PCN from G24 Ltd

pould

Hi folks,

I've had a response from G24 to my letter. In summary:

i) The pre-estimate loss is liquidated damages and not a "penalty"
ii) They will not show me a contract with the firm who occupy the land OR the landholder (if different) beyond stating that the management of car parking has been contracted to them.

Interestingly, they do NOT address the issue of whether they posted the NTK in time. I suspect they do not have any evidence.

Looks like there is no case for them but they will still try it on.

So.....

We are now at the stage of an "appeal" to the IAS. I know this is pointless BUT let's do it properly in case they decide to take me to court.

Advice please.

pould

One more question - should I ask G24 for a VAT Invoice given that they argue it *isn't* a breach of contract but rather a contractual charge?

Umkomaas

Send your appeal to the IAS to show you are engaging with the appeals' process, should this go to court. You never know, your appeal may be one of the 20% preselected for upholding (chances are you'll be with the other 80%!).

Definitely ask them for a VAT invoice. If they won't send you one, it's time to write to HMRC (I believe there's a section of their website to report possible tax evasion).

pould

Thanks. Is there a sample appeal text available?

Redx

pould wrote: »

Thanks. Is there a sample appeal text available?

no , all appeals are bespoke

there are no templates on here for appeals, only previous examples of appeals already made

pould

Redx wrote: »

no , all appeals are bespoke

there are no templates on here for appeals, only previous examples of appeals already made

I understand. I'll draft an appeal and post here.

Herzlos

pould wrote: »

i) The pre-estimate loss is liquidated damages and not a "penalty"

What exactly did they say? It sounds as if they are treating as damages (so needs to be a real loss) and not a contractual charge. If so, you can hammer the GPEOL point. If they claim it's a contractual charge, ask for a VAT invoice.

It's void in either case - as a contractual charge it's not likely to have been accepted (who in their right mind would *agree* to pay whatever they are asking), and you can't agree to do something that is forbidden i.e. "No parking here. £100 contractual charge" just can't work.

As damages, it has to be genuine and match their actual losses (i.e. nothing unless this was a pay & display which you didn't do). Any subsequent costs pursuing a zero loss are not applicable. They also have a duty to mitigate losses (by preventing whichever breach is involved, or by not bothering to rack of costs in pointless pursuit).

Fruitcake

pould wrote: »

Hi folks,

I've had a response from G24 to my letter. In summary:

i) The pre-estimate loss is liquidated damages and not a "penalty"
ii) They will not show me a contract with the firm who occupy the land OR the landholder (if different) beyond stating that the management of car parking has been contracted to them.

Interestingly, they do NOT address the issue of whether they posted the NTK in time. I suspect they do not have any evidence.

Looks like there is no case for them but they will still try it on.

So.....

We are now at the stage of an "appeal" to the IAS. I know this is pointless BUT let's do it properly in case they decide to take me to court.

Advice please.

It is not pointless because win or lose, it costs the PPC money. :T It also shows you were being reasonable but the PPC and the IPC are not should it be rejected.

pould

For those who are interested, this is the letter from G24.

http://www.peter-ould.net/media/150905_Letter_from_G24.pdf

enfield_freddy

wes the timing correct between the offence and the NTK?