G24 Contractual parking charge notice

Stephen_Leak · 1 April 2012 at 3:48PM

The car park owner is "jointly and severally liable" with the PPC.

Send both of them a Letter Before Action. This simply says, "cease and desist or else I will sue you under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997". Advise the car park owner about their "joint and several liablity".

Then, when the next threatening letter arrives from the PPC, sue both of them. We can tell you how.

With luck, this ought to make the car park owner rethink the wisdom of their contract with the PPC. The big national firms, like Wickes and the supermarkets, are the "soft underbelly" of this symbiotic monster.

HO87 · 1 April 2012 at 5:34PM

cjth33 wrote: »

I am therefore considering complaining to:

- Wickes - who are allowing this despicable behaviour to take place
- DVLA - who gave these terrible people my personal contact details for their deceitful and unenforceable practices
- ICO - who regulate DVLA in their use of personal data
- British Parking Association - of which G24 are a member. BPA says "If a large number of complaints are received against a BPA member this can result in a review of the members’ membership status". I'd urge others to complain as well (I'm not allowed to post a link as a new member, but just google "BPA complaints private land")
- Trading Standards.

Any thoughts? Tips?

By all means complain to Wickes (parent company is the Travis Perkins Group) and make it clear that you will be taking your custom elsewhere and will make it your business to tell others how shabbily you were treated.

Again, by all means complain to the DVLA - but expect a standard letter in return. "We take our responsibilities to safeguard individuals' data seriously blah blah blah but....".

ICO - You could try a letter but they are in a slightly different position than they would be with other organisations in that the disclosure of RK data is permitted by statute - reg.27 Road Vehicles (Taxation and Registration) Regulations 2002 - upon demonstration that the applicant for the data has "reasonable cause".

I agree with trisontana don't even bother putting pen to paper as far as the BPA are concerned. Despite all of the media hype and the fact that they are the first port of call for the "parking industry" (now there's the biggest oxymoron in the lexicon) they are simply an old-fashioned trade protection society that exists to guard and nurture the interests of their membership and nothing else. They exercise no independent oversight whatsoever even though they are referred to from time to time as a regulator, or at least in those terms.

As for TS - Their approach is very patchy and in certain areas almost non-existant. Try, by all means but I don't recommend calling through Consumer Direct who whilst they are perfectly polite seem to serve no other purpose than to discourage the mildly interested and the ignorant. Don't expect to receive a speedy response - if you do its a bonus.

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

With luck, this ought to make the car park owner rethink the wisdom of their contract with the PPC. The big national firms, like Wickes and the supermarkets, are the "soft underbelly" of this symbiotic monster.

If we took the strictly scientific definition then I agree that the PPC/retailer tie-up is symbiotic. However, apply the common understanding of the phrase - sharing or pooling of resources to mutual benefit - and I'd consider the relationship straightforwardly parasitic.

Doesn't mean to say that the retailers do not provide the soft underbelly because they need to be woken up to what is going on in their car parks as well as everyone else. My concern would be that once that has happened might they not look at the huge margins that PPC's are achieving and think, "maybe we should have a slice of that"?

Stephen_Leak · 1 April 2012 at 5:43PM

trisontana wrote: »

Forget the BPA. It's a cosy old-boy's club for the parking "industry" that even allows convicted criminals to be members.

And the others haven't been convicted yet.

give_them_FA · 1 April 2012 at 6:51PM

Possibly when more retailers stop to consider the "huge margins that PPCs are achieving" their thoughts might get around to the reality that, actually, those huge margins are being achieved, ultimately, at the expense of the retailer! Because most "fined" customers soon become "ex" customers!

And might just ask themselves a simple question: Do we actually need a lot of control-freak rules in our car park or will we manage "fine" without?

Maybe it will even become part of their advertising patter: "You won't get a fine in one of our car parks. Tesco. Every little helps".

HO87 · 1 April 2012 at 8:58PM

give_them_FA wrote: »

Possibly when more retailers stop to consider the "huge margins that PPCs are achieving" their thoughts might get around to the reality that, actually, those huge margins are being achieved, ultimately, at the expense of the retailer! Because most "fined" customers soon become "ex" customers!

And might just ask themselves a simple question: Do we actually need a lot of control-freak rules in our car park or will we manage "fine" without?

Maybe it will even become part of their advertising patter: "You won't get a fine in one of our car parks. Tesco. Every little helps".

I think not. One only has to look at Asda's approach. Their recent press release puff-piece made it look as though they were using the "fines" paid by abusers of disabled spaces to fund a sizeable donation to our old favourites - Disabled Motoring UK. But what did the story miss? The fact that the PPC's involved target blue badge holders because it's dead easy to find one that had parked marginally awkwardly or had left hi badge-holder so it obscured the operative dates. But how would that play out for Asda?

give_them_FA · 1 April 2012 at 9:44PM

The story missed that because sadly the reporter was naive in the extreme and simply passed it on with no checking at all.

Ok, I don't pay fines so it doesn't bother me; but would ANY customer continue to shop at a store that had unjustifiably "fined" them?

And against that, what could the retailer hope to gain? That is why the PPC is totally parasitic.

cjth33 · 4 April 2012 at 8:33PM

The following went in the post to Wickes Customer Services today. Sorry for the lengthy post.

I am writing to complain about a shocking experience I had as a consequence of shopping at Wickes. On 24 March, my wife and I visited Wickes in Tottenham, to buy materials to build a shed from scratch. This was a moderately complex project, and it took us more than two hours to find everything we needed. We spent more than £150 in your shop.

The following Friday we received a ‘Contractual Parking Charge Notice’ (copy enclosed) from a company called G24 Limited, claiming we had ‘exceeded the maximum duration of stay permitted’. The letter claims that ‘by entering and parking... agreed to be bound by the terms... [which] were clearly displayed’, and that I was required to pay £95, reduced to £75 if paid within 14 days. If unpaid, the letter threatened to ‘forward the outstanding “debt” to a debt recovery agency’.

Aside from the fact that this is an absurdly large amount to charge for less than two-and-a-half hours’ parking, I can state categorically that I did not agree to be bound by any such agreement, and that it is dishonest for G24 to claim otherwise. I went back recently, and the signs displaying these ‘terms’ are not at all prominent. An ordinary person would not spot them unless they were looking out for them – we did not see them on our first visit. It is impossible to agree to something that you are not aware of.

I am also aware from my subsequent research that this demand, though coupled with a threat, is unenforceable in law. Others have written online about their experiences: it appears that G24 are aware that their demands are unenforceable, so eventually stop when their letters are ignored. They nonetheless rely for their profits on the good will of credulous people who pay up without question.

At first, the poor quality of English in the letter, and the outrageously high sum requested, made me think this was just a con perpetrated by opportunists unrelated to Wickes. However, after a bit of research I was horrified to discover that your company actually appears to have a contract with these cowboys. This is nevertheless nothing better than a scam to frighten and trick honest customers of Wickes into paying large sums of money which G24 have no moral or legal right to demand.

This is a disgraceful business practice, in which Wickes and Travis Perkins are complicit. It is deeply unpleasant to receive anything resembling a parking ticket, even if one has no obligation to pay. You should know that this is an experience which I will not easily forget or forgive. Of course I will not pay a penny to G24, but I do not want other innocent people to be deceived into paying.

This shameful policy works both directly and indirectly to your disadvantage. Any customer who did happen to be aware of it would be under pressure to cut short their shopping at Wickes to avoid staying longer than 90 minutes. I am working on other DIY projects, requiring further purchases of similar and greater value – but I am making these elsewhere. Your associates’ disgraceful demand for £95 has led directly to your missing out on larger sums from me.

I will not shop at Wickes again unless I receive a full apology from you, and more importantly your assurance that G24 will cease sending out these deceitful and unenforceable demands – to me or anyone else – on your behalf. I expect that many others who receive these letters will take their custom to your competitors. I have already written about my experiences online, and I will write about the response I receive from you.

If your response is not satisfactory, I will also pursue this complaint via the relevant channels: Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading, as well as the DVLA over their abuse of my personal data in sending it to G24, and the ICO. If necessary I will also contact the media. I see little point in my contacting G24 directly: they are obviously not a reputable company so I have no confidence that my complaint would be dealt with in good faith.

I suspect that contact from Wickes or Travis Perkins would carry more weight with them. I hope that you appreciate that the reputation of Wickes depends on your responding appropriately to mistakes such as this. Simply arranging for the charge to be waived in my case will not make a difference, because I already know I that I am under no obligation to pay it. What matters to me is that others do not become victims of this scam. I look forward to your prompt and positive response, by post or email.

Yours faithfully

...

I'll let you know what I get back.

vax2002 · 4 April 2012 at 8:37PM

Wicks dont care !
What you should have done is take everything back and demand a refund, then shop elsewhere.

cjth33 · 4 April 2012 at 8:43PM

vax2002 wrote: »

Wicks dont care !
What you should have done is take everything back and demand a refund, then shop elsewhere.

Yeah well unfortunately by the time I got the letter, I'd already sawn it all up into bits and started making a shed out of it. Even if they'd have accepted a return I didn't want to waste all that work.

We'll see.