not to allow it in front of a judge.

From now on it's ignore unless they are daft enough to issue court papers where you can raise the v.a.t. position, the status of the Adjudicator, ask for sight of the contract and again raise POFA compliance.

I very much doubt if it is comparable with Beavis which was liquidated damages for Breach of Contract and a commercially justified penalty. Was it a free car park or P&D?

Hot_Bring

G24 ? :rotfl:

Ignore them, they'll go away eventually

rnmed

Hi,

Many thanks for the response. It was a free car park (for 2 hours). If what you mean by 'was the decision signed' is a formal signed contract, then no. And the response was by e-mail with no sig or name. No mention of VAT in any correspondance. This was easier back when you could use POPLA as opposed to the cow boys at IAS.

The_Deep

Popla may have been easier, but to lose at Popla could hold more significance if at got to court. In my opinion a loss at IAS is a sure fire free ticket ti ignore henceforth.

rnmed

If I continuously get threatening letters can I get these stopped? i.e. Debt collectors etc?

Hot_Bring

They will just stop after about half a dozen letters. Seriously, G24 are a bunch of criminals who don't know how to write so they couldn't fill in court papers. Just ignore the morons.

Coupon-mad

rnmed wrote: »

If I continuously get threatening letters can I get these stopped? i.e. Debt collectors etc?

Yes - you write once and tell them to stop, as you will learn from the quadrillions of threads 'Google-able' if you put in 'Dept Recovery Plus debt is denied' as a search online. G24 do indeed use the edious DRP/Zenith letter chain and we don't want to see any of those letters posted here ever again (please)!

Or you can just collect the letters and ignore them/laugh at them.