Formal Complaint Follow-Up – Are You Stuck in the 19th Century?
Dear G24,
Thank you for your generic response, which appears to entirely disregard the nature of my original correspondence. Let me clarify, in case it was not abundantly clear, my email was a formal complaint, not an appeal.
I attached my detailed complaint as a PDF document for your convenience, expecting a modern, professional organisation to handle it in a manner befitting the 21st century. Instead, I was directed to your appeals process and advised to use the postal service—an absurdly archaic requirement that feels better suited to pre-digital times.
The suggestion to use the postal service for complaints, when email is far more efficient and environmentally conscious, reeks of a deliberate attempt to make the process cumbersome and discouraging for complainants. I will not be deterred by such outdated tactics.
I now require the following:• Immediate acknowledgment that my complaint, attached to my previous email, has been received and logged.
• Confirmation of the timeframe in which I can expect a meaningful response.
• An explanation of why G24 insists on such antiquated processes for handling complaints when email clearly suffices.
If I do not receive a substantive response within 7 days, I will escalate this matter to the IPC, and make it abundantly clear that G24 operates with processes seemingly designed to frustrate rather than resolve customer concerns.
In the meantime, I will also be sharing my experience with others to highlight the unnecessarily difficult process you impose on those seeking legitimate resolution.
I trust this message is clear enough for G24 to comprehend and act upon.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
If their appeals portal will accept a submission you could submit your complaint via that portal.
Or get back to them and point out that their ATA Code of Practice requires them to respond to complaints, and that 11.2 of that code requires them to treat any complaint that they consider to include an appeal as an appeal.
Ideally you want them to engage with the substance of your message one way or another.
Save your letter as a PDF file and attach it to an email addressed to info@g24.co.uk. Mark it as a "complaint" not an appeal. Make sure you edit the places in the letter that require editing. You can put the PCN number in the subject field of the email and just state in the body to see the attached formal complaint.
They are required to treat complaints as appeals anyway.
You should make a complaint to the DVLA anyway about G24 having requested your data unlawfully in breach of the KADOE contract. By breaching section 7.3 of the SCoP, having failed to carry out the necessary quality control check of the ANPR images, thus breaching the KADOE contract, you would like to know what sanctions the DVLA intend to take against G24.
Save your letter as a PDF file and attach it to an email addressed to info@g24.co.uk. Mark it as a "complaint" not an appeal. Make sure you edit the places in the letter that require editing. You can put the PCN number in the subject field of the email and just state in the body to see the attached formal complaint.
They are required to treat complaints as appeals anyway.
You should make a complaint to the DVLA anyway about G24 having requested your data unlawfully in breach of the KADOE contract. By breaching section 7.3 of the SCoP, having failed to carry out the necessary quality control check of the ANPR images, thus breaching the KADOE contract, you would like to know what sanctions the DVLA intend to take against G24.
Keep hold of that footage. Are those clips time-stamped?
I doubt that they will give in but, for what it's worth, you could make a formal complaint to G24 with the following:QuoteSubject: Formal Complaint Regarding Incorrect Parking Charge Notice (PCN Reference: [Insert Reference])
Dear G24 Ltd,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference number [Insert Reference], issued concerning alleged parking at Reading Gateway Retail Park, Imperial Way, Reading (RG2 0TA) from 21:57 on 14th November 2024 to 06:54 on 15th November 2024. The assertion that the vehicle remained parked overnight during this period is factually incorrect.
The vehicle in question was used by the driver on two distinct occasions at this location. The driver entered the car park on the evening of 14th November to drop off passengers at the Premier Inn. The vehicle was subsequently driven away from the site. The driver returned to the car park the following morning, 15th November, to collect the same passengers and exited promptly thereafter.
Your ANPR system has failed to record both visits accurately, instead erroneously combining them into a single continuous stay. This is a clear example of “double dipping”, where an ANPR system fails to accurately record all instances of a vehicle entering and leaving controlled land.
Supporting Evidence:1. Google Timeline Records: Attached are timeline records showing that the vehicle was not on the premises during the alleged overnight parking period.
2. Dash Cam Evidence (if applicable): Additional footage is being retrieved for further corroboration, if necessary.
3. Pattern of Movement: It is likely that the vehicle's use of different access points (Imperial Way and Basingstoke Road) contributed to the ANPR system’s failure to register each movement correctly.
Breach of the Single Code of Practice (Section 7.3):
Your failure to conduct the required manual quality control check of ANPR data before issuing this PCN constitutes a direct breach of Section 7.3 of the Single Code of Practice, which states:“The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as 'double dipping', where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land…”
Had this mandatory check been performed, it would have revealed the error in your system’s data and prevented the issuance of this incorrect PCN. This failure not only contravenes the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) but also raises concerns regarding the lawfulness of your request for the vehicle keeper’s data from the DVLA.
Requested Actions:1. Immediate Cancellation of the PCN: The incorrect PCN must be cancelled without delay.
2. Deletion of Personal Data: All personal data relating to the Keeper must be deleted from your records, including any information shared with third parties, in accordance with Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Right to Erasure).
3. Written Confirmation: Provide written confirmation of the above actions within 14 days of receipt of this letter.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Should you fail to comply with these requests, I will have no hesitation in escalating this matter by:• Filing complaints with the DVLA and the International Parking Community (IPC) regarding your non-compliance with the Single Code of Practice and misuse of ANPR systems.
• Lodging a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) concerning your unlawful processing of personal data.
• Initiating legal proceedings for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018, as this error and mishandling of personal data have caused significant distress.
I trust that you will take this opportunity to resolve the matter swiftly. I look forward to your written confirmation of the PCN's cancellation and the deletion of personal data within 14 days of this correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Incorrect Parking Charge Notice (PCN Reference: [Insert Reference])
Dear G24 Ltd,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) reference number [Insert Reference], issued concerning alleged parking at Reading Gateway Retail Park, Imperial Way, Reading (RG2 0TA) from 21:57 on 14th November 2024 to 06:54 on 15th November 2024. The assertion that the vehicle remained parked overnight during this period is factually incorrect.
The vehicle in question was used by the driver on two distinct occasions at this location. The driver entered the car park on the evening of 14th November to drop off passengers at the Premier Inn. The vehicle was subsequently driven away from the site. The driver returned to the car park the following morning, 15th November, to collect the same passengers and exited promptly thereafter.
Your ANPR system has failed to record both visits accurately, instead erroneously combining them into a single continuous stay. This is a clear example of “double dipping”, where an ANPR system fails to accurately record all instances of a vehicle entering and leaving controlled land.
Supporting Evidence:1. Google Timeline Records: Attached are timeline records showing that the vehicle was not on the premises during the alleged overnight parking period.
2. Dash Cam Evidence (if applicable): Additional footage is being retrieved for further corroboration, if necessary.
3. Pattern of Movement: It is likely that the vehicle's use of different access points (Imperial Way and Basingstoke Road) contributed to the ANPR system’s failure to register each movement correctly.
Breach of the Single Code of Practice (Section 7.3):
Your failure to conduct the required manual quality control check of ANPR data before issuing this PCN constitutes a direct breach of Section 7.3 of the Single Code of Practice, which states:“The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as 'double dipping', where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land…”
Had this mandatory check been performed, it would have revealed the error in your system’s data and prevented the issuance of this incorrect PCN. This failure not only contravenes the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) but also raises concerns regarding the lawfulness of your request for the vehicle keeper’s data from the DVLA.
Requested Actions:1. Immediate Cancellation of the PCN: The incorrect PCN must be cancelled without delay.
2. Deletion of Personal Data: All personal data relating to the Keeper must be deleted from your records, including any information shared with third parties, in accordance with Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Right to Erasure).
3. Written Confirmation: Provide written confirmation of the above actions within 14 days of receipt of this letter.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Should you fail to comply with these requests, I will have no hesitation in escalating this matter by:• Filing complaints with the DVLA and the International Parking Community (IPC) regarding your non-compliance with the Single Code of Practice and misuse of ANPR systems.
• Lodging a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) concerning your unlawful processing of personal data.
• Initiating legal proceedings for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018, as this error and mishandling of personal data have caused significant distress.
I trust that you will take this opportunity to resolve the matter swiftly. I look forward to your written confirmation of the PCN's cancellation and the deletion of personal data within 14 days of this correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]
I have removed your last attachment. It may be wise to remove your name and home address, as well as your vehicle registration mark and PCN number.