G24 - complete liars

[phattbloke]

So, we have had a letter from G24 stating that we stayed in a car park for over 4 hours on a recent Saturday with photo's of us going in and then out again. Whilst we did enter the car park at 12.30pm, we also left (having met my parents there) about 7 minutes later.

 

We then went back to the car park at about 16.50 to visit Toys R' Us to buy a game.

 

They have then included the photo of us leaving the second time and arriving the first time. I sent them a letter stating all the details of what happened on the day, and they are still pressing ahead with the penalty charge notice - can't say i'm surprised, but as its blatantly a complete lie and verging on fraud (if indeed it isn't fraud or deception) i'm wondering what we should do with regards to the second letter.

Edited February 9, 2013 by phattbloke

[citizenB]

Hmm, so they have you going into the car park on the first visit - but not coming out.

 

They have you coming out of the car park on the 2nd visit - but not going in.

 

Do you have anything at all that can prove that you were not in the car park for that amount of time.

 

You shopped else where and have a timed ticket - you met up with friends for coffee, etc, etc. ??

[citizenB]

Something similar happened to another cagger.. I have sent out an S.O.S.

Edited February 9, 2013 by citizenB

[phattbloke]

We met my parents at the car park (Toys R Us near blackheath on the Wolverhampton Road) and then left to go to Ma Pardoes. We paid for everything on my wife's card, so we can prove we were at a pub about 7 miles or so away. My wife, stepson and parents would all happily testify in court that we went to Ma Pardoes and then went back to buy a game from Toys R Us. Also, isn't it illegal under the data protection act, for them to have deleted any photo's the camera's took on the day? Therefore, they must surely have the photo's on their system...

 

The odd thing is my parents did exactly the same thing we did - met us there, went to Ma Pardoes in their car, and also came back with us to Toys R Us later, but they didn't get anything!

[citizenB]

We met my parents at the car park (Toys R Us near blackheath on the Wolverhampton Road) and then left to go to Ma Pardoes. We paid for everything on my wife's card, so we can prove we were not in the car park. My wife, stepson and parents would all happily testify in court that we went to Ma Pardoes and then went back to buy a game from Toys R Us. Also, isn't it illegal under the data protection act, for them to have deleted any photo's the camera's took on the day? Therefore, they must surely have the photo's on their system...

 

Excellent so you can prove they are attempting to mislead. I would say yes, if they have indeed removed images from the CCTV in order to issue a parking ticket then that could probably cause them a lot of grief! I am sure others will advise on how best to handle this.

[phattbloke]

I get the feeling they have a stock reply, which not only doesn't conform to the BPA CoP, but also doesn't give you a POPLA verification code which according to the POPLA site they have to do.

I also mentioned in the letter to them about the photo's and data protection act, along with us being able to prove where we were, but we have still had a letter stating they are going to continue with pursuance of this.

[Michael Browne]

You have a choice:

Appeal to POPLA, details of how to should have been included in their rejection letter together with a POPLA code.

This will cost them £27 +VAT and even if rejected by POPLA, their decision is not binding on the motorist and you can ignore them

 

Or

Having given them a full explanation, just ignore them from now on.

 

In each case they can only enforce it by issuing a claim in the county court, where the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities .

 

They would be very foolish to try

[Michael Browne]

I get the feeling they have a stock reply, which not only doesn't conform to the BPA CoP, but also doesn't give you a POPLA verification code which according to the POPLA site they have to do.

Gets better and better.

I also mentioned in the letter to them about the photo's and data protection act, along with us being able to prove where we were, but we have still had a letter stating they are going to continue with pursuance of this.

 

They may well, but certainly not as far as a court.

[phattbloke]

Thanks Michael - they didn't send a POPLA code. I've asked for one in the letter i'm about to send - this will be the last correspondence i enter in to with them.

We have overwhelming proof we weren't there in between, but even when I put it all down in black and white, they have ignored it. I assume these things almost never make it to court.

 

This is the letter i'm about to send:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Contractual Parking Charge Notice number:- xxxxxxxxxxxx

I’m writing to you again regarding you decision to pursue this matter further. I will not be providing you with anything that you ask for, as you have all the information on your camera system as to when we entered, and exited the car park on both occasions. If you don’t, then your system is obviously faulty and the matter will be thrown out of court anyway, which is the next step as far as we are concerned.

You may also wish to know that both your Parking Charge Notice and the letter you sent dated 1st Feb 2013 don’t comply with the BPA CoP. You say I have 14 days from the date of the letter, but as you can see below, this is not correct:

The BPA CoP Section B 19.7 states that (quote) ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.' Furthermore, the Protection of Freedoms Act provides a legally binding definition for 'the date the driver or keeper received the notice' as, '(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.'

Judging by the many posts on the ConsumerActionGroup website, you try this prank on with many people. Well, good luck with them, but sadly this is someone you won’t be getting a penny out of.

Also, can you explain why there was no POPLA code in the rejection letter you sent? As it states on the POPLA website: An appeal form, containing your verification code, should be sent by the operator with the rejection of your representations. If this form is not enclosed, the operator should be contacted to obtain one. You must appeal to POPLA within the 28 days. As you have failed to do this, I therefore have to ask you to send one so that I can appeal to POPLA. I very much doubt you will – which the courts will love!

I’ll also be sending complaint to the BPA along with McDonalds & Toys’ R Us who have shops on the site to make sure they fully understand just how you operate.

I look forward to you ignoring this letter, and sending

[Michael Browne]

Thanks Michael - they didn't send a POPLA code. I've asked for one in the letter i'm about to send - this will be the last correspondence i enter in to with them.

We have overwhelming proof we weren't there in between, but even when I put it all down in black and white, they have ignored it. I assume these things almost never make it to court.

 

G24 have never been known to issue a single court claim.

[Tony P]

Send the letter without a stamp (just to cost them a bit) but to ensure they accept it address the first line to 'Payments Dept' or similar.

 

To realise the total money making sсam instead of fair 'penalties', look at their WebSite -

 

"As well as being able to offer traditional revenue generating parking management services, G24 can also help you identify and realise any additional potential your site may present. With data collated onsite, G24 can monitor and assess parking space usage and identify opportunities for you to make incremental revenue"

[Nev Met]

I am aware that a number of complaints have recently been lodged with the DVLA about G24s operating methods - it would do absolutely no harm therefore to add your complaint into the mix.

 

email; [email protected]

 

Now Mike Butler is one of the data sharing department managers at the DVLA, and unfortunately (as as you might expect from a former double glazing salesman) he has great difficulty in managing the obvious conflict of interest that arises whenever complaints are made against PPCs who his department has just sold data to.

 

What I am saying is that it might take a couple of fairly pointed emails to get beyond the usual default and knee jerk position of DVLA fob-off.

 

Good luck.

[zydeco]

Hmm, so they have you going into the car park on the first visit - but not coming out.

 

They have you coming out of the car park on the 2nd visit - but not going in.

There is a very similar case on youtube regarding a Mcdonalds car park. [sorry can't find the link, it's on bbc watchdog]

 

The problem that the PPC had is that it was a company vehicle with GPS tracking so the company could prove that the vehicle had entered the car park then left and then at a later time re-entered the car park and then left, all within the allowed times.

 

This shows that the so called photo evidence that these PPC's use is at the least dubious and at the worst fraudulent.

[zydeco]

Oh and don't forget that the DVLA make over £3million per year from RK requests.