G24 Parking Ltd. - Post-Beavis

Carthesis

So, it seems that - since the Beavis judgement at least - some of the PPCs are starting to push back.

A friend of my GFs recently got stung by G24 for parking in a B&M car park in Sheffield. I sent her an edited copy of a letter i've used successfully with G24 before, and told her she should also speak to the store manager.

As it turns out, G24 totally rejected her appeal, apparently referring to Beavis as a reason to not allow the appeal. Luckily, she has spoken to the store manager to get the "charge" cancelled, so she doesn't have to go through the rest of the rigmarole hopefully. Sadly, I don't have a copy of the rejection letter she got ...

... however - I have also had another CPCN from G24. I'm sending off the "full fat" version of my letter as a response, along with my standard set of T&Cs and Schedule of Fees for dealing with contractual matters. I'm half expecting them to reject my appeal too, so I'm looking forward to issuing the first invoice to them.

I shall update the thread once I get a response from them and we shall see where we get to. Might need a bit of advice with the response letter to them and to POPLA depending on if they reject my appeal or not.

Umkomaas

POPLA won't apply as G24 left the BPA and joined the IPC.

When you get your rejection, read post #3 of the newbies FAQ sticky to read your options in regard to the next appeal stage to the IAS (very few recommend appealing to the IAS as the chances of success are somewhere between nil and zero!). But do get on with your appeal to G24, make sure you do not identify the driver.

Good luck with your invoicing of G24. :rotfl:

bod1467

G24 are IPC members (as I recall) so POPLA doesn't apply - it would be the IAS. Thoughts here on whether or not to appeal to the IAS are somewhat divided ... all agree though that the chances of a successful IAS appeal are minimal.

Bear in mind that invoicing them for your time would be a contractual matter ... if they don't accept your terms then your invoice would be as enforceable as theirs.

Quentin

Carthesis wrote: »

As it turns out, G24 totally rejected her appeal, apparently referring to Beavis as a reason to not allow the appeal. Luckily, she has spoken to the store manager to get the "charge" cancelled, so she doesn't have to go through the rest of the rigmarole hopefully. Sadly, I don't have a copy of the rejection letter she got ...

... however - I have also had another CPCN from G24. I'm sending off the "full fat" version of my letter as a response, along with my standard set of T&Cs and Schedule of Fees for dealing with contractual matters. I'm half expecting them to reject my appeal too, so I'm looking forward to issuing the first invoice to them.

As you now know there's no rigmarole to go through once your appeal has been rejected. ( Ignore everything except court correspondence)

But tell your friend to keep on top of the cancellation.

It's not cancelled till g24 says so.

If she doesn't get this in writing from them she needs to get back to the store manager and get him to get them to issue a cancellation to her

Carthesis

Umkomaas wrote: »

POPLA won't apply as G24 left the BPA and joined the IPC.

When you get your rejection, read post #3 of the newbies FAQ sticky to read your options in regard to the next appeal stage to the IAS (very few recommend appealing to the IAS as the chances of success are somewhere between nil and zero!). But do get on with your appeal to G24, make sure you do not identify the driver.

Good luck with your invoicing of G24. :rotfl:

I didn't realise they'd left the BPC. I shall amend the letter to suit.

And yes, I know to not identify the driver and the like. As I say, it's a template letter that has worked before, although admittedly a few years ago, hence the references to POPLA.

bod1467 wrote: »

Bear in mind that invoicing them for your time would be a contractual matter ... if they don't accept your terms then your invoice would be as enforceable as theirs.

Oh, I know. Which is why my letter is very clear that:

A failure to provide either the documents detailed above within 28 days from the date of this letter will be deemed an implied agreement on your part of my rejection of your invoice. Any other contact by your company, other than the cancellation letter detailed above, but including your letter detailing your rejection of my offer to cancel, will be deemed as an appeal of my rejection of your invoice and subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the attached.

If nothing else, I'll just play with them until I've had my entertainment out of it.

The_Deep

Quoting Beavis will, no doubt, be the undoing of many of the smaller PPCs if they persist, just as firms of solicitors quoting Elliott v Loake could find themselves in trouble .

How many of these companies pay the landowner £52,000 a tear to operate on their land? How many car parks need to be protected against overstayers? Certainly not residents parking in their own curtilage.

What about BB holders who forget to display a badge, people who, because of other vehicles, have to park over a line, people you wrongly enter their registration numbers?.

Is there any commercial justification in quoting Beavis at Universities and Hospitals, are hospital car parks even private land? There are notices all over my local hospital informing me that the hospital belongs to me.

If I drive through a bus lane it will cost me £30. If the wind blows my ticket over, the scammers want £100.

Why, because Barry Beavis lost his case at the SC. It is not on.

Quentin

Carthesis wrote: »

As I say, it's a template letter that has worked before, although admittedly a few years ago, hence the references to POPLAt.

Now you know you are out of date go to the newbies thread for advice on how to deal with this as well as an up to date appeals template

Carthesis

Quentin wrote: »

Now you know you are out of date go to the newbies thread for advice on how to deal with this as well as an up to date appeals template

The basis for the appeal hasn't changed. My appeal letter still complies with the template. I only need to amend the references to POPLA and the BPA, which I've now done.

Printed, signed, posted.

Carthesis

Well well well.

I got a response from G24, and it seems like they have at least scanned the letter I sent them.

A copy of the response is below.

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed in prominent locations throughout the car park. Any vehicle found in contravention of these terms and conditions is subject to a Contractual Parking Charge Notice. Vehicles entering and exiting the car park are monitored and details of their registration number and time of entry/exit are recorded. Your vehicle was logged entering the car park on the xxxxxxx and exiting xxxxxxx. Photographic evidence of the breach of contractual term is provided on your Contractual Parking Charge Notice.

We respond as follows :

1. In relation to your suggestion that your parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss we confirm we have obtained legal advice in this regard and have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they are in line with the Independent Parking Committee's guidelines, and that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but they are likely to amount to liquidated damages (where the issue of pre-estimate of loss is not relevant). This is because the Court’s position is that where the parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract - which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage - a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is classed as liquidated damages. Either way, our parking charges are fully enforceable and no not amount to a “penalty”. You should also be aware that in accordance with the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving that an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party against whom the parking charge is claimed);

2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal the IAS will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter. Please visit https://www.theias.org for full details.

3. Again, you do not specify in which way you allege we not have authority to issue charges over the land where the car park is located. However, we can assure you that the parking management at the car park where you received a parking charge has been contracted to us. Again, we are able to confirm that we have been successfully audited by an independent assessor on behalf of the Independent Parking Committee.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. Your are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when visit the site.
Our signage complies with the Independent Parking Committee's Approved Operator Scheme.

A copy of our signage will be provided in any Court proceedings and a copy of our terms and conditions is clearly stated on the Notice to Keeper you have received.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act), (Schedule 4), which governs parking on private land, provides a definition for "parking charge" and "adequate notice" of such private parking charges. The relevant sections of Schedule 4 to the Act state :

“parking charge”

(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and

(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages ...

... “relevant obligation” means
(a) an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or
(b) an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land; ...

... The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles

(when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).
For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:
... (b) ... the display of one or more notices which
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land".

In this instance a parking charge has been issued based on the fact that the driver of your vehicle entered into a contract with us (by the act of parking the vehicle) and our signage (which states the terms and conditions of parking) having been clearly displayed in the car park.

The Act permits parking charges to be rendered on private land, and the case of Parking Eye Limited v Somerfield Stores Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (Court of Appeal) held that (taking into account inflation) the parking company was entitled to claim a parking charge of a similar amount to that which we have charged, and therefore your reference to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is not of any relevance in the context of this parking charge.

You should also be aware that the amount of our parking charges accords within recommendations by our Trade Associations.

We operate the car park in accordance with the BPA/AOS guidlines, I refer you to section 7.1.

"7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary."

The nature of our contract with our client is confidential but will be supplied during any Court proceedings.

We can confirm that parking management at this site has been contracted to us. As a member of the Independent Parking Committee, we are constantly audited to ensure that we have all relevant contracts in place. We will provide the Court with a copy of this in full if they require it.

As we have extensively investigated this Contractual Parking Charge Notice and provided you with the results of our investigation, no further investigation will be undertaken. Any further correspondence will not receive a response, the options below are still open to you.

You now have one of the following options available to you:

1. Pay the outstanding Parking Charge. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0333 733 3000 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (https://www.theIAS.org), The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the The Independent Appeals Service Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Customer Services
G24 Ltd

So they claim that the "charge" is, in fact, a GPEOL, despite the fact there can be no loss as the stores on the retail park were all closed at the time of alleged contravention.

They refer to the "evidence" on the CPCN, despite the fact that one of the 2 "definitive" images they claim is so distorted that a car can barely be identified, let alone the licence plate made out.

They are persisting in the stance that this is a contract, and have acknowledged it as such.

I'm writing the first invoice to them as I speak, as they haven't provided me with some of the things I have asked for - notably calibration certification for the ANPR cameras, which have taken a shoddy photo.

Does anyone have any further thoughts? I thought the basis for their rejection of my appeal might be useful to others.

Obviously, I shall be ignoring any other letters from them, save for the necessary letter to the Debt Collection company informing them the debt is disputed, should that occur.

Fruitcake

It is interesting that they refer to the BPA AOS, and then quote section 7.1 from it.

I would ask them for a PoPLA code, quoting back the relevant section of the BPA CoP that they themselves say they operate under.

Carthesis

Fruitcake wrote: »

It is interesting that they refer to the BPA AOS, and then quote section 7.1 from it.

I would ask them for a PoPLA code, quoting back the relevant section of the BPA CoP that they themselves say they operate under.

I suspect that - as they've changed ATAs - they have cobbled together the response from a number of standard responses with a copy'n'paste. They refer to the IPC elsewhere in the response too.

I also note, with some amusement, the number of typos and various grammatical errors littered through the response.