G24 ANPR PCN - appealed - Robin Retail Park, Wigan

[brassnecked]

Do as suggested write  keep a digital copy of the letter and post it at Post office and get a free proof of posting take a picture of that as well and file it safely

 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN you posted would not be worded the same as yours. they were late obtaining that driver's data so they could not apply the rules of the protection of freedoms Act 2012 to that PCN. your PCN was posted within the 14 day limit so you would be subject to PoFA 2012 other than they may not have complied with the Parking Period requirement. 

Uner the Act the PCN should include the period of parking on the notice. they have not done that although they have shown the times you entered and left the car park on their photos. but that is not he same as entering them on the PCN . In any case driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking spot to the exit could not be described as being parked so if your PCN was worded the same as that one you posted it would be compliant with PoFA and so you as the keeper would not be liable for the debt.

If you cannot locate your PCN it would be best to sand ham an SAR to resolve that problem since if you are not liable for the charge that means you can relax a nd ignore all the rubbish they will send to you.

[Dadbod1]

Just received the following response from them after telling them I wasn’t the driver.

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the contractual terms of the car park, however you have failed to inform us who was. 

Judge Ackroyd, 2008, Oldham Court, Combined Parking Solutions versus Mr Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, but did not state who was, ruled that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ordered the Charge to be paid plus additional court costs.

If, at the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the date on which this correspondence is issued), you have not complied with the above, then we have the right to take recovery action against you.

You received a parking charge because the driver breached the terms and conditions of parking - and is therefore liable to pay the amount of a parking charge stated on our signage.  We also refer you to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, which sets out the legal basis upon which we may demand payment from the vehicle’s registered keeper if the driver fails to pay us the parking charge.

We have taken into account your appeal and requested additional information from you to investigate further. Your appeal will only be re-considered if you provide this information within 14 days, otherwise no further investigation will be undertaken.

You now have one of the following options available to you:

1. Pay the outstanding Parking Charge. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0333 733 3000 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org), The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the The Independent Appeals Service Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of your first rejection.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Don't rush to answer this please, let the experts ponder on what they've said.

HB

[FTMDave]

I've just done a search for G24 threads on the forum.  I stopped reading after the first 50.  In none of those 50 threads have G24 had the gonads to take the motorist to court.  There are no guarantees of course, but they rarely do court.  This surely is the most important thing.

Writing to G24, indeed to any private parking company, is a waste of time - at best.  They will never accept your arguments and will continue to pursue you for £££.  Ar worst it will encourage them to refute your arguments in the hope you will give in and means you are more likely to end up in court!

Stop the communications with them.

But come back here if they ever send a Letter of Claim.

[Dadbod1]

Great stuff, thanks for the advice and taking the time to help!

I will cease communication and only come back if they send a claim letter as you say.

[brassnecked]

They are stuffed if they did do court as that 2008 case is no longer relevant due to POFA 2912  in any case there is no legal duty on a Keeper to name a driver for a Parking Charge Notice and the case many fleecers relied on  Elliott v Loake Criminal so inapplicable to Contractural cases and CPS v AJH Films, employer/employee so again not applicable have been kicked ouit as proofs many timesw.  They really have nowhere to go with this.

[Dadbod1]

I’ve received a “final notice” where they are still incorrectly referring to me as the driver.

I’m assuming I can continue to ignore?

Final Notice.pdf

[FTMDave]

Yes, laugh at them and ignore.

[FTMDave]

An idea.  Have you still got receipts or bank statements for purchases you made that day at the retail centre? 

[Dadbod1]

No, unfortunately not. I went with my mother though and my 2 year old son. We went to the pharmacy, did some shopping and had lunch.

I’m a little bit worried that they seem to be naming me as a driver even though the driver has never been identified in any of my correspondence.

[Nicky Boy]

Why are you worried?

If this goes the distance they will need to show the evidence that you have been named as the driver by the RK.

Has the RK actually named the driver?.. Ermm, that'll be... Nope!

They can still carry on calling you "the driver"... Doesn't mean nowt!

Maybe you should henceforth call them "idiots", because they have now been named... by me!

[brassnecked]

Yes they will keep on doing that even though they have to prove it they use it as a frightener, thankfully the Jusecond is criminal so again inadmissible if they try them if they have messed up on POFA its an  almost automatic fail for them.

[FTMDave]

5 hours ago, Dadbod1 said:

No, unfortunately not. I went with my mother though and my 2 year old son. We went to the pharmacy, did some shopping and had lunch.

OK, I had tracked down the owner of the retail centre and I was thinking you could have pushed them to have the charge cancelled - if you had lots of proof of spending dosh there.

[lookinforinfo]

The wording of your PCN compared to the previous one is totally different. Both wrong, but totally different. Do you have the other side of your PCN? If so could please post it up.

At the moment both PCNs do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. Only the driver is. As long as there is nothing on the back of your PCN to contradict what I said.

I know they quoted a case where they won in which they say the keeper said he wasn't the driver but the Judge  declared that he reckoned he was the driver. However in that case it wasn't a two hour free car park but a permit controlled  Church land. The keeper admitted that he and several drivers had used his car to park there so couldn't be sure if he was the one who parked on that day. He also said that he had not seen the signs.

If he had been there several times then it is reasonable to surmise that he had seen the signs and understood them So the Judge doubted his veracity . As he was aware that the ground was permit controlled and had made no attempt at obtaining a permit the JUdge took a dim view of his behaviour and found him guilty. 

Yours case is nothing like his and as you are definite that you were not the driver it is highly unlikely that you will be found guilty. But I think you should go in at them strongly demanding that they provide the evidence that you said you were the driver since you have always maintained hat you weren't and would like to have a record for the Court that what they declared is wrong.

You have never stated that you were the driver and would like them to withdraw that statement or produce the evidence. Should it get that far as Court you do not want the Judge to think you might have been the driver so you have to tackle it head on straight away so the Judge knows the situation.

By adding the  piece about Judge Ackroyd they are trying to get you worried that you could lose because your Judge might not believe you and also a nudge to your Judge that it is possible the the keeper and driver are the same person.

This is confirmed by Judge Ackroyd in that case-

"The first issue to decide is the issue of identity. The claimant, of course, has to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It is not to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; it is on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof and the court has to be satisfied on that standard whether the defendant was the person who parked his vehicle. There is no identification evidence, nobody saw him park, he parked early in the morning when in all probability it was dark. He was not seen to drive away his vehicle. The minister cannot provide identification evidence."

The Balance of Probabilities. They have to provide something that helps prove you were the driver.  And it may be that from your phone for instance, you could prove that you were nowhere near the car park at the time of the alleged breach.
 

Confront them and point out that Courts do not believe that the keeper and the driver are the same person 

[Dadbod1]

This is the back of the final notice

@LookingForInfo I can’t see the case that you have mentioned anywhere on my paperwork?

Back 1.pdf

[dx100uk]

On 12/06/2023 at 08:24, Dadbod1 said:

Judge Ackroyd, 2008, Oldham Court, Combined Parking Solutions versus Mr Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, but did not state who was, ruled that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ordered the Charge to be paid plus additional court costs.

also is this via an email?

dx

[Dadbod1]

Yes, it was sent via email

So, lookinforinfo has suggested that I contact them, is this the best course of action or should I continue to ignore?

[dx100uk]

well you need to kill that email comms going forward else they'll abuse it if this ever goes to court. well revisit this if it does..

13 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

And it may be that from your phone for instance, you could prove that you were nowhere near the car park at the time of the alleged breach

google location servs etc? can you?

[FTMDave]

8 hours ago, Dadbod1 said:

So, lookinforinfo has suggested that I contact them, is this the best course of action or should I continue to ignore?

Well, it's up to you.

However, as G24's MO is to come out with lots of threats but eventually give up, I don't see any point in poking them with a big stick.  Personally I'd let sleeping fleecers lie.

[Dadbod1]

That was my preferred course of action to be honest, so I’ll stick with it! Thanks

[lookinforinfo]

There is nothing on the back of your PCN that relates to making the PCN compliant. Therefore as keeper you are not liable. The driver of course is still liable.

If you are not going to confront them about Judge Ackroyd now, then please it make the point in your WS. It is kind of rare for Judges to say that the keeper and driver are the same person. So by them sating that case it is designed to scare you  but more importantly it might encourage the Judge to come to the same conclusion in your case. Whereas the Court normally take the stance that the keeper and driver are not the same person as Judge Ackroyd stated in post 40. Please reread and repeat in your WS what he said as it is important that your Judge gets the picture.

 

[Dadbod1]

I’m not too sure what WS means?

I managed to find my original letter so thought I’d post it

 

OG back.pdf OG front.pdf

[honeybee13]

WS = witness statement.

HB

[Dadbod1]

Thanks! I though it was that but couldn’t be sure.

So, I think I’m ok here. I have never named the driver so they don’t know who it was, and their original letter arrived out of time to take action against the keeper. I’m starting to worry a little with the mention of court and a judge, but I don’t think it will get that far without any evidence surely?