DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98217--------------------------------------------------
G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I've had the below through from G24 stating driver
overstayed parking limited to 3 hours by 35 minutes and
demanding £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days which is
officially the 14th on their form. I've not been home to open
any post until now hence the delay.
The driver drove into the car park and parked up and spent the
entirety of the time shopping on the retail park and then left
at the time stated.
Signage to the site upon entrance is vague although there are
signs on every row, both attached and also screenshots from a
video done showing the drive in to park up and their locations.
The first letter is dated 31/10/25 although it wasnt at my
address before the 7th when I went away for a week and returned
to that letter and a 2nd through the post dated 09/11/25.
I am the registered keeper.
Letters attached.
How would I go about finding out who owns the management company
to see if they'll cancel the ticket?
Or is there anything to suggest I should appeal due to poor
signage on entrance etc?
Let me know if anything else is needed.
This forum was a great help last time in getting a ticket
cancelled so hoping fo a similar outcome.
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/Bst5GfS
#Post#: 98223--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 15, 2025, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that the driver has not been identified?
The PCN appears to be non-reliant on PoFA which means that there
is no keeper liability.
It's still worth trying to get the retail park to cancel the PCN
as the driver was clearly a legitimate customer?
#Post#: 98267--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: b789
Date: November 15, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They are relying on PoFA. You may have only looked at the
reminder, which never references PoFA. However, the original is
still not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA as
they have simply copied ParkingEye's template NtK.
There is no direct invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge,
in breach of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). This is how you explain the PoFA
failure to POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or
nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
>
> Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should
include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)…
(c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA
9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every
required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is
no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with
9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either
PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing,
the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
>
> Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph
requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be
directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver”
to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants
keeper liability.
>
> What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when
demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The
demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g.
language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days”
/ “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence
that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The
word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral
data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any
invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i)
forbids.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an
invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to
either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to
the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the
9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA
compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on
strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice
invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is
not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer
liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not
identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
--- End Quote ---
In order to get a POPLA code, you first need your initial appeal
to G24 to be rejected, which it will, irrespective of the appeal
reason or content. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal
the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or
assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. G24 has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
G24 have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98888--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: November 19, 2025, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, I've input my appeal, I'll be back in touch when I'm
no doubt rejected 👍👍
#Post#: 99586--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: November 24, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ironically I've had the below response requesting further info
in order to assess my appeal. Looks like it's trying to scare me
into providing the drivers details etc and ignoring your points.
Only thing redacted is the reference number.
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - - - - - - - - -
Dear Sir / Madam,
We are writing in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on - -
- - - - at --- - -, at Ventura
Retail Park, Tamworth, Phase 1 car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been
referred for further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at
the date and time of the breach of
the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not
indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of
schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is
required to pay this parking charge in
full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal
address, if you were not the driver at
the time, you should tell us the full name and the current
postal address of the driver.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue,
the parking charge has not been
paid in full and we do not know both the name and current
address of the driver, we have the right
to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the
registered keeper. This warning is
given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is
subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under
schedule 4 of that Act.
Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on
behalf of the driver, and you do not
provide the full name and current postal address of the driver,
G24 will be obliged to deal with the
representations made in your name.
G24 have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to
provide the evidence
requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days,
please be aware that the appeal may
be rejected.
Alternatively, a payment can be made by telephoning 0333 7333
000, by visiting
www.g24.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a
cheque/postal order to G24 Ltd, PO Box
3320, Gerrards Cross, Bucks, SL9 8WT. Please ensure you write
your reference number on the
reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be
allocated.
Yours faithfully,
G24 Team
#Post#: 99605--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can either ignore or respond as follows (I would):
--- Quote ---
> Re: Parking Charge Notice [ref] – Vehicle [reg]
>
> Dear G24 “Team”,
>
> I acknowledge your latest piece of waffle about Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). You appear to labour
under the delusion that simply parroting paragraphs 9(2)(b) and
9(2)(f) somehow conjures up keeper liability. It does not.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]• Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with all of
the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)–(i)
(and associated provisions).
> • Partial, selective or “near enough” compliance is legally
meaningless.
> • In particular, your document fails the requirements of
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), amongst others.[/indent]
>
> The legal position is simple: you have failed to meet the
statutory conditions for transferring liability from the unknown
driver to the registered keeper. Consequently, you have no
lawful basis whatsoever to pursue me as keeper. That is the end
of the matter.
>
> You now have the sheer nerve to ask me to assist you by
identifying the driver, as if I am under some obligation to help
you repair your own PoFA car crash. I am not.
>
> So, for the avoidance of doubt:
> [indent]1. I am the registered keeper.
> 2. The registered keeper declines to identify the driver.
> 3. You have no lawful basis to assume, infer or otherwise
pretend you know who was driving.
> 4. You have chosen to rely on PoFA while failing to comply
with PoFA. That is your mess, not mine.[/indent]
>
> Your muddled reliance on a couple of cherry-picked
sub-paragraphs of PoFA (2) while ignoring the rest only serves
to underline the level of intellectual malnourishment at play
here. If your staff are incapable of understanding that ALL
applicable PoFA conditions must be satisfied before keeper
liability can arise, that is your problem, not mine. I am not
about to give you a free tutorial.
>
> If you genuinely believe your defective NtK somehow creates
keeper liability despite its non-compliance, you are welcome to
waste your own time and money at IAS or in court. Any
independent review will simply be invited to note:
> [indent]1. Your admitted reliance on PoFA;
> 2. Your failure to comply with all mandatory provisions of
9(2); and
> 3. Your complete lack of evidence as to the identity of the
driver.[/indent]
>
> In the meantime, this is my final word on the subject. Do not
contact me again about this speculative invoice unless it is to:
> [indent]• Confirm that the charge has been cancelled; or
> • Serve a properly compliant Letter of Claim or court
papers.[/indent]
>
> Any debt collector drivel will be ignored.
>
> As to your invitation that I should assist you by naming the
driver, I can only refer you to the response given in Arkell v
Pressdram (1971).
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99615--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: ixxy
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
G24 are IPC so IAS so arguing whether the NTK is POFA compliant
is even less likely to succeed.
#Post#: 99620--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. However, I still advise going through the motions for
the record and it pisses the operator off when they have to
respond to an IAS appeal.
#Post#: 101760--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: December 9, 2025, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So I've had my response from G24 unsurprisingly rejecting my
appeal. Assume next step appeal to ias?
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge
incurred on *******at
****, at Ventura Retail Park, Tamworth, Phase 1 car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are
not in receipt of sufficient
evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not
breached. The signage displayed on
site confirms that there is a maximum stay time in operation.
Our records confirm that on the date
of the event, the maximum stay time allowed was exceeded.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been
unsuccessful and that you have
now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
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 7333 000 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 Independent
Appeals Service Standard
Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28
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.
As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period
for a further 14 days from the
date of this correspondence. If you appeal to The Independent
Appeal Service, you will not be
able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking
Charge, and the full value of the
charge will be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to The
Independent Appeal Service is
unsuccessful, you will no longer be able to pay the discounted
amount, and the full value of the
charge will be due.
If you have received this correspondence via email, please allow
24 hours for our systems to
reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our
automated payment line or website.
Yours faithfully,
G24 TEAM
#Post#: 101860--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: b789
Date: December 10, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Submit the following as your IAS appeal:
--- Quote ---
> Appellant: [Full name]
> PCN reference: [xxxxxxxx]
> Vehicle registration: [xxxxxxx]
> Operator: G24 Limited
> Site: Ventura Retail Park, Tamworth, Phase 1 car park
> Status: Registered keeper – no admission as to driver identity
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle identified in this
matter. I appeal against this Parking Charge Notice in full. I
deny any liability, whether as driver or as keeper. For the
avoidance of doubt, there is no admission as to the identity of
the driver and I decline to identify the driver. No adverse
inference can properly be drawn from that lawful choice.
>
> G24 has chosen to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) and has expressly threatened me with
keeper liability in its correspondence, repeatedly citing
paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f). However, G24’s Notice to Keeper
does not comply with the mandatory conditions imposed by
Schedule 4 and therefore cannot create keeper liability. In
those circumstances, G24 can only pursue the unknown driver, who
has not been identified.
>
> GROUND 1 – NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER SCHEDULE 4 POFA 2012
>
> Liability may only be transferred from the driver to the
registered keeper if, and only if, the operator strictly
complies with all of the applicable provisions of Schedule 4 to
PoFA. Paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) set out that keeper liability
arises only “if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met.”
>
> Where an operator seeks to rely on paragraph 9 (Notice to
keeper: no notice to driver), paragraph 9(2) sets out a list of
mandatory information that “the notice must” contain. These
requirements are not optional; they are strict preconditions.
The wording of paragraph 9(2) is clear. It enumerates
requirements (a) through (i). Each is couched in mandatory
language (“must”), and failure to comply with any of them
prevents keeper liability from arising.
>
> In this case, G24’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). That provision requires the notice to:
>
> “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper—
> (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
> (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to
notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver…”
>
> The Notice to Keeper issued by G24 does not contain a
compliant statement in the terms required by paragraph
9(2)(e)(i). In particular, it does not set out, in the statutory
form, that the creditor does not know both the name and address
for service of the driver and it does not contain a correct and
complete invitation to the keeper in the prescribed form. G24
have instead substituted their own wording, which does not
mirror the statutory requirement and fails to discharge
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> This is not merely a matter of “substantial compliance” or
“close enough”. The statute does not permit a “near miss”
approach. The operator either complies with the prescribed
wording and structure, or it does not. In this case, it does
not. On that basis alone, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant
and incapable of creating any keeper liability.
>
> Further, and in any event, the Notice to Keeper fails to
comply with paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the notice to
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” G24 rely
upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps. ANPR technology records
only times when a vehicle passes cameras; it does not and cannot
record the actual “period of parking”. The law explicitly
requires specification of “the period of parking”. Entry and
exit times are not the same thing, nor do they prove the
duration of any stationary parking event. They do not account
for time spent queuing, driving slowly around the car park, or
waiting for a space, nor for mandatory consideration and grace
periods.
>
> The Notice to Keeper in this case merely reproduces ANPR
entry/exit times and then asserts that a “maximum stay” was
exceeded. That is not compliant with paragraph 9(2)(a). The
required “period of parking” is absent; it is not for an
operator to gloss the statutory wording by asserting that ANPR
times are good enough. They are not. Again, this defect is fatal
to keeper liability.
>
> There are additional omissions and defects within the Notice
to Keeper when one compares it line by line to the requirements
of paragraph 9(2)(a)–(i) and the other applicable conditions in
Schedule 4. However, it is sufficient for present purposes that
the IAS should note the above specific breaches of paragraphs
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a). A failure of any one applicable
condition is sufficient to prevent any transfer of liability
from the unknown driver to the keeper.
>
> The legal consequence is straightforward. G24 cannot rely on
PoFA to pursue the registered keeper. The only potentially
liable party would be the driver, whose identity is not admitted
and has not been disclosed. G24 cannot lawfully treat the keeper
as if he or she were the driver, nor can they reverse the burden
of proof or invite the IAS to indulge any presumption to that
effect. There is no such presumption in PoFA or in general law.
>
> GROUND 2 – MISREPRESENTATION OF KEEPER LIABILITY AND MISUSE OF
DATA
>
> Notwithstanding their non-compliance with PoFA, G24’s
rejection letter continues to assert that they “have the right
to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the
registered keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(f). This is a serious
misstatement of the law. Paragraph 9(2)(f) does not grant any
such right; it merely prescribes wording which must be contained
in a notice in order for keeper liability to arise if all other
statutory conditions are also satisfied.
>
> Where an operator fails to comply with the mandatory
conditions of Schedule 4 but nevertheless represents to a data
subject (the keeper) that they have a statutory right to recover
a parking charge from that person as keeper, this is a misuse of
DVLA data and a misrepresentation of legal authority. It is also
contrary to the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), in particular clause 8.1.1(d), which prohibits
operators from misrepresenting the legal position regarding
keeper liability under PoFA.
>
> The IAS will be aware that the entire justification for access
to keeper data via the DVLA KADOE contract is that the data must
be used fairly, lawfully and transparently. An operator that
fails to meet PoFA’s conditions yet continues to press the
keeper as if those conditions had been satisfied is plainly not
acting fairly or lawfully. This is highly relevant to the
credibility and weight that should be attached to their evidence
and assertions in this appeal.
>
> GROUND 3 – NO EVIDENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT WITH THE
LANDOWNER
>
> G24 is put to strict proof that it had, at the material time,
a valid and enforceable written agreement with the landowner (or
a party with sufficient title to sue) conferring authority upon
G24 to: (a) manage and control parking at Ventura Retail Park,
Tamworth, Phase 1; and (b) issue Parking Charge Notices and
pursue them through to court proceedings in its own name. The
burden rests squarely on G24 to demonstrate that it is not a
mere contractor or agent with no independent right of action.
>
> The IAS will appreciate that a bare “site agreement”, a
short-form “authority letter”, or a self-serving witness
statement falls far short of what is required. Any such document
must be a properly executed agreement and must not be so heavily
redacted that key information is concealed. The document must
clearly identify, as a minimum, the contracting landholder, the
precise land and car park areas subject to the scheme, the
duration of the agreement, the nature and limits of G24’s
authority, the level of charges, and whether G24 has the right
to take legal action in its own name.
>
> In this regard, any contract or letter of authority relied
upon must comply in full with Section 14.1(a–j) of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice. That provision sets out the
mandatory minimum content that must be present in any agreement
or written authority between a landholder and a parking
operator. It is not sufficient for an operator to produce a
document with those 14.1(a–j elements missing or obscured. If
any of the mandatory 14.1(a–j particulars are absent, or if they
are concealed behind redactions (for example in relation to the
identity of the landholder, the land covered, the duration, the
financial arrangements, or the operator’s litigation rights),
then the document is non-compliant with the Code and cannot
safely be treated as proof of standing.
>
> The Appellant therefore invites the IAS to require strict
proof of a fully unredacted contract or letter of authority that
demonstrably satisfies Section 14.1(a–j of the PPSCoP and shows
that G24 was expressly authorised, at the material time, to
issue Parking Charge Notices and to recover them by litigation
in its own name. If G24 fails to produce such evidence, or
produces only a redacted or generic document, the IAS is asked
to find that G24 has failed to establish locus standi and that
the charge cannot be enforced.
>
> GROUND 4 – INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
>
> The alleged parking contract is said to be formed by means of
signage at the site. The operator bears the burden of proving
that clear, legible, and sufficiently prominent terms were
effectively communicated to the driver before any parking event
commenced. In circumstances where PoFA is not engaged (because
of operator non-compliance), the alleged debt can only arise, if
at all, from a contract said to have been formed between
operator and driver. The standard of proof and clarity required
is correspondingly high.
>
> G24 has provided no contemporaneous evidence of the actual
signage layout, positioning, or content as it appeared on the
material date. A few stock photographs or small images of
template signs do not suffice. The IAS should require:
>
> a) A contemporaneous site plan indicating all signage
positions, heights, and angles; and
> b) Legible, close-up photographs of the signs, showing all
text, including any small print relating to maximum stay,
charges, and key terms; and
> c) Wider photographs demonstrating how those signs would have
appeared to a driver entering and circulating the site,
including at eye level from a driver’s viewpoint.
>
> The appellant’s position is that the signage fails to meet the
requirements for contractual incorporation. It is not admitted
that the alleged terms were sufficiently prominent, legible, or
transparent to be binding on a reasonable driver. Any terms that
are alleged to impose a disproportionate penalty, or that
purport to bind a motorist to a significant financial charge for
a trivial overstay, must be particularly prominent and brought
fairly to the driver’s attention. The operator has not
discharged that burden.
>
> Further, if the operator wishes to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v
Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, it is incumbent on them to demonstrate
that the factual matrix in this car park is analogous to the
Beavis case, including signage design, prominence, commercial
justification, and context. Absent evidence of such similarity,
Beavis does not assist G24. It is not a blanket blessing of all
private parking charges in all circumstances.
>
> GROUND 5 – FAILURE TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION AND GRACE PERIODS
>
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that
operators allow motorists a reasonable “consideration period” on
arrival, in order to read the signs and decide whether to stay,
and a minimum grace period at the end of any permitted parking
before issuing a charge. This reflects basic consumer fairness.
G24’s blanket assertion that “the maximum stay time allowed was
exceeded” does not demonstrate that the operator has observed
these requirements.
>
> The operator has produced no evidence of how it has allowed
for mandatory consideration and grace periods in its ANPR
calculations, nor how the alleged “overstay” has been calculated
after those periods. As already noted, ANPR entry and exit times
are not equivalent to a proved period of parking and do not
demonstrate breach of contract when allowance is made for the
required buffer periods. The burden remains on G24 to prove an
actionable breach of clearly communicated terms, not merely to
assert that “our records confirm” a breach.
>
> GROUND 6 – UNFAIR AND DISPROPORTIONATE CHARGE
>
> The Parking Charge demanded bears no relation to any genuine
pre-estimate of loss and is purely penal in nature. While Beavis
accepted that in certain tightly defined circumstances a charge
could be commercially justifiable and not a penalty, those
circumstances involved a specific, prominent, and carefully
controlled system in a town centre retail park with very clear
signage and an obvious legitimate interest in deterrence.
>
> In contrast, G24 has produced no evidence of any comparable
legitimate interest, nor of the clarity and prominence of its
signs. In the absence of such evidence, this charge represents
an unfair and disproportionate term under the Consumer Rights
Act 2015. Terms which require a consumer to pay a
disproportionately high sum in compensation when compared with
the operator’s legitimate interest and actual loss are liable to
be assessed as unfair and are not binding.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> In summary:
>
> [indent]a) G24’s Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA
Schedule 4, in particular paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a), and
does not meet all mandatory conditions of paragraph 9(2)(a)–(i)
and the wider Schedule. Keeper liability therefore does not
arise.
> b) The operator has misrepresented its right to recover the
charge from the keeper despite that non-compliance, undermining
its credibility and its lawful use of DVLA data.
> c) G24 has not proved that it holds sufficient landowner
authority to create and enforce parking contracts in its own
name.
> d) G24 has not proved that clear, prominent, and legally
effective signage was in place and properly incorporated into
any alleged contract.
> e) G24 has not proved any properly calculated period of
parking or any allowance for mandatory consideration and grace
periods.
> f) The charge is, in the circumstances of this site and on the
limited evidence provided, an unfair and disproportionate
penalty, and is not binding.[/indent]
>
> For all of the above reasons, this appeal should be allowed
and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled in full.
>
> Should the IAS nonetheless be minded to dismiss this appeal,
the appellant respectfully requires that the assessor sets out,
with reference to the actual wording of Schedule 4 PoFA and to
the specific content of G24’s Notice to Keeper, how each limb of
paragraph 9(2)(a)–(i) is said to have been satisfied, and on
what legal basis the keeper can be held liable in the face of
the clear statutory requirements and the absence of any
admission as to driver identity.
--- End Quote ---
As the IAS assessors mendaciously pretend to be trained to
solicitor level or higher (they are not), the above appeal
should be enough to titillate them and get them all moist and
aroused enough to possible read it and actually make a decision
based on fact rather than on their masters order to rubber-stamp
a rejection.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page