Jump to content


Crocdoc

Private Parking Company G24

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2515 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine showed me a very interesting Parking Charge Notice yesterday from G24 who give their address as Po Box 3320 Gerrards Cross Bucks SL9 8WT

First of all it is addressed to a Scottish resident and offers the recipient the opportunity to appeal to the newly formed Parking on Private Land appeal body. A very charitable gesture you may think, particularly as the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply in Scotland. However, having read further into this very colourful and picturesque document there appears to be a sting in the tail.

The section relating to POPLA states that if the appeal fails then the driver will lose his right to pay the reduced amount and may incur ADDITIONAL COSTS for LATE PAYMENT. I must say that having read this statement words ALMOST failed me as the bloody appeal is bound to fail as Scottish residents do not have access to POPLA, this is something that is clearly stated in the BPA code of practice.

Furthermore, if this particular document is issued nationwide then how many people in England and Wales have actually paid without appealing for fear of additional charges being added should the appeal fail? This also begs the question, what happened to the cost of the appeal process being met by the PPC industry?

An additional question surrounds the discount offered by G24, in the case of the document available the charge is £95.00 reduced to £75.00 if paid within 14 days. Now if we apply simple mathematics this represents a discount of 21%. This is interesting on the basis that Section B 19.7 of the BPA code of practice (England and Wales) and section C 34.6 (Scotland) clearly states that the discount should be no less than 40%. I wonder how many people have already paid the inflated figure as well as avoiding the appeals proccess?

I understand that this issue has now been raised with the relevant authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole discount question has been taken apart by at least a couple of judges. They said that if the "charge" is supposed to be a true reflection of the actual loss suffered, then how can that "loss" change from one week to the next. So the BPA are wrong to suggest any discount at all. Of course the reason it's there is because it is mimicking the discount offered by councils. Yet another example of impersonation of authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole discount question has been taken apart by at least a couple of judges. They said that if the "charge" is supposed to be a true reflection of the actual loss suffered, then how can that "loss" change from one week to the next. So the BPA are wrong to suggest any discount at all. Of course the reason it's there is because it is mimicking the discount offered by councils. Yet another example of impersonation of authority.

 

I agree that this entire issue is a complete mess, for example how can pre estimate of loss be precisely the same in every case ?

 

I have no doubt that this debate will rumble on for years to come, However in my opinion the DVLA must seriously look at their arrangement with these companies as they are clearly incapable of abiding by any rules and seem hell bent in ripping off the public at every opportunity.

 

It is also common knowledge that the BPA is heading for Holyrood seeking support from MSP's , however I understand that a number of elected members are becoming increasingly concerned about the activities of this industry.

TIME WILL TELL.

Edited by Crocdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking Eye had a rough time at the hands of a judge in a case reported by Bankfodder here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?369399-Parking-Eye-quot-dishonest-quot-used-quot-police-like-quot-letters-falshoods-quot-semi-literate-quot-misrepresented-their-authority&p=4019440&viewfull=1#post4019440

 

Part of the judgment was that the true estimate of loss was the discounted figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...