Monday, 7 October 2013

G...G...G24 C...C...Cancel P...P...Parking C...C...Charge (using time machine)

Way back when in Spring, The Parking Prankster double dipped two car parks. Both operators were spurred into immediate action and sent him parking charge notices. The Prankster therefore sent the parking charge notices for each company to the other company, as proof that he was not in their car parks for the times alleged.

Smart Parking, living up to their name for once, realised they were on a hiding to nothing and cancelled the charge.

G24, not being quite so on the ball, refused to accept the other operator's photographic evidence. Perhaps they should be given the reins of the Independent Adjudication Service if  POPLA gets the boot. They can then uphold all motorist appeals (apart from their own) on the grounds that the evidence is not valid.*

The Prankster asked for a POPLA code, but being busy with heaps of other cases forgot about this one until recently, when he dug it out from his files and wrote to G24 once more to find how they were getting on now they were several months past the 35 day deadline. Here is how things went.

The Prankster first appealed on 29th April

After a while The Prankster realised they had not replied, so wrote again on 16th May

This time G24 did reply. In a rash of enthusiasm they sent him 3 almost identical letters; two dated 29 May and 1 dated 30 May.

The Prankster considered that this letter did not adhere to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice because it turned down his appeal, but did not issue a POPLA code. He wrote again on 4th June.

G24 then went quiet for a long while. After a bit, The Prankster gave them a prod and sent this letter on 29 August.

Once again G24 sprang into action, sending the Prankster 3 more letters, this time a mere 9 days after The Prankster's deadline of 7 September. Unlike before, the three letters were not identical.

One letter, dated 16 Sep, stated that the parking charge was waivered on 28 May and contained a copy of the waiver letter...dated 16 Sep.

A second letter, also dated 16 Sep, stated that the parking charge was waivered on 28 May and contained a copy of the waiver letter...this time mysteriously backdated to 28 May.

A third letter, dated 17, just confirmed that the charge had been waived.

Letter confirming charges were dropped

Copy of letter 'sent' 28 May but dated 16 Sep

The Prankster considers that some serious monkey business is afoot here. If the charge was waived on 28th May, why did The Prankster never get the waiver letters then? Why did he get letters turning down his appeal dated 29th May and 30th May? Why, when G24 sent him a copy of the letter they purported was sent on 28th May, was it dated 16 September? Why do do do they like to do do do everything three times?

The Prankster does not know the answers to these questions and so will ask the BPA Ltd to find out.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

* CP Plus could also apply to take over POPLA. Like G24 they also do not recognise any evidence apart from their own. In a previous quadruple dip, they also ignored Smart Parking's photographic evidence...wait perhaps it's just Smart Parking they don't all like!

1 comment:

  1. I chuckled at "Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, you are now required to do one"!