PCN from G24 Ltd

pould

Just had the response from the IAS. My appeal is rejected.

The ruling is shambolic. G24's response to my request for evidence the NTK was delivered in time is that it is not an appropriate consideration because it is irrelevant to the contract. The IAS's comment on this is:

"The Parking Charge Notice does not rely on the provisions of POFA 2012 in pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle. The point raised is therefore irrelevant."

I kid you not. So if the POFA was NOT used to pursue the registered keeper, (a) keeper liability lapses and they need to contact the driver (and clearly any further hassling of the registered keeper IS harassment) and (b) on what basis did they make a request to the DVLA?

Methinks they've completely shot themselves in the foot.

In another matter, what is this nonsense about not sharing G24's evidence?

"

pould

So, for those who are interested - here is the full IAS adjudication on my appeal (with my comments).

The Parking Charge Notice does not rely upon the provisions of POFA 2012 in pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle. The point raised is therefore irrelevant.

This is in response to my demand that they show that the NTK was delivered in time.

If G24 are claiming that the PCN does NOT rely upon the provisions of POFA 2012 in pursing the registered keeper then there is no keeper liability. They now need to pursue the driver.

As stated above, it is for the Appellant to prove the parking charge is not valid. There is no evidence supplied to suggest that planning permission is a relevant consideration.

So in response to my request for evidence that there is planning permission for the ANPR cameras, the answer is "We're not telling you".

Whether the Operator has a contract with the landowner to issue parking charges at the location is irrelevant.

This is because the parking charge arises out of a relationship in contract between the Operator and the Appellant. The Operator is not acting as the landowner's agent, rather they are are principal in the contract which the Appellant entered into by parking at the location.

This is in response to my challenge as to whether a contract exists with the landowner. The statement from the IAS is baseless and without foundation in law.

Is it in deed actionable?

Having considered the evidence supplied by the Operator, I am satisfied that the signage is clear, intelligible and sufficiently prominent such that the terms of parking were properly brought to the attention of the motorist allowing them to make an informed choice.

The Operator does not have to prove that the motorist actually saw, read and accepted the terms. This is because it can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.

This is in response to my challenge to prove that the signage was compliant. G24 provided pictures of two signs which are WITHIN the bounds of the car park. This means that the driver must NOT have been aware of the car park restrictions before turning into the car park.

The Operator's evidence shows that the Appellant's vehicle remained in the car park for 76 minutes. Applying the civil standard of proof, it is more likely than not the Appellant's vehicle was parked. What else would a vehicle do in a car park? I reject the proposition that the Appellant was driving around the car park for 76 minutes.

This is in response to my demand of strict proof of parking. Note, in my evidence I did NOT claim that the driver was "driving around the car park for 76 minutes". The driver might have entered the car park. left it again, entered, parked and then left again. This is perfectly reasonable.

There is no evidence whatsoever submitted by the Appellant to suggest that the ANPR system was not operating correctly. Nor does the Appellant actually dispute staying in the car park for 76 minutes. As stated above it is not sufficient to 'put the Operator to strict proof'.

This in response to my challenge to provide evidence that the ANPR system was correctly functioning, calibrated correctly and allocating the correct time stamp.

The Appellant claims that the parking charge is “Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss” but the signs on site give clear notice that any motorist parking otherwise than in accordance with the advertised terms agrees to pay a fixed sum or parking charge.

The construction of the contract is such that loss does not need to be demonstrated or proved. This is because the contract is for a specified sum in the event that the motorist parks outside the agreed terms. By parking otherwise than in accordance with the stated terms, the Appellant agreed to pay the parking charge.

Clearly the IAS is viewing the charge NOT as a breach of contract but as a contractual term. Given that no VAT receipt was issued, I'd love to have this conversation in a court of law.

So there we go. A typical IAS non engagement, with a nice shot in the foot for good measure.

How will I proceed? The IAS has clearly ruled that charge was NOT issued under the framework of the 2012 PoFA, so therefore is no keeper liability. Someone please correct me on this if I am wrong. This means that moving forward my reply to the next letter from G24 will be to point this out, to ask them to abide by the IAS ruling and to pursue the driver.

I also see very clear grounds for an harassment case if they do not abide by the IAS decision and continue to demand monies from me.

Thoughts?

Hot_Bring

Personally, and I've had many dealings with G24, I'd just ignore G24 from now on. Adrian king is a scammer, illegal parker and a criminal ..... enough said as to why you should ignore him and his vile bunch of staff.

pould

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Personally, and I've had many dealings with G24, I'd just ignore G24 from now on. Adrian king is a scammer, illegal parker and a criminal ..... enough said as to why you should ignore him and his vile bunch of staff.

I get that. I'm not afraid of them (him) in the slightest. However, I would LOVE for them to break the law in coming after me.

For example, given that they are NOT pursuing me on the basis of the 2012 PoFA, on what legal grounds did they apply to the DVLA for my registered keeper details?

Hot_Bring

pould wrote: »

I get that. I'm not afraid of them (him) in the slightest. However, I would LOVE for them to break the law in coming after me.

For example, given that they are NOT pursuing me on the basis of the 2012 PoFA, on what legal grounds did they apply to the DVLA for my registered keeper details?

In which case, complain to DVLA - give them the 'ruling' by IAS and highlight the bit about them not using POFA and ask why DVLA gave out your details when G24 are quite clearly not relying on keeper liability in their own / IAS's words. Copy in your MP.

The_Deep

For example, given that they are NOT pursuing me on the basis of the 2012 PoFA, on what legal grounds did they apply to the DVLA for my registered keeper details?


Easy, to ask you to name the driver.

pould

The_Deep wrote: »

For example, given that they are NOT pursuing me on the basis of the 2012 PoFA, on what legal grounds did they apply to the DVLA for my registered keeper details?


Easy, to ask you to name the driver.

That is a good explanation. Thank you TD.

Hot_Bring

Maybe you'd like to ask the office manager .... Avril Martin. After a few phone calls to their 'customer services' this morning I managed to extract this name ( and she's real ). Strange, it doesn't matter if you select sales, customer services or other you still get through to the same two stupid bints !!!!

Oh, and they still can't put me through to Adrian King and ONLY the office manager can explain why I've never received my court papers .... and strangely she was out today.

Coupon-mad

Email david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk and point out that you have an IAS decision stating that G24 are not pursuing you as the registered keeper under the POFA so you are complaining that G24's NTK has POFA all over it, completely misleading a keeper about 'keeper liability'.

And you wish to know under what basis of 'reasonable cause' did G24 claim to be asking for your Data?

You can also copy in the IPC as a complaint about the IAS and about G24 but the IPC won't answer you because (...in our experience) none of them gives a toss about consumers. However, David Dunford of the DVLA usually replies and takes an interest in 'misleading keeper liability' issues.

By the way I know that the Parking Prankster is currently raising complaints with the IAS lead assessor and the DVLA about all the dodgy IAS decisions. Have a look for his online Blog and ask if he'd like to be blind-copied into your email complaints.

pould

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email [EMAIL="david.dunford@dvla.co.uk"]david.dunford@dvla.co.uk[/EMAIL] and point out that you have an IAS decision stating that G24 are not pursuing you as the registered keeper under the POFA so you are complaining that G24's NTK has POFA all over it, completely misleading a keeper about 'keeper liability'.

And you wish to know under what basis of 'reasonable cause' did G24 claim to be asking for your Data?

You can also copy in the IPC as a complaint about the IAS and about G24 but the IPC won't answer you because (...in our experience) none of them gives a toss about consumers. However, David Dunford of the DVLA usually replies and takes an interest in 'misleading keeper liability' issues.

By the way I know that the Parking Prankster is currently raising complaints with the IAS lead assessor and the DVLA about all the dodgy IAS decisions. Have a look for his online Blog and ask if he'd like to be blind-copied into your email complaints.

Thank you CM - I will do those things now.

I am appalled that a company should act in this manner.