G24 Parking 'Fine' of £100 for overstaying by 23 minutes - Homebase, New Malden

[Ronny485]

Hi,

 

I received a NTK (or "contractural parking charge notice" as the letter states) from G24 stating my car overstayed by the two hour car park limit by 23 minutes.

The 'fine' is £100 reduced to £60 if paid by the 4th of January.

 

Details of the NTK below

however as we only received the notice in the post yesterday i need to act on this pretty quickly.

 

I haven't been back to the car park however from looking upon street view there is a sign at the car park entrance stating

"120 minutes free parking charges apply thereafter see signs for conditions".

 

i would like to appeal

just not sure I have sufficient ground to do so.

 

My partner was shopping in home base,

made some purchases and had even purchased food in their cafe.

 

She was with our 1 year old baby and had to feed and change which prolonged the stay.

 

I will contact the home base store manager and complain about the excessive charge

 

however any advice on how to respond to G24 would be greatly predicated

 

Thanks in advance

 

1 Date of the infringement -15th December 2016

2 Date on the NTK -21st December 2016

3 Date received -29th December 2016

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? Yes

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - yes anpr of car entering and exiting car park

6 Have you appealed? Not yet

 

7 Who is the parking company? G24

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Homebase, 229-253, Kingston road, new Malden, kt3 3ru

does it say which appeals body they operate under. G24 operate under the IAS.

[dx100uk]

as per your thread title

can you please clarify where they have used the word FINE

 

 

is used on their paperwork?

 

 

dx

[Ronny485]

Hi

Apologies no they have not used the term fine - it is referred to as a parking charge in their paperwork

[dx100uk]

good first mistake hurdle over...

have removed that word......

 

 

2nd is you haven't yet received the letter entitled Notice To Keeper have you?

as this is an ANPR capture its 29-56 days the time limits on that if my brain is still functioning correctly?

[dx100uk]

no my brain was fuzzled..

 

 

The parking co must sned out the NTK within 12 days after the date of the alleged breach and it has to arrive on your doorstep within 14 days so they get 2 days for service.

[Ronny485]

Thank you dx.

 

Haven't received a letter entitled notice to keeper.

 

The only correspondence we have recieved is entitled "contractural parking charge notice".

 

Not aware of the 29-56 day time limit

-is that time,frame which they have to serve the notice to keeper?

[dx100uk]

well nothing to panic about.

 

 

await the knowledgeable ones over the day .

 

 

dx

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

As this was an ANPR capture, (no windscreen ticket) the NTK must arrive within 14 days of the event. With windscreen tickets it is the 29-56 days mentioned.

 

I also looked on Street View and the image taken was from July 2015 so the signs may have changed since then. If they haven't then it would be very hard for them to enforce.

 

I think a revisit is required to get up to date pictures of the signs.

 

Unfortunately, G24 are members of the IPC so while you may wish to appeal to them, it is likely to be pointless as they reject all appeals. The IPC also run the Independant Appeals Service (IAS) and they are not known for their fair treatment. In fact, the total opposite. Also, The people that run the IPC and the IAS run Gladstones Solicitors, the 'go to' company for any court action they may wish to take.

 

Fortunately, G24 have taken no one to court in the last 3 years so it is likely they won't bother with you (NO guarantees of course)

 

I suggest you stick to the plan and contact Homebase direct and complain to them.

[ericsbrother]

the law gives the parking co 14 days to get the NTK into your hands starting with the day after the date of the event.

 

This means that they have just scraped through on this so they can claim keeper liability if the rest of their claim stacks up

 

HOWEVER, IAS members rarely use the right wording and generally do not rely on the POFA to create a keeper liability because the people who run the IAS tell them that a pice of case law that is irrelevant and outdated circumvents the more recent applicable legislation.

 

It doesnt

so post up the NTK with personal details removed like your name, car reg and their refernce number and we will see if their paperwork is valid for POPFA.

 

If it isnt then it is easly to decide what to do, if it is correct then we will need to see the signage where your car was and then advise what to do next.

 

In the meanwhile do not contact them at all.

[Ronny485]

Hi All, thanks for the advice.

 

 

Attached is the contractual parking charge notice i received from G24 any advice appreciated.

 

 

Assume this is the NTK document or should they be sending a separate document entitled NTK?

 

Thanks

G24 CPCN.pdf

[silverfox1961]

That is the NTK

Well, as far as I can tell, they are not relying on PoFA so they can only go after the driver, not the keeper. You do not have to tell them who was driving at the time. It is up to them to do so but of course, they don't know.

IF they did try this on in a court room, they would have to prove who was the driver, not just assume it was you.

 

While I would say ignore, you may wish to appeal. If you choose to do so, never name the driver. Always say 'The Driver', never 'I'. As in

 

" The driver was feeding a hungry baby and as such was prevented from leaving within the time stipulated." Of course they will say that it is not enough grounds to cancel as it is not in their financial interest to do so.

[ericsbrother]

the NTK is compliant with the POFA to create a keeper liability so signt of the signage would be required to see if you were offered a binding contract to breach.

 

Also you can ask the local council if G24 have planning permission for their signage under the advertising hoardings regs of the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

 

This is usually something they dont bother with because they are either cheapskates and dont want to pay or they are ignorant of the law and rely on no-one else knowing it better.

 

Come back with images of the signs there and we will advise

[Ronny485]

Hi All, happy new year!

 

I managed to visit the homebase car park and have attached photos of the sign installed at the car park entrance and also signs attached to the anprs and installed in various places around the car park.

 

I also checked the kingston upon thames planning database and there are no planning consents for the signage.

 

the cut off date for the reduced charge of £60 is the 4th however if there is a valid argument to not paying it i would prefer to go down that route.

 

Thanks

Rob

[ericsbrother]

essentially they are breaking the law by having their signage there and you cannot enter into a criminal contract with them, even if you wanted to.

 

Also the signage is an "invitation to treat" so you dont have to accept the contract offered by the other signage if you dont want to.

 

Up to you

, the parking co isnt going to agree with you and just say never mind

 

, they will tell lies and threaten you with all manner of evils

so it is then down to how strong willed you are as to whether to give up and enrich them now or fight it and be prepared for a long drawn out battle.

[zydeco]

So the signage says customer parking only for 2hrs and anybody else is a trespasser. Happy days. If they haven't got planning permission for the signs even better.

[Ronny485]

Great thank you for the advice I'm going to fight it. Will keep this forum posted.

 

Thanks again

[ericsbrother]

syou now have to follw procedures.

 

 

the first step is to appeal to the parking co.

This should be somehting simple like

"The keeper of the vehicle xx00yyy believes that G24 does not have the authority to enter into contracts with anyone at the site that is the subject of their claim.

 

 

I put it to strict proof of such permissions that are necessary such as sight of the contract with the landowner and the planning permission granted to allow the signs to be present"

 

they will rely with some waffle about it all being commercailly confidential and that you must accept their word they arent really breaking the law but they should also give you a POPLA code when rejecting this appeal (even though it isnt really an appeal).

 

 

You can then appeal to POPLA on the same grounds plus the argument that it is not an offer of a contract anyway.

[Ronny485]

Thanks for,the advice will post an update once I receive a response from g24

Cheers

[Ronny485]

I Spoke to the store manager who said she will cancel it but requires proof of in store purchase and the parking charge notice number.

[ericsbrother]

then that is a way forward. write out a covering letter if you wish to use this and ask that she respond in writing. the parking co will then be without a leg to stand on.

So ,

Dera Ms Manager, I am writing to take up your offer to cancel the parking charge ref aabbcc and enclose a copy of my purchase receipt/bank statement that covers the event. I would be obliged if you now get this charge cancelled as promised and let me know that it has been action by emailing me at or by post at

[Ronny485]

Just recieved email confirmation from Homebase that the parking charge has been cancelled.

 

Thanks for all the advice.

[ericsbrother]

good, we like the simple solutions best.

[silverfox1961]

good, we like the simple solutions best.

 

Too right. This saves our failing grey cells as well.

 

Keep that email safe just in case G24 keep trying it on.