sorry another G24 question

cat410

Only reason Im asking this question is cause I cant see a post with the exact scenario as mine is.
Using the local gym. accessing multiple classes, followed by shower etc. Few days later received a parking charge from G24, stating the car overstayed by 20 mins. (Its a free car park). Apparently this new rule had come in a few weeks earlier. Gym are being really unhelpful and have said nothing they can do. An appeal has been made to G24 rejected (as expected). I have email proof from the gym that we are members. G24 state they are members of BPA, but according to BPA website they are not. Which means they have illegally got hold of our details from DVLA. We don't intend to appeal further to IAS, as advised by G24 and am just going to sit tight now and do nothing. Are we doing the right thing?

Umkomaas

G24 joined the IPC on 1/10/14, before that they were BPA AOS members. If your parking event was prior to 1/10, it's appeal to G24 and hopefully extract a POPLA verification code (although will be tricky after such a time gap).

If after 1/10 it's the IPC with their suspect IAS appeals procedure, where we are starting to recommend an initial appeal to G24 (to show any court a willingness to engage with their 'appeals process'), but if rejected to make no further attempt at appealing to the IAS and see where that takes you and G24.

cat410

Umkomaas wrote: »

G24 joined the IPC on 1/10/14, before that they were BPA AOS members. If your parking event was prior to 1/10, it's appeal to G24 and hopefully extract a POPLA verification code (although will be tricky after such a time gap).

If after 1/10 it's the IPC with their suspect IAS appeals procedure, where we are starting to recommend an initial appeal to G24 (to show any court a willingness to engage with their 'appeals process'), but if rejected to make no further attempt at appealing to the IAS and see where that takes you and G24.

thanks, the charge was from mid December. If they are no longer a member of BPA, they must have obtained our details illegally via DVLA?? Musn't they?

Umkomaas

cat410 wrote: »

thanks, my charge was from mid December. If they are no longer a member of BPA, they must have obtained my details illegally via DVLA?? Musn't they?

Nope - as members of the DVLA-approved IPC (ATA) AOS they are able to access your data electronically - nowt illegal, immoral maybe, but the law, sadly, is on their side regarding access to your data, provided they comply fully with PoFA 2012 - which is another story in all this.

Redx

if the gym is the landowner, there is plenty they can do for their members, and SHOULD DO too

ie:- as landowner , they should insist that G24 to cancel the charge

we have had many gym member issues this year where strong complaints to the gym or gym head office have provided cancellations, sometimes even kicking the PPC off the car park too

concentrate on making life hell for this gym manager and his gym, or go over their heads to head office , squeaky wheel gets the oil, if you dont ask - you dont get , etc

cat410

thanks again. They are advising us to appeal to IAS, which we are ignoring. One thing bothers me tho. The charge was in my sons name, as it is a motability car. So all correspondence has been sent in his name (he is a teenager). Never have they sent a NTO, so they have no clue who was driving.

cat410

Gym aren't the landowners. Its G24 that own the land. Ive emailed head office, who advise there really is nothing they can do. Ive since emailed back, advising, I am in process of finding a new gym, and I want my membership cancelled immediately.

Redx

frankly , I doubt that G24 own any land they operate on

Umkomaas

Your son At the moment is responsible for appealling this (or you can do it in his name - he just needs to add his 'squiggle' signature). In the alternative he could name the driver on the day who should then receive his/her own PCN, and subsequently follow the appeals process.

If your son continues to fight this in his own name as keeper, the prospects are that the IAS will (on the basis of past experience) assume him to be the driver. If he has clear proof he was not the driver (witness statement that he was somewhere else) then this might have some prospect of success at the IAS.

But their record as an 'independent' adjudication service has, so far been, shall we say, disappointing and they, the IPC and most importantly, the DVLA, should be looking very hard in the mirror.

It's becoming more evident that the IAS is far from independent and forum advice is, following on from that, appealing to the IAS is futile. So ignore and see whether the PPC has the cojones to do anything further than huff and puff, probably, via debt collectors (who are powerless!).

Umkomaas

Redx wrote: »

frankly , I doubt that G24 own any land they operate on

I agree Redx. If they owned the land, the very least they would be doing is offering a Pay & Display facility, to at least generate some 'honest' income from very valuable land.

If not, and they do (unlikely) own it, they have set it up as a honey trap. Both scenarios above are highly unlikely.

I suggest the gym is totally BS'ing the OP, and the sooner the OP walks away from such a deceptive service organisation, totally dependent on customer loyalty, and taking any friends with them - the better.

Gyms are expensive (I know) - but they're not without much competition, and any that take their customer base for granted will ultimately reap what they sow!

Long live market forces!

cat410

my son has severe learning difficulties. I cant go down that route. Just trying to put it out of my mind now and see what happens. Still a worry tho, even reading all the threads like this. Must be woman thing,