G24 Limited/BW Legal LBC – questionable ‘appeal’ process and landowner authority

Shroomish100

Hi everyone. Forgive me for the lengthy post, but I thought it would be better to put everything we can think of in one long post, instead of supplying bits and pieces of our situation.

We incurred 2 parking charges at an Everlast Fitness gym in November 2020. At that time when we pulled up into the space to attend to our poorly son (who also vomited in the car on the second occasion), we did not notice the signage closest to the entrance that parking was for gym members only and that charges apply (see other signage). Because we never got out of the car on both occasions and there were no visible signs displaying the terms and conditions we could read from our car, we did not know about the parking restrictions until my husband (who is the registered keeper) received the charges through the post from G24 Limited. Another Covid-19 lockdown happened, so we couldn’t speak to anyone at the gym to get it cancelled before going through the appeals process.

(We’re annoyed by the fact that had we pulled over to the space on the other side of the fence panel dividing the bank’s car park from the gym, we wouldn’t have incurred the charges, because there were no parking restrictions there. But we are where we are.)

We went through the first stage appeal using the template found in this forum, which was rejected with a bog standard reply stating ‘there are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions’.

I took some pictures and marked out placements of where the signs were in relation to where our car was and disagree with how prominent or legible they are, unless you drive up close or get out of the car and intentionally walk towards the signs to view them. There was also no lighting above any of the signage, which makes visibility poor during darker winter evenings and bad weather.

After the first appeal was rejected, we then couldn’t submit our second stage appeal to IAS, because the IAS website didn’t recognise the appeal codes.

We contacted G24 Limited about the errors and only received a reply for one of the charges from customer services, telling us to follow the instructions on the back of the original charge notice and pay up. Essentially, we were denied a fair chance to follow their appeals process with the IAS, even though it probably would have been rejected anyway due to the dismal rate of successful appeals.

Since our request for them to sort out the appeal codes so we can actually complete the second stage appeal fell on deaf ears, we adopted the ignore them until LBC stage approach. We received more letters from G24 Limited, then Trace Debt Recovery, then BW Legal with their letters, texts, emails and automated voice calls. The original £200 combined charges became £320 when adding £60 debt recovery cost per parking charge. We received their Letter of Claim dated 6 September 2021, where their estimated claim has now increased to £441.25. They said they will issue a county court claim if no payment or response is received by 4 October 2021.

When the gym reopened for business, we did speak to someone working there, who said they could only help cancel the charges for gym members. Before receiving the LBC, we emailed the gym’s manager complaining about G24 Limited and their associated debt recovery firms, requesting for help to cancel the charge, but received no reply. Three days ago, we tried to speak to someone in person at the gym and noticed that the few signs they had about parking restrictions were taken down and replaced with new ones that make no mention of parking charges.

We spoke to someone at reception, who basically said that G24 Limited were given the boot two months ago, after realising they were more trouble than they’re worth. However, as they no longer have a working relationship with G24 Limited, when the staff at the gym tried to help another motorist cancel their parking charge 3 weeks ago, they were ignored. We then found out that Everlast Fitness is only a leaseholder, so went to find out who the landowner was instead.

We obtained details of the landowner from the Land Registry and it looks like one of those shell companies who may not respond to complaint letters sent to their registered address, so we’re not hedging our bets on them cancelling it. Since getting the gym to cancel the charge doesn’t look like a successful option, I’m looking to maximise our chances of getting either G24 Limited to cancel the charges on their end, or for BW Legal to advise G24 Limited to put an end to it.

Reading the advice on this forum has been extremely helpful to us and had we not done so, it would have made such a stressful situation even more stressful, especially when being harassed by these firms. We’re aware we need to submit a SAR to G24 Limited and tell BW Legal we deny the debt and have submitted a SAR to their client. But would it help our case to mention to either G24 Limited during the SAR or BW Legal in our reply to them that: 

1.      G24 Limited had prevented us from participating in the IAS appeal process due to their errors and unwillingness to rectify them, which meant we weren’t treated fairly. Is there some legal jargon I can reference about that? I read somewhere in the forum about these firms responsibility to mitigate losses, so was wondering if it’s worth telling them that it wouldn’t look good in front of the judge If they were uncooperative in their own appeals process and have their claim thrown out.

2.      If G24 have been given the boot two months ago, do they still have landowner authority to proceed with their legal claim now if they allegedly had landowner authority during the period when the charges were incurred?

3.      Do we mention anything about double recovery under POFA Schedule 4 over their additional £120 debt recovery costs to BW Legal or save it for court should it get that far?

4.    Do we say anything about their original signage placements to either G24 Limited or BW Legal, or might we be shooting ourselves in the foot somehow?

I’m asking because I haven’t been able to find something similar to our case in the forum we can apply for the first 2 points (if there is, please direct me to the thread) and just need clarification on the last 2 from more experienced forum contributors, so we don’t make a wrong step.

Thank you for this godsend of a forum, the wonderful contributors who know their stuff and give people like us courage to stick it to them, and for making this far reading my post! Appreciate any advice given before submitting our responses to both G24 Limited and BW Legal.

 

Redx

1) only the judge can anwer that , court is a lottery

2) yes , because they did at the time of the incident or incidents

3) save it for court

4) save it for court

G24 are not known for litigation but never say never , court is where it is sorted out legally , or it times out after 6 years

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Have you complained to your MP?

Shroomish100

Thanks for the advice so far! I haven't complained to my MP yet, because I'm still drafting out the email to send, other than the emails to both G24 and BW Legal.

Will definitely be including Excel vs Wilkinson in my complaint to my MP!

Coupon-mad

The template defence at the top of the forum is what you will be using when a court claim arrives. It already includes unclear signs and false added costs.

And next time when you need to pull over, unless you are in a London red route or clearway, just pull over on double or single yellows (fully allowed) or into a bay (again, stopping IS allowed).

This is what kerbs and bays on street are for even with yellow lines, even permit bays as long as you are brief and the car isn’t unattended.  Local authority parking enforcement has to be done by CEOs on foot and they have to engage with drivers and can’t issue a PCN by post except in rare cases.

I wish driving instructors would teach people that they CAN pull over on street and indeed should absolutely avoid car parks.  There is almost never a need to look for a car park in towns and cities.  The only time I use one is when shopping at a supermarket or retail park.  Anything else, look for places to park or stop on street.  At night it’s even easier to park and leave the car. as most permit schemes and single yellows are outside of operational times.

I really wish driving instructors would teach drivers that you CAN STOP on a double yellow, it’s perfectly OK.  There are exemptions where you can even leave the car, too.