Failed G24 appeal

Only-the-depth-varies · 3 January 2015 at 2:03PM

Hi.

My Partner (the car owner) followed the Newbie template and has just received quite a convincing reply - I dare say a standard one, to the template. Quoting various cases and such.

G24 claim the £100 charge is "in line with the IPC guidelines" and according to Robophone Facilities V Blank is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages.

They state she has the right to appeal to IAS

They claim to have the contract/authority by the land owner.

They dismiss the Unfair Contract terms by referring to Parking Eye V Somerfield stores case. Claiming they can enforce their Charge.

Because the Driver did not state whom was driving they have quoted Combined Parking V Mr Stephen Thomas - saying that the Court upheld 'on balance on probability Mr Thomas was the Driver and should pay the Charge.

She was unable to provide any proof of purchase at the store where the car over stayed the 2hours by 14mins. Although the Driver did not leave the car park ;-) and has a witness.

G24 are threatening to recover monies via a debt agency and possibly then Court action.

OK.
What next?? Does she go through the IAS appeal, bin the letter, or just dig in??

Worth noting that there are 2 witnesses that someone else was driving the car and not the owner - if that helps?

many thanks in advance

Only-the-depth-varies

Redx · 3 January 2015 at 2:07PM

they could try an IAS appeal but are likely to fail

aftet that its weather the storm for 6 years

DRP can be ignored, but never ignore any LBC or MCOL from the creditor/landowner , or somebody acting legally on their behalf

I would ignore from now on, but the choice is yours

ps:- NEVER bin the letters, keep them all, keep all paperwork , for 6 years

Hot_Bring · 3 January 2015 at 2:08PM

Just ignore G24 - not worth appealing to the corrupt and utterly un-independent IAS on this one. G24 have never done court and all you'll get is some blustery letters that are barely written in English.

Only-the-depth-varies · 3 January 2015 at 2:28PM

There are in fact 3 witnesses to the fact that someone else was driving.

Am I right that G24 can still only go after the Owner unless the Owner states whom was the Driver?

The car was over time. But the Driver was still on the premises (eating from the buffet cart with a friend) but no receipt.

Redx · 3 January 2015 at 3:33PM

doesnt really matter that you have 3 witnesses as to who was driving

under POFA 2012 , they can pursue the registered keeper unless that RK names the driver (in england and wales)

dont think they have ever done court but who knows what they may do over the next 6 years ?

in any case, you should be getting the landowner to drop the charge

Coupon-mad · 3 January 2015 at 11:37PM

Ignore rubbish about Robophone Facilities V Blank, Parking Eye V Somerfield and the old chestnut, Combined Parking V Mr Stephen Thomas = old 2008 drivel. We know about all those cases and it's already been covered on other threads if you want to Google the silly cases. It's not worth discussing hre again why they mean nothing - they just don't and you can read about them if you really want! More important and relevant for you to keep your eye on (it's be discussed on this forum) will be the March 2015 decision about penalties, at the Court of Appeal, in ParkingEye v Beavis.

Same advice as here; paying isn't an option:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5145116

Your choice whether to try IAS, lose and then complaint to the DVLA and ignore the debt collector letters - or whether not to bother with IAS and still ignore debt collector letters!

YES complain to the retailer/landowner in very strong terms and in person to the Store manager as well. Loads of these get cancelled after complaint, it's what the sticky thread 'Successful complaints about PPCs' (in Crabman's sticky threads) is there for. Try facebook, Twitter, a letter, an email and a visit in person to speak to the Store Manager at a VERY busy time about your family being scammed for daring to take 14 mins too long (including driving in and out) because it was Christmas and the queues delayed shoppers. Doesn't matter that you have no proof of purchase, she was browsing with a view to a large purchase or she paid in cash. GET COMPLAINING.

Failed G24 appeal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free