hmm it did seem a bit too easy to find my PCN and use as a service, they are just another registered company probably owned by the same lot... its just this time they are trying to bring the company into respute rather than myself... which is causing me some grief.

Hi

Just to cover your back (and if you haven't already done so) tell the lease company not to pay this charge. On occasion, we have seen where a lease company has paid the charge and then added the admin fee.

One other thing of note. G24 haven't taken anybody to court in the last 3 (and a bit) years. They know their charges are bogus and don't want to risk throwing good money at this.

Will let them know - also would I be best to go down the IAS to appeal it further?

It's pointless going to the IAS as it's an 'old boys club' where fairness is sadly lacking. I would just ignore anything but court papers.

it will backfire for more than one reason so dont be tempted. Will and John like you to use their premium service which is binding on you and costs you money just the be lied to so let them do their wort at their own expense as it wont make the slightest difference to the outcome.

Also it states I can appeal via the Indipendant appeals service, is this one that would back fire on me if I were to go through this?

Will & John are IAS so being naughty.

its just the fact that they are writing to the company directly which is causing me the biggest issue. I dont mind them trying to take me, but they are trying to hold the company liable which is nothing to do with them. do I need to go down the ICA route for any reason legally? or just wait for a court summons?

Regards,

Lee

The problem is that the company are the hirer. The only way to get around that is to name yourself (or for the company to name you) as the driver. But on the bright side, at least the lease company are out of the picture now.

Whilst it wouldn't normally be recommended. I honestly don't think that being named as the driver will make very much difference in this case. The signs are prohibitive, so there's no contract for you to accept or breach. Therefore G24 have no case no matter who they're going after.

There's still no point in appealing to the IAS though. Waste of a stamp.

you dont need to go down the IAS route and that is why they like you to be bound by it, they arent honest.

You are a long way from court and G24 know this. they also knoe about VCS v Phillip, where VCS tried it on for a prohibitive sign claim and not only lost the claim but had to pay £500 for a breach of the DPA counterclaim as well. This was the first one in court that accepted the principle of Google v Vidal Hall where you dont ahve to show a quantum for damages, just that the law was broken.

Several other people have followed suit and all have been successful. Bit like getting money for injury to feelings (impossible at this level) , normally a high hurdle but now decided the rate is £250-1000 so a question of how much rather than whether it is due. If they continue to try their luck you remind them of this case and the consequences

I will instruct our guys to name me as the driver and only 'attempt' to take action for me - if they persue the company further instead of me, is there anything I can do to limit me getting any fallout from this?

thanks for the help guys much appreciated

I also noticed that my PCN qualifies for a 'Standard Appeal' which is free;

You may use the IAS to appeal FREE of charge.

 

The result will not be binding on you but will be binding on the operator.

Is it worth trying this to get the company out of the loop claiming me as a driver? They really do not like this and are quite threatened by it for some reason -.-

VCS v Phillip, could be fatal to their claim if they tried it on, no contract could be formed as it is a prohibition of parking outside store opening times, so any monies demanded would be an unlawful penalty. It may be argued that ParkingEye V Beavis would support that contention rather than VCS claim.

No-one has ever won an IAS appeal, they have been shown on television with undercover reportage rejecting all appeals without reading them using a standard reply. We keep telling you this but you seem hell bent on shooting yourself in the foot. Why? Just do things that help your situation, not make it worse

Follow EB's advice.

Thanks EB, I will inform our guys not to pay anything to them and also to direct them to me if they try to chase the company they will hopefully hit a dead end, but it seems the people here just want me to pay it - I will be stubborn on this I am not paying anything to them!

Give me their names and addresses and I will send them some spurious invoices on headed paper and we can split the money.

Had a nice letter waiting from G24 today.

see attached pdfs. They said they would not respond to the previous correspondence. full of empty threats, I await them to either drop it or see them in court.

any recommendations if they do call me to court

parking eye page 1.pdf

parking eye page 2.pdf

they don't call you to court

the court does via an N1

Bet if I phoned G24 and said I had entered their car park after hours on a pushbike or a mobility scooter, did so and their cameras caught images of said bike or scooter and gave them my contact details they would issue a similar invoice for "parking" outside permitted hours to me. It is a prohibition, there can be no consequential loss, as it is trespass, and their demand is a Civil penalty which is a no no.

Give me their names and addresses and I will send them some spurious invoices on headed paper and we can split the money.

haha I have only just seen this one. Imaginary Invoices incoming

The latest letter from G24.

rejection2.pdf

name and ref no's showing - hidden

as we cant see it was it addressed to you or the company? The co can stuill name you as driver and you can then invite them to go swivel once they send you a personal invoice

They have named me as the driver and correspond to my home address now.

Since this last rejection letter I hear nothing for months.. until another PCN appears, the same as the original but with the missing (NO IMAGE) magically now appearing.

I have replied to them and they have sent another rejection letter. Its going around in circles now constantly. They clearly haven't got a leg to stand on!

Penalty Charge Notice - 2 September 2018 Scribbled.pdf

parking for forum post.pdf

Hi,

You are falling for the old trick of responding to them. Whilst you are writing to them, they will keep thinking that you are scared.

If you do choose to send them one more letter, I would use just four words. "See you in court."

You cannot breach a prohibitive notice. Simple as that and any judge worth his/her salt would know this but I doubt it will get that far.