UNIQUE(ish) issues with G24 & POPLA - HELP!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

In that case just send me their genuine pre estimate of loss statement, i dont need much else

leigh.92

Or get in touch with G24, tell them all the points above, the error in mixing up cases and that I want the POPLA code for THIS case?

leigh.92

Kirkby, I don't have that. I never asked. The only time I got in touch with G24 in this charge A was before I had read these forums, and I asked them to allow me to pay the reduced fee as I never received their initial invoice.
I then received an evidence pack from POPLA even though I hadn't appealed to them for this charge B yet, which confused both A and B.
All I have are copies of all the invoices, photos of my car leaving the park and time stamps, a note that I included wrong evidence in my appeal (evidence/appeal which was for charge A) and a copy of the letter I sent to them asking for the reduced fee.

To use these points, (Parking Notice not received within 15 days/The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss/Non-compliant signage/No authority to issue invoices/Denial of right to appeal/The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by G24) is my next step, HOPEFULLY. I am asking which company I should contact now.

Hot_Bring

OK, that is one hell of a mess. Personally I'd now just ignore everything for both ( NEWBIES - please note I'm suggesting ignoring for THIS case only ).

The reason I suggest this is :

1. It's going to take you a lot of time and effort to get it corrected ( and that's assuming G24 can do so or want to do so ). You've done nothing wrong so why should you invest hours in clearing up their mistake ?

2. G24 have never done court. In the very unlikely event they decided to take you to court they are going to get ripped apart by a Judge when you highlight this mess.

3. G24 are a bunch of incompetent liars ( for the sake of the Mods - G24 lied to Nominet - I have the written evidence ).

Obviously this is just my view others might disagree ( I've had a number of run ins with these conmen so know exactly what they're like ).

leigh.92

Hot_Bring wrote: »

OK, that is one hell of a mess. Personally I'd now just ignore everything for both ( NEWBIES - please note I'm suggesting ignoring for THIS case only ).

The reason I suggest this is :

1. It's going to take you a lot of time and effort to get it corrected ( and that's assuming G24 can do so or want to do so ). You've done nothing wrong so why should you invest hours in clearing up their mistake ?

2. G24 have never done court. In the very unlikely event they decided to take you to court they are going to get ripped apart by a Judge when you highlight this mess.

3. G24 are a bunch of incompetent liars ( for the sake of the Mods - G24 lied to Nominet - I have the written evidence ).

Obviously this is just my view others might disagree ( I've had a number of run ins with these conmen so know exactly what they're like ).

Thank you for responding! I am very tempted to just ignore it all, as the evidence pack tells me nothing of how to pay (and also the amount has suddenly changed from £90 to £100 with no explanation), but if I do get taken to court, the bottom line is that I did overstay in the car park. But, I suppose the fact that £90/£100 is an unacceptable amount to charge me for 19 minutes.

Should I just write finally to G24 and tell them I am not paying because I hadn't recieved 2 letters giving me the chance to pay the reduced amount, the inconsistencies in the fine, the messup between cases, and all the other standard points? And that they're going to have to give me another POPLA code anwyay.

What would happen, do you think, if I did ignore them?

Hot_Bring

Whether you overstayed or not is immaterial - the charge(s) are unenforcable as are the so called contracts.

Have a read of the court transcript of the Parking Prankster's web site - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/prankster-guides-fund-next-transcript.html

This was the biggest and most organised PPC getting spanked. To use a football example - Parking Eye are the Man Utd of the PPC world ( i.e. they've been very successful but are on their way down ). G24 are Burton ( who I hear you ask ? - EXACTLY ! ).

You could respond but if it were me I'd now take the completely ignore route - unless you do get court papers and then come back here to get a defence to spank them like the one in the Prankster's blog !

Coupon-mad

You could email the BPA & aske Steve Clark (see NEWBIES thread post #6) to investigate and let them sort it out and get the second ticket cancelled perhaps.

Presumably POPLA will soon make a decision about what they think is 'the case' anyway (as they won't know there were 2 tickets). So as long as you followed forum advice for the POPLA appeal you will win anyway the one that's with POPLA. And as for the second one G24 have muddied the waters and so you can argue to the BPA everything you said above and this is now so confusing - especially as G24 had dropped one ticket anyway.

leigh.92

So I emailed Steve, then a while went by with no reply so I emailed again asking if he had received my email, which he hasn't, so i resent it on Monday and today I got an email from Popla with an attachment:

"The Operator issued parking charge notice number 4171310230xx arising out of the presence at B & M, on 23 October 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 4171310230xx arising out of the presence at B & M, on 23 October 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX for exceeding the maximum permitted stay of 90 minutes.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in excess of the maximum stay of 90 minutes and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

The Appellant submits that they had displayed a pay and display ticket which enabled them to park at the site.

Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking were clear on signage at the site and the site had a maximum stay of 90 minutes. Whilst the Appellant states that they had displayed a ticket, I can confirm that this ticket was not valid for where they had parked as the site was not a pay and display site. I find that the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of parking by remaining at the site for longer than 90 minutes. The onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site and on this occasion they did not do so.

Accordingly, this appeal is refused."

I'm really angry that nobody seems to understand that there are 2 cases!! I still don't know why they full price has gone from £90 to £100 and all i wanted to do in the first place is be allowed to pay £50.

Please please, what should I do now? I have the receipt from B&M that day and the price came to a significant £164 as furniture was bought. Should I contact the store manager and see if he can intervene? £164 shows it was no small trip, how dare they charge me for shopping...

Redx

no matter what happened as regards the paperwork and pcn,s etc you should ALWAYS complain to the stores and the landowner regardless, as its the bets way of getting any charges dropped

it tells you that in the NEWBIES sticky thread and should have been the first course of action from day one, never mind these other issues

Hot_Bring

I re-iterate my advice - IGNORE. If you get court papers ( which is very unlikely ) then come back and bounce this thread.

G24 are harmless.