3. Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry  (Read 1339 times)

0 Members and 39 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« on: »
Hello all,

I happen to find myself in the same situation. I parked in Central Six - Coventry, received a NtK in the post and I sent G24 an appeal based on the same verbatim given here. I have now received an email rejecting this appeal from G24 with them clearly having given me some generic response but stating I can appeal to the IAS. Their email states:

"RE: Contractual Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed on signage in prominent locations thoughout the car park.  Any vehicle found to breach these terms and conditions will be subject to a Contractual Parking Charge Notice.  Photographic evidence of the breach of contractual term is available by request.

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 Community 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 your first rejection letter. Please visit 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 International Parking Community.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. You are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when you are visiting the site.

Our signage complies with the International Parking Community's Code of Practice.

The outstanding amount is £60.00 we look forward to your prompt payment within 14 days.

As your appeal has been rejected, any further correspondence may 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 (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 your first 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.

Appeals Team
G24 Ltd"

I will appeal via IAS but from what I have seen online they have been described as a "kangaroo court" and will likely reject it too. Any advice or template as to how I should approach this appeal to the IAS would be very much appreciated? It is the same case here where the only evidence they have provided is a picture of my vehicle in a parked bay. The signage is still the same and I have not admitted to leaving the site.
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #1 on: »
Please start your own thread for advice. It becomes too confusing for my addled brain, never mind all the other old fogeys on here, to deal with more than one issue at a time.

I'll report it to @DWMB2 to split it off or you can just start your own thread and copy and paste the content of your post into that and this post can then be deleted.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #2 on: »
It is hilarious how so intellectually malnourished they must be at G24. For fun, you should send a response to their appeal rejection before you submit the IAS appeal (for what it's worth):

Quote
Subject: Re: Contractual Parking Charge Notice [REFERENCE NUMBER]

Dear G24,

Thank you for your recent rejection of my appeal. While I note your insistence on the enforceability of this absurd charge, I am left unimpressed by your response and amused at the futility of your reasoning.

I will, as you suggest, submit an appeal to the so-called Independent Appeals Service (IAS)—or as it is better known, the kangaroo court that consistently sides with its paying members. I hold no illusions about the likely outcome given the reputation of the IAS. However, let me be perfectly clear, if you or the IAS fail to cancel this un-evidenced PCN, I am fully prepared to defend myself in court.

In the event you are foolish enough to pursue this further, rest assured that I will expose the intellectual deficiencies in your claim, particularly the lack of evidence and your failure to prove any breach of contract. I expect the court will have little tolerance for such facetious claims.

You have been put on notice that I will hold G24 to the highest burden of proof, and I am more than prepared to call into question your entire operation, including the inadequacies of your signage, the lack of clarity in your terms, and the complete absence of any real loss on your part. The court will also be informed of the malicious way in which this charge was pursued, with no warning or intervention from your operative, assuming such a person even exists.

Should you be so misguided as to pursue litigation, I look forward to seeing you there, where you will have to put your money where your mouth is.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

IAS appeal to follow
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #3 on: »
Here is a suggested IAS appeal. Don't put too much effort into it:

Quote
Subject: IAS Appeal - Contractual Parking Charge Notice [REFERENCE NUMBER]

Dear Independent Appeals Service,

I am submitting this appeal in response to the rejection of my initial challenge to a Parking Charge Notice issued by G24 Limited for an alleged breach at Central Six Retail Park, Coventry.

Grounds of Appeal:

• Lack of Evidence of Breach: G24 claims that the vehicle was “parked and left site,” (whatever that means) but has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this allegation. No evidence has been presented showing the driver or any party leaving the site (if that is what is meant by "parked and left site" actually means). This is crucial, as only the driver would be contractually bound by any parking terms. G24’s entire case hinges on an unsubstantiated and vague claim, which fails to meet the burden of proof required.

• Ambiguity of the Alleged Term “Leaving the Site”: The signage at the location fails to define the boundaries of the “site.” Without clear and unambiguous information as to what constitutes the “site,” it is impossible for a driver to know where they are allowed to go without breaching terms. A contractual term that is ambiguous or unclear cannot be enforced, as it lacks the certainty required in contract law. G24 has provided no map, boundary markers, or any evidence that the driver knowingly breached this term.

• Passengers Are Not Bound by the Terms: Even if G24 had provided evidence of someone leaving the site, it is important to note that passengers are not party to any alleged contract. A contract, if one exists, is only formed with the driver. Therefore, G24 is put to strict proof that it was indeed the driver who allegedly left the site. In the absence of such evidence, this charge is fundamentally flawed.

• Failure of G24 to Mitigate the Alleged Breach: If G24’s operative witnessed the alleged “leaving the site” incident, why did they not warn the driver or attempt to prevent a breach of contract? This implies that G24 is more interested in issuing charges than in ensuring compliance with their terms. Such conduct is not only unreasonable but demonstrates a lack of good faith in the operation of their parking management.

• No Financial Loss or Legitimate Interest: The £100 charge is a penalty in disguise. G24 has suffered no financial loss, and the vehicle was parked in a marked bay, without causing any obstruction or detriment to the site. The principle set in ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply here, as there is no legitimate interest in deterring overstays or misuse of parking. This makes G24’s demand for £100 punitive, and therefore unenforceable under contract law.

• Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage: The signage at the location is insufficiently clear to form a valid contract with the driver. The lack of definition regarding what constitutes “the site” and the absence of clear terms explaining that leaving the site would incur a penalty renders this alleged contract unenforceable. G24's reliance on ambiguous terms and unclear signage makes any purported agreement void for uncertainty.

Conclusion:

In light of the above, this parking charge is wholly unjustified. G24 has failed to provide the necessary evidence to support its claim of a breach of contract. Moreover, the ambiguity of the term “leaving the site,” combined with the lack of clear signage and the absence of any financial loss, renders this charge unenforceable. Should this appeal be rejected, I am fully prepared to defend this matter in court, where I will require G24 to substantiate their claims with proper evidence and justification for their punitive charge.

I trust that the IAS will carefully review the evidence (or lack thereof) provided by G24 and cancel this unfounded charge.

Yours sincerely,
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: b789 on October 04, 2024, 05:48:53 pm
Please start your own thread for advice. It becomes too confusing for my addled brain, never mind all the other old fogeys on here, to deal with more than one issue at a time.

I'll report it to @DWMB2 to split it off or you can just start your own thread and copy and paste the content of your post into that and this post can then be deleted.

Apologies, thought it would be easier as the case is identical. Happy to create a new one if the IAS appeal doesnt go through?

Logged
Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #5 on: »
Quote from: b789 on October 04, 2024, 06:23:34 pm
Here is a suggested IAS appeal. Don't put too much effort into it:

Quote
Subject: IAS Appeal - Contractual Parking Charge Notice [REFERENCE NUMBER]

Dear Independent Appeals Service,

I am submitting this appeal in response to the rejection of my initial challenge to a Parking Charge Notice issued by G24 Limited for an alleged breach at Central Six Retail Park, Coventry.

Grounds of Appeal:

• Lack of Evidence of Breach: G24 claims that the vehicle was “parked and left site,” (whatever that means) but has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this allegation. No evidence has been presented showing the driver or any party leaving the site (if that is what is meant by "parked and left site" actually means). This is crucial, as only the driver would be contractually bound by any parking terms. G24’s entire case hinges on an unsubstantiated and vague claim, which fails to meet the burden of proof required.

• Ambiguity of the Alleged Term “Leaving the Site”: The signage at the location fails to define the boundaries of the “site.” Without clear and unambiguous information as to what constitutes the “site,” it is impossible for a driver to know where they are allowed to go without breaching terms. A contractual term that is ambiguous or unclear cannot be enforced, as it lacks the certainty required in contract law. G24 has provided no map, boundary markers, or any evidence that the driver knowingly breached this term.

• Passengers Are Not Bound by the Terms: Even if G24 had provided evidence of someone leaving the site, it is important to note that passengers are not party to any alleged contract. A contract, if one exists, is only formed with the driver. Therefore, G24 is put to strict proof that it was indeed the driver who allegedly left the site. In the absence of such evidence, this charge is fundamentally flawed.

• Failure of G24 to Mitigate the Alleged Breach: If G24’s operative witnessed the alleged “leaving the site” incident, why did they not warn the driver or attempt to prevent a breach of contract? This implies that G24 is more interested in issuing charges than in ensuring compliance with their terms. Such conduct is not only unreasonable but demonstrates a lack of good faith in the operation of their parking management.

• No Financial Loss or Legitimate Interest: The £100 charge is a penalty in disguise. G24 has suffered no financial loss, and the vehicle was parked in a marked bay, without causing any obstruction or detriment to the site. The principle set in ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply here, as there is no legitimate interest in deterring overstays or misuse of parking. This makes G24’s demand for £100 punitive, and therefore unenforceable under contract law.

• Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage: The signage at the location is insufficiently clear to form a valid contract with the driver. The lack of definition regarding what constitutes “the site” and the absence of clear terms explaining that leaving the site would incur a penalty renders this alleged contract unenforceable. G24's reliance on ambiguous terms and unclear signage makes any purported agreement void for uncertainty.

Conclusion:

In light of the above, this parking charge is wholly unjustified. G24 has failed to provide the necessary evidence to support its claim of a breach of contract. Moreover, the ambiguity of the term “leaving the site,” combined with the lack of clear signage and the absence of any financial loss, renders this charge unenforceable. Should this appeal be rejected, I am fully prepared to defend this matter in court, where I will require G24 to substantiate their claims with proper evidence and justification for their punitive charge.

I trust that the IAS will carefully review the evidence (or lack thereof) provided by G24 and cancel this unfounded charge.

Yours sincerely,

Thank you so much, I will send the appeal now and see what they say.
Logged
Re: Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry
« Reply #6 on: »
I have had this charge for allegedly leaving site at Central Six. I wrote to G24 as follows: I write as the registered keeper which is the subject of the above Parking Charge Notice. The Notice shows the vehicle parked in a designated parking slot, and in a car park with a 3 hour allowance. The notice refers to 'parked and left site' as the term breached, yet there is no evidence to support this. Before I can consider your demands, can you please provide photographic evidence that the driver of the vehicle 'left site'in alleged contravention of your terms.      Four days later I received a letter to say that the charge has been waived. Not saying this would work for everyone, but I thought it was worth a punt and it proved effective.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Re: Parking Charge Notice for Leaving site at Central Six - Coventry