Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • BobbyD87
    • By BobbyD87 11th Aug 18, 11:09 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Notice has now been referred to a debt recovery company. Any advice welcome please.
    • #1
    • 11th Aug 18, 11:09 AM
    Notice has now been referred to a debt recovery company. Any advice welcome please. 11th Aug 18 at 11:09 AM
    Good morning everyone.

    I was issued a parking notice from G24 at the end of February this year, where it is alleged the driver of the vehicle outstayed the maximum parking time at a local shopping centre. When the notice was received through the post, I read this forum for advice before using G24's online appeal process with a similar response to one of the newbies threads re lease cars as shown below;-

    Dear *** Ltd

    RE: PCN No. xxxxxxxxx

    I would like you to know I (as the registered keeper of the vehicle) am not ignoring your letter suggesting my liability for a charge related to a parking infraction that you state took place on **/**/** at the ****** shopping centre.

    I wish to outline my current position in reference to your PCN.

    Keepers Liability and POFA 2012
    As stated in paragraph 13(2) of POFA 2012...

    "The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given!!!8212;

    (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

    (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

    (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


    Paragraph 14(2) and (3) of POFA 2012:

    (2) The conditions are that !!!8212;
    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a !!!8220;notice to hirer!!!8221, together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
    (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) !!!8220;the relevant period!!!8221; is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.

    - You were required to send this information to me (as Registered Keeper) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company (Arval).
    - You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company, which was xx October.
    - Therefore I should have received these documents no later than **/**/**.
    - As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. There is more than one driver of the vehicle which you placed a PCN on.

    In Summary...
    - I wish to confirm to you I was NOT the driver of the vehicle.
    - I am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter .
    - As NGP Ltd has not complied with paragraphs 13 (2) and 14 (2) of POFA 2012, you cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable as keeper.
    - You will need to pursue this claim with the driver once you identify them.

    Further Questions
    To begin our discussions, as this is purely a claim under a purported contract, and you have no statutory footing to issue penalties, I wish to make you aware of the following details and require the specific information so that I can assess the validity of your claim:

    1. Who is the party that contracted with G24 Ltd for the provision of their services at the site of the alleged to have taken place in Cardiff (Ferry Road Retail Park)?
    2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
    3. As you are not the landowner, please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that NGP Ltd have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in your own name or on behalf of the landowner .
    4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? - Yes or no?
    5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract, please provide justification of this sum.
    6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? - Yes or no?
    7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please, provide a valid VAT invoice as you make no mention on VAT in any correspondence.
    8. The signage to the site (from a seated position in the vehicle as it enters the car park is impossible to read and any specific rules regarding stopping on yellow lines being strictly prohibited at any time. Please provide a copy of the sign that purportedly forms the basis of the contract entered into by the driver for my records.
    9. I believe the parking attendant who took photos of this vehicle (as the driver sat momentarily with the engine running on double yellow lines) made no attempt to make the driver aware he should move the car or face a parking charge. It is the responsibility of the claimant (G24 Ltd) to mitigate their losses, in this instance I believe they failed to do so and thus invalidates your claim. I refer you to the county court judgement in VCS vs. Ibbotson (2012):


    Next Steps
    When I receive a full reply to all these questions i will be in a position to be able to furnish you with a full response.

    Alternatively you can cancel your charge, or I will happily wait for my day in court to challenge this PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    I received two further reminders through the post over the next 2-3 months and replied to each online with the same response. After the final reminder which was circa 2 months ago, they stopped and believed that was the end of it. Unfortunately a new letter was received yesterday from a debt recovery agency for an even larger fee for the notice.

    Can anyone advise what the next course of action should be please? G24 have never once provided the information requested in my responses and have now simply referred it to the debt recovery company. Should I reply to that company or this new letter in anyway?

    Two people use the car and at no point has anyone admitted being driver of the vehicle. Only to accept they are the registered keeper for the purpose of correspondence and not to contact the hire company.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Aug 18, 11:14 AM
    • 10,570 Posts
    • 13,994 Thanks
    • #2
    • 11th Aug 18, 11:14 AM
    • #2
    • 11th Aug 18, 11:14 AM
    Assume it was Debt Recovery Plus.

    Complete rubbish and trash from a totally powerless


    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Aug 18, 11:24 AM
    • 22,024 Posts
    • 34,712 Thanks
    • #3
    • 11th Aug 18, 11:24 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Aug 18, 11:24 AM
    Can anyone advise what the next course of action should be please?
    Defend your case in court, if it comes to that. A debt collector cannot issue court proceedings and G24 really don't do court. So it's a case of ignore everything except court papers (which almost certainly will never arrive) - nothing you can write to any party will alter things one iota, so why waste time in trying. In fact, there is some evidence that if you start corresponding with a debt collector, they work on the basis that you are nearer to cracking than if they are ignored, and they ratchet up the pressure.

    If you want to learn about debt collectors and how to deal with them, read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4.

    If you want to know about G24's court potential (add up the number of tickets issued over the past couple of years and divide them by the number of court cases to give you your 'odds'), then read this link.

    Just noticed they have appeared once in the county court this year (their first ever - but it's not to say it had anything whatsoever to do with a parking issue).
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • BobbyD87
    • By BobbyD87 14th Aug 18, 5:12 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #4
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:12 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:12 PM
    Thank you for the reply
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Aug 18, 5:15 PM
    • 67,469 Posts
    • 79,725 Thanks
    • #5
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:15 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:15 PM
    Complain to the retailer - even now - and it will be cancelled, if Homebase, Wickes, etc.
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • BobbyD87
    • By BobbyD87 14th Aug 18, 5:44 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #6
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:44 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:44 PM
    Yes it was, and thank you for the heads up.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Aug 18, 5:53 PM
    • 12,092 Posts
    • 12,173 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:53 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Aug 18, 5:53 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently recently.

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,885Posts Today

5,130Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @theresa_may: I?m pleased that we are banning all GPs? charges for forms relating to mental health and debt. I?d like to thank @mmhpi fo?

  • Currently 52% in favour of self service checkouts, 48% staffed checkouts. I'm not saying a word!

  • RT @chihuahuamammy: @MartinSLewis Just rang the Student Loans Company following your show. A refund of £395 for overpayment. Not early reti?

  • Follow Martin