Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • PAPLOC = Pre Action Protocol Letter Of Claim. Heres a handy guide to sme of the acronyms you'll see on the forum... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/147286-posting-in-this-forum-and-a-z-of-motoring-terms/#comment-4399743  
    • Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout   Thames Water is lobbying for higher bills and lower fines to avoid bailout, report claims – business live | Business | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Britain’s largest water company is trying to avoid a potential multibillion-pound taxpayer bailout   despite giving out large dividends to shareholders and large bonuses to senior management UK water company dividends jump to £1.4bn despite criticism over sewage outflows WWW.FT.COM Payments include internal transfers between complex web of holding companies   In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers | Utilities | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Decades of underinvestment and bumper dividends have left the firm debt-laden and under investigation   ‘The whole thing stinks’: water firms to pay £15bn to shareholders as customers foot sewage bill | Water bills | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM With cost of cleanup to be passed on to bill payers, analysis shows they will also pay £624 more by 2030 to fund investor payouts    
    • Are you still claiming Tax Credits / Universal Credit? They will likely take a small monthly amount off , if you are
    • So much for protecting our borders - Guv all just dog whistles   Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to have budget slashed - Neal The Office for the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration will have its budget cut by five per cent year on year, David Neal has revealed, Holly Bancroft reports. Mr Neal is giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in a one-off session on immigration after being sacked by James Cleverly. The home secretary said Mr Neal had “breached the terms of appointment and lost the confidence of the home secretary” after Mr Neal warned of “dangerous” failings by border force that he claimed were allowing “high-risk” aircraft to land in Britain without security checks. The Home Office had “categorically rejected” the claims, saying that Mr Neal “has chosen to put misleading data into the public domain”. You can read more here: Home Office sacks immigration chief after criticism of border security
    • "In an explosive revelation, Mr Staunton also alleged that the current Post Office CEO threatened to resign over a HR investigation into his own conduct. Mr Staunton said Post Office chief executive Nick Read had fallen out with the HR director “and she produced a document that was 80 pages in length” and there was just one paragraph in there about his own conduct and use of “politically incorrect comments”. Mr Staunton said Mr Read was “really quite upset” and threatened to resign a number of times. But just an hour before Mr Staunton’s testimony, Mr Read had denied - under oath - that he had ever having tried to resign."   I’m victim of smear campaign says sacked Post Office chair as he accuses CEO of lying WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Henry Staunton, sacked by business secretary Kemi Badenoch, gives evidence to Commons committee     see also from the post above "Carl Creswell, an official from the Department for Business and Trade said Tidswell had told Ben Tidswell that some board members might resign if Henry Staunton were not sacked)" Tidswell says he was right (See 11.14am.)"   So baden-ouch seems to be at the very least twisting the truth - no surprise there    
  • 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
      • 160 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

G24 ANPR PCN - exceeded free parking by 11imns - Appealed - Robin Retail Park, Loire Drive, Wigan, Lancashire WN5 0UH


Recommended Posts

I wish I had found this site earlier, I may have already given up more than I should.

 

I went to Robin Retail Park on 5th April 2023. It was half term and mad busy. G24 sent me a PCN on 19th April with entry time 13:46:11 and exit time 16:57:43

 

They say I exceeded the Free Parking Period of 180 minutes by 11 minutes, obviously taking the time between entry and exit.

 

I have responded to the PCN and completed the first stage appeal on the basis that I did not exceed the 'Free Parking Period' because it took me 9 minutes to find a space and it took 5 minutes to exit the car park. The signage says 180 mins free parking, not 180 minutes maximum stay, and I believe my parking period started when I parked in a bay and ended when I left the bay, which I calculate to be 177 minutes.

 

I contacted the leaseholder of the retail park and they said they would challenge the PCN. I haven't heard anything back from G24 yet.

 

Any advice on what might happen next?

 

Grateful

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to G24 ANPR PCN - Appeal Refused - Robin Retail Park Wigan G24 Limited

next time never ever appeal a speculative invoice.

 

please complete this:

 

and scan up all comms in/out and bothsides of all letters in/out in date order to ONE multipage pdf

 

read our upload guide carefully!!

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the assistance, I hope this is right. Firstly, answers to the questionnaire (also included in the attached PDF)

 

1 Date of the infringement 5th April 2023

 

 2 Date on the NTK  19th April 2023

 

3 Date received  24th April 2023

 

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

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  Images on NTK showing entry and exit

 

6 Have you appealed?  Y 

 

Have you had a response? N  

 

 7 Who is the parking company? G24 Limited 

 

8. Where exactly Robin Retail Park, Loire Drive, Wigan, Lancashire WN5 0UH

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.  IAS

 

 

Wigan G24 PCN 20230405.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to G24 ANPR PCN - Appealed - Robin Retail Park, Loire Drive, Wigan, Lancashire WN5 0UH

You might well be ok here as there is time allowed to enter/exit added to parking time in their guidelines common to the industry

 

dx

 

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to G24 ANPR PCN - exceeded free parking by 11imns - Appealed - Robin Retail Park, Loire Drive, Wigan, Lancashire WN5 0UH

This is a classic case of why we ask that you do not appeal. 

 

The PCN arrived after the 14 day period which means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper 

 

Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are necessarily the same person. So had you not written your appeal plainly outing yourself as the driver you would have been in a much stronger position.

 

However all is not lost.

 

Your overstay was around 10 minutes. Under the IPC code of conduct you have a consideration time of 5 minutes plus a 10 minute grace period. So as you rightly claim in your appeal you did not exceed the available parking period.

 

Plus of course there is your other argument that you were not parked there since driving around looking for a parking space plus being held up when leaving is not parking.

 

you may even have a case for them breaching your GDPR.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thread tidied.

 

one point

dont confuse speculative invoices with Penalty Charge Notices which are FINES

i notice their PCN you've labelled as a penalty Charge Notice in your PDF

it is NOT and can never be.

 

what @lookinforinfo is hinting at is although the incident happened 05 apr and that PCN from them is dated 19th and that's 14 days and is ok, BUT it does not allow for postage of 2 day so could never have arrived with you until atleast the 16th inc , which it couldn't have done as that was a sunday anyway!! so monday was the earliest day it could ever have gotten to you , but you say 24th...blimey their stuffed!

 

ignore everything until if/you ever get a letter of claim.

 

get reading a good few 10-20+ threads here in the forum you found to start yours in and get all the info you need to settle down and get things right and not panic....

 

well done 

 

dx

 

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the others.

 

The bad - they had no-one to sue as they didn't know who the driver was, and they sent out their bilge too late to create keeper liability.  But you outed yourself as the driver.

 

The good - your reasoning about the free parking period is spot on.  Despite the coming deforestation, G24 are highly, highly unlikely to do court.

 

Well done on getting on to the organ grinder - they have the power to call the fleecers off.

 

Let us know when the Retail Park reply, and when the charlatans do.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

ONLY A COURT CAN ISSUE FINES.

 

Councils can issue Penalty Charge Notices, Police can issue Fixed Penalty Notices, neither of which is a Fine. 

 

Private Parking Companies can only issue Parking Charge Notices ie. 'Speculative Invoices'

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were always going to reject your appeal.  G24 are well known to the forum - a bunch of complete charlatans.  You also outed yourself as the driver and gave them someone to sue.

 

However, they won't sue you.  They have shot themselves in the foot by treating the ANPR times as the parking times when they were not.  They are members of the BPA whose CoP allows 15 minutes as consideration + grace periods, as does the government CoP.  They will now destroy half the Amazon sending "threatening" letters but when it comes to it are highly, highly unlikely to do court.

 

Ignore them from now on.

 

But come back here if you ever get a Letter of Claim.

 

Did you get any joy from the Retail Park?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are lucky that G24 are members of the IPC thus they do observe the 5 minute consideration  period and the 10 minute grace period are not included in their times stated on the signage. BPA for some strange reason do not include the grace period in their calculations though I hope that any Judge would rule against them should it be challenged in court.

 

So G24  know  that you have not breached their contract thus I am unsure why they are pursuing you as you are still had 4 minutes even taking into account  the fact that their ANPR times are not actual parking times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on.  They wouldn't have a hope in hell in court.

 

The Retail Park leaseholder is a waste of space though.  They shouldn't be "raising" the matter with G24, they should be telling them to cancel the invoice.  It was them who called in the G24 vermin to infest the car park.

 

I suggest you tell them in no uncertain terms that G24 are ignoring the government Code of Practice as well as their trade association Code of Practice, you did not overstay, yet are still being threatened with court action by their minions, and if they (the Retail Park leaseholder) don't call off their dogs they will find themselves added as a Third Party to court action.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Well, didn't get the avalanche of correspondence I was expecting.......

Nothing at all until today, a letter from a debt recovery firm (more likely G24 in disguise!) with the usual 'pay now or else' blurb.

I've attached the letter to the end of the case but I plan to ignore it unless someone says otherwise.

Wigan G24 PCN 20230405 v3.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you always ignore a dca on anything.

the only time you need to respond is to a solicitor representing the PPC when the letter is headed Letter Of Claim.

then pop back

 

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it the Retail Park leaseholder was a waste of space?

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

IPC have recently changed their policy on the Consideration period and have decided not to include it in their parking period just like the BPA. So you are now one minute over the time but the grace period is a minimum of 10 minuted not a fixed time. Also they have included the arrival and departure times into the car park rather than the actual parking period so you are well within time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you find this LFI?

I've looked at the latest version of their CoP and it's still there, point 13.1  https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/Code_of_Practice_v8.pdf

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Been very quiet in the last months but they haven't gone away.

I'm ignoring this but for completeness I've attached the latest communication, threatening the next step will be Letter of Claim. If that is the plan,  I wish they would just get on with it!

 

 

G24 ANPR PCN - Appealed - Robin Retail Park, Loire Drive, Wigan, Lancashire WN5 0UH.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...