Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Charge Notice - G24 Ltd


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4787 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Although I am completely new to this site I would like to extend 'Seasons greetings to all users'.

 

I have received a PCN from a company called G24 Ltd. I mistakenly ovestayed my welcome whilst visiting / shopping for DIY goods at Wickes superstore in Maidstone.

 

I have take the opportunity to read many posts dating back years and the consensus of opinion seems to be not to respond / even acknowledge receipt of said notice. My question to the forum is, is this still the same stance to take?

 

Thank you in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Keroan, I am in exactly the same situation G24, Wickes (Hereford). Perhaps we can team up and share experiences?

 

So far I have read much that says do not reply but I am slightly concerned that if it does go to court that this might not go in my favour. I am considering a short response that as keeper of the vehicle refutes their 'invoice' and asks them to take it up with the 'driver' on that day. I may also include a sentence that informs them that future correspondence will be chargeable on a per letter basis (30 mins at my hourly rate).

 

Overall though I am looking for a way to end this quickly as I do not want to be receiving threatening letters for months to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3I£mental. Continue to ignore until to get actual court papaers which is highly unlikely. If you do, there is plenty advice on how to defend and win. After all ther ae no statures for parking incorrectly on private land. The most they can do you for is trespass and then they have to prove the damage the LL suffered. this will mean that someone has to represent Wickes in court. Somehow I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to go with the advice on this forum, which is after all why we are here, the members on here who have been there and 'got the T shirt' to coin a phrase.

 

1. Ignore

2. Ignore

3. Then revert to note 1.

 

If I write to anyone it will be Wickes Store Manager, to question why he thinks they should put a time limit on their customers shopping habits. I am a regular user of Wickes and was totally oblivious to this parking [problem]. On inspection these signs are 8 feet off the ground and barely visible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Keroan, I am in exactly the same situation G24, Wickes (Hereford). Perhaps we can team up and share experiences?

 

So far I have read much that says do not reply but I am slightly concerned that if it does go to court that this might not go in my favour. I am considering a short response that as keeper of the vehicle refutes their 'invoice' and asks them to take it up with the 'driver' on that day. I may also include a sentence that informs them that future correspondence will be chargeable on a per letter basis (30 mins at my hourly rate).

 

Overall though I am looking for a way to end this quickly as I do not want to be receiving threatening letters for months to come.

 

I too have received a "parking fine" from Wickes (Hereford). However the pictures show the supposed time of entry but cannot see registration as dark exit picture is clearer and can see registration. Do I respond and ask for another picture or ignore ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am placing my trust in the advice on this page and ignoring G24 until such time as they issue court proceedings. I think that the fact that this is a free carpark is very much in our favour as they can only pursue this on the basis of loss incurred by Wickes. I am hoping this makes going to court highly unlikely.

 

I suggest we post details of any further communications from G24 here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received a second letter from G24. It stated that as I had not responded within the 14 day time limit I no longer qualified for the saving of £20 they had generously extended to me and the full amount of £95 was now due.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received a second letter from G24. It stated that as I had not responded within the 14 day time limit I no longer qualified for the saving of £20 they had generously extended to me and the full amount of £95 was now due.

Ah shame. Do they really think you are going to pay these swindlers? Continue to use their toilet paper to light the fire at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tks for the update Keroan, I assume you will ignore this one too? You seem to be a week or so ahead of the 3 of us with G24 letters in this thread so please continue to keep us advised of developments (as I will). Tks to Surfer01 for your comments too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi GENTS,

 

Here is a further update to my G24 expereience.

 

Have now received a letter entitled FINAL NOTICE.

 

The first paragraph has a mistake by stating " On the 15 Dec 2010 you were the driver of the vehicle registration .................etc. :???:

 

How do they know if yours truly was the driver? :???:

 

It goes on to say "This Final Notice was sent, as driver of the vehicle as full payment has not beeen received.

 

A reduced amount was offered for payment within 14 days.

 

It is now too late to pay the reduced amount.

 

THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IS NOW £95.00

 

Failure to pay the outstanding amount will result in G24 Ltd forwarding the outstanding charge to a Debt Recovery Agency.:lol:

There's the update, just got to wait for the next threat letter now

 

Keroan8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I got one of these tickets last May whilst driving my daughters car. She recieved a letter in the post and i was about to write a cheque then 'googled G24'. Swiftly ripped up the cheque and never paid. They wrote about 5 or 6 and then i wrote to them pretending to be my daughter and said i was not paying and that i was not driving the car. Not heard anything since August last year.

 

G24 can go whistle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one yesterday, having spent 2 hours 15 minutes researching bathrooms a couple of weeks ago. I think they can take a run.

 

next time i go to Wickes though, I will stop the car and stick 2 fingers up to the camera. Can I suggest everyone does the same? it probably won't achieve anything, but will make me smile when I think that the bloke who has to look at the pictures is being abused by us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one yesterday, having spent 2 hours 15 minutes researching bathrooms a couple of weeks ago. I think they can take a run.

 

next time i go to Wickes though, I will stop the car and stick 2 fingers up to the camera. Can I suggest everyone does the same? it probably won't achieve anything, but will make me smile when I think that the bloke who has to look at the pictures is being abused by us all.

Don't forget that they will have your registration number and a rude gestrue could be interpreted many ways. Would love to do it but don't want further hassles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have received a "parking fine" from Wickes (Hereford). However the pictures show the supposed time of entry but cannot see registration as dark exit picture is clearer and can see registration. Do I respond and ask for another picture or ignore ?

 

I decided to go against advice and sent the following letter

I am writing with regard to the above PCN which you recently issued to my address. I am contesting this initially on two grounds.

Firstly on the photograph allegedly showing my car entering the car park the registration cannot be seen although somehow you have managed to reproduce a number plate below it.

Secondly you state the parking terms and conditions are clearly displayed – this is not true. At the time of night the car was parked the car park is in complete darkness and the signs cannot be seen. We have photographic evidence to support this.

I await your response and should I not receive one within 14 days of the date of this letter I will assume the matter is closed.

Received a reply within 5 days stating the matter was now closed. Hope you all luck in your dealings with this company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...