G24, parking invoice, St.Albans, The Quadrant. Won at IAS!

hazelfoo

This is a happy news story but I am posting for completeness and because I have a second one to address.

I had a parking charge notice from G24 in mid July 2024. This is for a privately managed car park in St.Albans Herts, at a place called "The Quadrant". It is a small local shopping / amenities area with hairdressers, shops, takeaways and sit down restaurants, a local library nearby and a petrol station. I use it almost every single day. 

The parking area in question is poorly marked. There are lots of signs up but too hard to read from the car. There are alternative older signs nearby visible from the car park. It is a free to use car park for 3 hours, no return within the hour. There is ANPR on both of the entrance/exit routes. There is occasionally an attendant in person in real life.

So what happened in my case?

I got a Notice to keeper through the post. Showing my car stopped on a very bad condition hatched area. It is one of the regular places people use in the car park - the marking is so faded with hatched yellow, hatched white, missing lines you name it. the car park does get very busy at lunch times - people using it for 5-10 minutes then off. 

So I'll get to the point... 

Thanks to this site, thanks to the newbies thread and the various excellent other threads on here... I actually beat this at the IAS stage. 

Sequence:
I did the standard appeal as keeper to G24. That was swiftly rejected.  But in it contained the wonderful seed of their own demise: 

" Your vehicle was logged entering the car park on the 20 Jun 2024 at 12:38 and exiting 20 Jun 2024 at 12:39."

yes their OWN EVIDENCE had the driver as in the car park for at best 119 seconds. 

I researched on here, took pictures at the quadrant etc. Then I entered an appeal at theias.org as keeper.
I noticed that the pictures taken as "evidence" were just ten seconds apart. It was not possible to see if the driver was waiting for other traffic - i.e. not possible to see if the driver was in the car or not based on the reflection off windscreen. When I got the ANPR evidence from G24 it showed the vehicle had been in the car park for less than 2 minutes...! 

So I went a little bit overboard and gave  reasons it should be dismissed this from memory I can look up the actual text I used and add to thread later if wanted:
- poor signage - it is impossible to read from the car. ergo one needs the consideration period.
- signage height and legibility - it is hard to read from ground level. The pictures G24 submitted as "evidence" have clearly been taken from a stepladder. I took a picture of my daughter under a sign. she can barely reach the bottom of the sign itself.
- ANPR and consideration period - their own ANPR data showed the vehicle in the car park for roughly a minute. i.e. not enough time to form a contract. No contract , no breach of contract.


So I nervously submitted and waited. 

I initially got an "Appeal dismissal"
----

Dear XXX

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 085124062002
Vehicle Registration: EK18DVG
Date Issued: 26/07/2024

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within a marked bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided I can see that the Appellant was not parked in a marked bay. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."

----


 ..... harrumph. That was on 29th August at 07:00:03. It reads very much like a templated response and I am deeply suspicious of the timestamp. Nobody in that organization is working at 7am. It looks like it is sent by an auto emailer. 

and then not less than a day later on 30th august at 11:14:12. This looks like a real response written by a human. 

----
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 085124062002
Vehicle Registration: EK18DVG
Issued On: 26/07/2024
Issued By: G24 Ltd

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"This PCN was issued on the basis that that Appellant was not parked in a marked bay. The Appellant appeals the PCN on a number of grounds including an insufficient consideration period. The NTK shows the vehicle observed for a period of 10 seconds. It is not clear whether the driver is in the vehicle at that point the vehicle was observed or whether or whether he could be outside the vehicle reading the signage. A driver is entitled to a reasonable period to park, read the signage and then take steps to comply or leave the site. As such, I accept the Appellant's argument about consideration periods and will allow the appeal on this basis.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

------

So... one example of a parking invoice being cancelled at theias stage.

So a BIG THANK YOU for this forum, community and those working in it. I have a second one to deal wiht - a double dipping case.

Questions on this one:

reading a bit more :
- given their own ANPR showed me in the car park for a minute or so - is this an issue with KADOE and their right to the DVLA data? should I also complain to the DVLA about this charge notice? 

- are there other things I could do off this appeal win?

hazelfoo

Found my ias login.

this is what I included as the appeal wording:
---------
There are multiple reasons to appeal this parking charge.
G24 is an IPC accredited parking operator, and as such is expected to adhere to the IPC Code of Practice. The main issues here with the charge are to do with signage at the site and the period of time on the private land.

I have visited the site. The signage with terms and conditions in the car park are all too high, and too small a font to read from a car. It is necessary to stand underneath with glasses on to read the print. They are too small and too high - the base of the sign is 7 foot off the ground, with the text barely legible from the ground. It is clearly not readable from the drivers seat of a car. Additionally signs at the entrance to the car park or positioned at a point where drivers are concentrating on avoiding the large metal structure that protects the car park from taller and wide vehicles. Lastly there are at least 3 separate types of sign as you walk from car park to shops. The easiest to read is NOT the G24 sign.
so the signage is not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC code of practice.
The parking charge notice states a breach of term of "Parking on yellow lines or hatched area" - this implies that the terms are clear from the signage... but the definition of "marked bay" is also not clear in the sign. The car park itself contains a wide variety of very poor markings, odd shaped bays, bays with both hatched , white, and a mixture of markings. It is not clear what constitutes a bay even if you do read the signage.

This brings me on to the consideration period.
As part of the Code of Practice Operators obligations, Section 13 is on Consideration and Grace Periods on Private land.
13.1 states motorists must have " a sufficient Consideration Period so they make make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land".
In the section on Obligations for the Motorist:
5.1 states: "Motorists are required to read Terms and Conditions when they enter the Land at the earliest opportunity"
and
5.3 states "if the Motorist does not want to abide by the Terms and Conditions stipulated, them must immediately leave the site"

G24;s own evidence shows the car EK18DVG stationary for 10 seconds in the car park. It is not clear from the evidence whether a driver is present in the vehicle or not. On appeal via ANPR G24 shows the car entered the car park at 12:38 and exited at 12:39. Taken directly from G24 email response to me the Keeper: "Your Vehicle was logged entering the car park on the 20 Jun 2024 at 12:38 and exiting 20 Jun 2024 at 12:39"

Given the state of the signage and that the car was in the car park for only 60 seconds as per the operators own evidence, it is clear that no contract was formed, and there can be no parking charge.

G24 is in breach of IPC Code of Practice by pursuing this parking charge in contradiction to the Code of Practice they have agreed to abide by.
I have uploaded evidence of the signage at the site. showing the variation and poor quality of some of the signs and of the bay marking (the vehicle in the picture is not the one subject to the notice).


---------

hazelfoo

AS part of the ias process this was G24 "operators prima facie case"

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 31/07/2024 16:13:15.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 26/06/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 26/07/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

This is not a relevant consideration as the motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd, so have agreed to pay.

The signs advertising the terms and conditions of the car park are compliant with our Approved Operator Scheme and displayed in prominent locations throughout the car park.

The motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd to park within the terms and conditions of the car park. The appellant failed to park within a marked bay on the date of the contravention, therefore the CPCN still applies.

the signage was updated on 13th June 2024.

It is for the above reasons that the appeal was rejected.

hazelfoo

and this was my final part, the "Appellants response"

---
I add the following in response to the Operators comments, building on top of my original appeal. That in short there was no contract formed, so there can be no breach.

The operator has
- made factual errors in their response
- failed to respond to some of my points in the original appeal
- failed to present all their evidence.
- is in breach of their own Code of Practice.

The mistakes and irrelevancies
1. The Operator states the "ticket" was issued on 26th July. 2024- one whole month AFTER the Notice to Keeper. Factual errors. The photographic evidence is dated 20th June.

2. The word "Ticket" implies statutory powers which the operator does not possess.

3. The operator states the signs were changed on June 13th 2024. This is irrelevant to whether a contract was established.

4. - Consideration Period and contract law - the operator fails to address the short length of time the vehicle was in the car park. Their email evidence shows the vehicle was in the car park from 12:38 to 12:39 on 20th June. The car was in the car park for less than the Consideration Period. This is the time the driver is "allowed to read the applicable terms and conditions and decide whether to accept them or to leave" . Annex B, Table B.1 states a Minimum Consideration Period of 5 minutes. This period is longer than the vehicle was in the car park.

Time taken to read signs - clause 5.1b states drivers must have sufficient time to read the terms and conditions. The CPCN was issued just 40 seconds after the vehicle entered the car park. It takes at least that long to even read the text on the signs. This is also in breach of 2.24
"A parking charge must not be enforced where the consideration period has not expired".

5. There is no evidence of parking, only of "stopping"
The operator photographic evidence shows a vehicle stopped in the same position in the car park, with the images captured 10 seconds apart. The images are not of sufficient quality to say whether the driver is in the vehicle or not, or whether the driver is waiting to proceed safely. It is just as likely the driver is waiting to leave the car park and is not parked. Image "queuing-quadrant" shows how bad the queuing can be in the car park to leave. The photos show a car stopped, not parked.

Breach of 3.3
The area that the car is stationary is not clearly marked and is in breach of Clause 3.3 - "where relevant obligations require drivers to park in delineated bays, surface markings must be applied and maintained.. as to be clearly visible to drivers in all lighting". - The "quadrant-flow" picture shows how poorly maintained the surface markings are. They are not visible from the drivers side of the car, are a mixture of broken lines, and different colours . That is they fail the commentary on Clause 3 where surface markings should be "visible, legible and unambiguous".



Misleading evidence on the state of signage in the commissioning evidence document "Sitemap 1".

6. The operator has presented photographs of the signs taken from an unnatural viewing angles to misrepresent the nature of the signage, either from a ladder or on a pole. The bottom of the signs are at least 7 foot off the ground.
I have added additional photos
- "sign-height" -the extreme height of the signs above an average height female . this is sign 5 in Sitemap 1.
-"sign-eye-level" - shows a sign taken from eye level at location 14 in Sitemap 1. This sign is only readable with glasses on.
-"view-inside-car" - shows the view of sign 5 from a parking bay. It is not possible to even see the sign from a bay.
- "sign-from-car" - shows the view of sign 14 from entry into the car park past entrance sign 1.

The signage is in breach of multiple clauses in Clause 3.1.3 in the Operator Code of Practice.
The breaches are as follows:
- 3.1.3a - "drivers must be able to read them when leaving their vehicle". My photo evidence is clear that signs cannot be read from inside the vehicle.
- 3.1.3b - "must be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance" - the photos show the signs are not visible from a distance
- 3.1.3f- "must use a font size appropriate for the location of the sign so as to be clearly readable by the driver". The photos show the font is too small to be readable from a vehicle. They are only readable standing at the base of a sign.
- 3.1.6- signs must be conspicuous in all lighting conditions. - The signs are too high to be illuminated at night by headlight. There is not additional lumination of the signs putting them in breach of clause 3.1.6
- 4.1 - "The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle..." the photos show the signs breach this clause. There are no signs in the car park that are readable from within a vehicle.


In summary..
The surface markings are ambiguous, the signs are in breach of multiple clauses in the code, the CPCN was issued just 40 seconds after the car entered the car park. There was no contract.

there can be no breach of any terms until a contract is formed and the offer accepted
For the terms/offer to be accepted the driver must leave the vehicle to read the signage.
The operator evidence shows the vehicle leaving the car park 20 seconds after stopping for 10 seconds. Clearly the driver did not agree to the terms and no contract was formed.

LoneStarState

Congrats!

You are a one of a very small minority who has this result with the IAS.  The initial dismissal is concerning and demonstrates what a kangaroo outfit they are.

I do sometimes wonder if we should have an IAS decision thread similar to the one for POPLA purely to show the disparity between the two second stage appeal services and gear up for some sort of complaint to the CTSI at least.  The initial dismissal decision above is the same templated decision notice seen almost every time when the IAS's "independent solicitors/barristers" find against motorist appellants.

kryten3000

Nicely done, IAS wins are pretty rare, I've managed to win a few of them over the years but mostly don't bother.

Coupon-mad

Odd that they rejected the appeal, then a day later, accepted it. The IAS is not usually worth trying but you made good use of quoting the Code.  Nicely done!

hazelfoo

Thanks all. I could not have done it without the resources in this forum.  I'll post some of what they showed as "evidence" later - their pictures are terribly misleading.

 I actually needed to put reading glasses on to read the signage when standing directly underneath it.
and these were in the main fairly new signs - not that weathered. Just in a font size that is hard to read ( by design).

in fact the whole experience is like a frustrating exercise in deliberately bad UX (user experience) , with friction put at every step. Like the IAS website - you can't simply cut and paste into the forms. Ohhhh no. you have to type out long form and the slightest mistake sees you back to empy state form again. in other words it has been engineered to add friction to the process, and engineered to reduce the length of form submissions. What in the UX /software world we'd describe as a "dark pattern".

and on the appeal rejection then accept. The first rejection looks like an automated example. Are there any other examples to compare to? I bet the wording is as templated as the automated rejection from G24 own appeals service.  and I looked at the timestamp of the email headers - exactly 3 seconds after 7 am. That is never a human sending that. That is some kind of batch automated send daily I think. Only on the second day in the morning does a human actually reply. That is my reading of that information. 

Hoping that some of the language I used adds to this forum and helps others in the way this site helped me. 

Car1980

Some people have to win those 4% of cases 😆