G24 PCN *EDIT* Now with DCB Legal - Here we go!

PCN_Junkie0101

Hi all!

Long time lurker, first time poster

The forums have helped me with a separate issue with another company, DCB Legal (may do a thread for that, went to county court, no update with courts for over 1 year now after defence was struck out, last correspondence from DCB was asking to settle out of court, LOL...)

Anyways, I got a lovely invitation to give money to a firm called G24, for overstaying the free parking period by 13 minutes! How dare I?!

I obviously have followed the newbies thread (been bookmarked since 2021 re the above mentioned separate issue).

I sent the template appeal to G24 via their online appeals page. This is the response (blanking out any info that can ID me as I dont trust the so and so's to not lurk here)....

---------------------------------

Dear Mr PCN_Junkie0101

RE: Contractual Parking Charge Notice 0000000

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed in prominent locations throughout the car park.  Any vehicle found in contravention of these terms and conditions is subject to a Contractual Parking Charge Notice.  Vehicles entering and exiting the car park are monitored and details of their registration number and time of entry/exit are recorded.  Your vehicle was logged entering the car park on the 00 MONTH 2025 at 0000 and exiting 00 MONTH 2025 at 0000 (13 mins over the 90 mins).  Photographic evidence of the breach of contractual term is provided on your Contractual Parking Charge Notice.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act), (Schedule 4), which governs parking on private land, provides a definition for "parking charge" and "adequate notice" of such private parking charges.  The relevant sections of Schedule 4 to the Act state :

        “parking charge”

(a) in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, and

(b) in the case of a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or other tort, means a sum in the nature of damages ...

... “relevant obligation” means
(a) an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or
(b) an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land; ...

... The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles

        (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).
        For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:
        ... (b) ... the display of one or more notices which
        (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
        (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land".

In this instance a parking charge has been issued based on the fact that the driver of your vehicle entered into a contract with us (by the act of parking the vehicle) and our signage (which states the terms and conditions of parking) having been clearly displayed in the car park.

The Act permits parking charges to be rendered on private land, and the case of Parking Eye Limited v Somerfield Stores Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (Court of Appeal) held that (taking into account inflation) the parking company was entitled to claim a parking charge of a similar amount to that which we have charged, and therefore your reference to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is not of any relevance in the context of this parking charge.

You should also be aware that the amount of our parking charges accords within recommendations by our Trade Associations.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. You are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when you are visiting the site.

Our signage complies with the International Parking Community's Code of Practice.

The outstanding amount is £60.00 we look forward to your prompt payment within 14 days. (I bet ya do)

As your appeal has been rejected, any further correspondence may not receive a  response, the options below are still open to you.

You now have one of the following options available to you:

1. Pay the outstanding Parking Charge. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0333 733 3000 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (link was here), The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the The Independent Appeals Service Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28 days of your first rejection.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Appeals Team  G24 Ltd

-------------

So if i'm correct, I now appeal with the IAS? G24 didn't respond to my appeal question regarding the grace period. I believe IAS say 10 mins grace period + some for reading signage?

I also mentioned one of the occupants of the vehicle having registered disabilities (no blue badge though, irrelevant for this also.)

Or do I ignore any more BS until a letter before court?

Many thanks for the help in advance!

Gr1pr

IAS is their version of ADR,,  secondary appeal assessment,  nothing to do with consideration periods or grace periods

Normally a driver doesn't get both periods,  but you should study the latest IPC + BPA  joint CoP to see what the minimums are, and how they might apply 

The Equality Act 2010 does allow reasonable adjustment,  so say more time foe example   ( nothing to do with blue badge  )

The newbies sticky thread advises people to not bother appealing to the IAS

A court claim or hearing is where this would be resolved,  within the next 6 years 

I strongly suggest that you re read the newbies sticky thread again,  first post,  then put all your efforts into plan A,  including adding the EQUALITY ACT  2010 into your complaint to the retail park managing agents  ( or landowner or business   )

Plan A is always the best option here,  but no mention of it in your post above 

PCN_Junkie0101

Plan A is always the best option here,  but no mention of it in your post above 

Hey!

Yes good point, I did email a complaint to the retailer (cant find landowner info), but they just fobbed it off and said to complain to G24. I didn't mention the equality act though, however, probably wouldn't make a difference. I may aswell just add their response for laughs...

-----------

Hello PCN_Junkie0101
 
Thanks for contacting us about your recent visit to our store.
 
The car parks for our stores are managed by the landowners for the site, rather than RETAILER. This means we don’t have any involvement in the letters being sent out, or who they’re sent to.
 
Please follow the instructions on the Parking Fine Notice you've received and contact G24.
 
I’m sorry I can't do more for you on this occasion.
 
Kind regards

Useless Retailer Representative

------------

Quite a generic response. Hey ho...

Is there anyone else worthwhile complaining to? Or ignore any BS letters and see if a LBC arrives?

Thanks!

Gr1pr

But the retailer doesn't own the land and didnt enter into a contract with the parking company , so retailers have limited options 

My point was that you complain about the PCN to the managing agents responsible for overseeing the site on behalf of the actual landowners,  which normally includes dealing with the parking companies,  cleaners, roofers, plumbers, shop fitters etc

Think about it   ! , Go to the organ grinder,  not the dancing monkey 

Coupon-mad

Certainly DO NOT try IAS! You've surely read the third post of the NEWBIES thread and know it's not impartial?

PCN_Junkie0101

Thank you for your help!

So far there has been no more communication.

Let's see, I'll keep you posted..

PCN_Junkie0101

Hi all,

I was badgered by G24 with the usual drivel.

Then the letters from DCB Legal started too. (I'm familiar with them!)

I have now received an LBC from these... eff wits.

I've sent the LBC response email from the newbies thread.

Will keep you all posted!

Coupon-mad

PCN_Junkie0101 said:

Hi all,

I have received an LBC from these... eff wits.

I've sent the LBC response email from the newbies thread.

Will keep you all posted!

But please stick around this month, as there is a task for this week or next:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.

PCN_Junkie0101

Hi all,

I have now received a claim form from CNBC.

I do have a question though. The LBC response email I sent states this: 

" I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP')."

The LBC letter was dated 20th August. I emailed the LBC reply on 14th Sept (when it arrived in the post!), which is before their '30 day deadline' to act. 

I received their automated ackowledgment of email response so I know they got the email.

The matter should then be on hold until 14th Oct. The CNBC issue date is 24th Sept.

Why have they not followed the PAP procedure, and what is my next step before the MCOL step?

*EDIT*

If you would like me to upload any correspondence (redacted parts where required of course) please let me know.

Thanks all!

Gr1pr

Its irrelevant,  but Johnersh explained it a few months ago 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also the name of the person who signed it on the front or back

Also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

PCN_Junkie0101

 Gr1pr said:

Its irrelevant,  but Johnersh explained it a few months ago 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also the name of the person who signed it on the front or back

Also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Thanks for the speedy reply. Ill try and find the thread from Johnersh.

Here's what you've asked for. 

Thanks!