G24 Ltd Contractual Parking Charge Notice..

thegman1972

On 31st October I went to the Cineworld in St Helens with the wife (in her car, I was driving) The Cineworld car park was full and the film was due to start so I foolishly parked on the nearest car park I could think of - Sports Direct Car Park.

I'd previously parked on there before (less than one hour) but thought we'd be okay as the signage is very poor & a little dilapidated (as if they were put up donkeys years ago) and it gives the overall impression that it is an unmonitored car park.

My wife has since been issued with a Contractual Parking Charge Notice from G24 (a BPA member) as we stayed on the car park over the 'free' parking time of 60 minutes.

I've read lots of threads about ignoring the letters and they will eventually go away HOWEVER there has been a change in law from October 6th (Freedoms Act 2012) which makes the registered keeper of the vehicle liable unless they name the driver and I don't know how this affects things? Is the principle still the same? Should I pay or ignore?

£55 is extortionate considering that Sports Direct was closed but if the new changes brought in mean things can easily become more messy & expensive then I'd rather pay up and NEVER park there again as it's better than the £95.00 they mention if we pay after 14 days! Thoughts please...

trisontana

The new law changes nothing. Just ignore

Coupon-mad

thegman1972 wrote: »

I've read lots of threads about ignoring the letters and they will eventually go away HOWEVER there has been a change in law from October 6th (Freedoms Act 2012) which makes the registered keeper of the vehicle liable unless they name the driver and I don't know how this affects things? Is the principle still the same? Should I pay or ignore?

£55 is extortionate considering that Sports Direct was closed but if the new changes brought in mean things can easily become more messy & expensive then I'd rather pay up and NEVER park there again as it's better than the £95.00 they mention if we pay after 14 days! Thoughts please...

Yawn, HOWEVER this 'new law' guff has been covered endless times and I last posted this half an hour ago!

In just a month we've been constantly asked about half a dozen times every day about the new law (Protection of Freedoms Act if you want to search for other threads). It has been discussed to death TBH and you could have just searched the forum - but we always reply because it's important that people know that fake PCNs have not suddenly become magically enforceable!

So here's the same old summary yet again, posted again within an hour of the last time (must be a record) :



The registered keeper doesn't 'have to' do anything at all. These fake PCNs are as unenforceable as they ever were - it's just that these scam firms are now able to aim their threatogams at the registered keeper if they are not informed who the driver was.

Big deal...the keeper can still make paper aeroplanes out of them as we always did, just as shown by Tim Cary, the expert Solicitor in this Watchdog clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA


A SUMMARY:

As far as private parking ticket scams are concerned, for a vehicle where you or family are the registered keeper*:

Any fake PCN issued for an incident up until 30th Sept 2012 = IGNORE IT.

Any fake PCN issued for an incident from 1st October 2012 onwards:

- if you were parked in Scotland or NI = IGNORE IT.

- if your 'ticket' is from a firm who are NOT members of the BPA AOS, or are one of five AOS members currently banned from getting data = IGNORE IT.

- if your 'ticket' is from a non-banned by the DVLA!! AOS member in England/Wales, there are 2 choices:

a) IGNORE IT, as ever, playing snap with the threatograms that match our sticky thread 'PPC letter chains' (near the top of this parking forum),

or

b) Appeal it with help from here in how to word it, and insist on a referral to the POPLA appeals service if it's not cancelled. Costs the PPC £32 plus, costs you nothing, it's not binding on you but it is binding on the PPC. If you do not win your appeal then revert to ignore mode.

This option is for those who want to fight back, cost the PPC money and test the POPLA system whilst also getting their PPC's tactics scrutinised; start by reading threads about POPLA. Recent posters have had great success where their case is clearly a very unfair ticket (such as disabled overstay or slight overlap of a white line, etc.) by using email and wording it not as an appeal but a complaint, and copying in the retailer/landowner to that complaint.

Finally, if anyone gets any fake PCN anywhere in the UK in a retail, cinema, fast food or Supermarket car park then even if you choose to ignore the scammers then COMPLAIN IN WRITING to the CEO of the company on site if you were a customer. Do not appeal to them, complain about this protection racket against their paying ex-customers.

HTH





* it is different for hire/lease/company cars as you could find the fake PCN paid for you! Here is a thread about what to do (whether AOS scheme member or not, you need to appeal to hook the PPC in your direction).

arcon5

b) Appeal it with help from here in how to word it, and insist on a referral to the POPLA appeals service if it's not cancelled. Costs the PPC £32 plus, costs you nothing, it's not binding on you but it is binding on the PPC. If you do not win your appeal then revert to ignore mode.

Would it even be worth op appealing though? Maybe just ignore it as op was in fact a non-customer using their car park and overstayed.

Grounds of appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are as follows:

• The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed.
• The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid.
• The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.
• I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you had paid to park the vehicle in the first place (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) is not in itself a valid ground of appeal.

None of these grounds seem to cover op.

devonlad

lol got a poster on here with G24 in his user name, bet he be here in a bit

BASFORDLAD

Arcon I've appealed tickets to popla on the basis of not being legally liable. Will get an outcome in December

SodG24

Sorry, been out for dinner so a bit late in replying !

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - my FAVOURITE !!!!!

Note my username I've ignored two sets of invoices from them.

Just to you know what a scummy lowlife company they are they broke their contract with Nominet ( the people who control the internet domain names ) by supplying an address with a PO Box number. This was against the contract they entered into.When challenged they provided a false address. It was only when Nominet threatened to take away their domain name g24.co.uk that they supplied a proper real address.

Look at your invoice - I bet it doesn't show the VAT ? They provide a service and so VAT should be shown but it isn't. That's because they are tax evaders as well.

Such lovely people at G24 - scum and scammers. Ignore them.

taffy056

SodG24 is seriously going to get a slap for posting late in a thread about his favourite scammers lol he's a naughty naughty boy

Anyway OP the advice is to ignore g24 they are useless bunch of tax avoiding scumbags, please don't take their threats seriously they never ever do court, we have the proof of that from a FOI request to the courts.

Coupon-mad

Yes I think this OP should just choose the usual ignore option. But as he'd specifically asked about the changes in the law I gave him the usual cut&paste answer so he could see the choices & facts about the situation.

thegman1972

Hi All,

Thanks for your replies - I'm going to stand my ground and ignore them. However, if it does go any further I've been to the car park and taken some photo's. It's actually quite ludicrous the way they have positioned their signs. I wish I could paste them on here (but I think I have to upload them somewhere first?)

As you approach the car park there is a massive sign which says 'car park' with a big grey area above it. This massive sign cunningly obscures the 'tiny' signs which are positioned on a corner and high up so naturally you don't see them when you drive in.

There were no signs what-so-ever in the area of the car park that we parked in.

Anyway, thanks again all. :T

taffy056

thegman1972 wrote: »

I wish I could paste them on here (but I think I have to upload them somewhere first?)

Try https://www.photobucket.com they are quite good, when posting here as you are a newbie, you have to remove the http://www part of the link, we can add it to make it clickable for you