Case study 1: HOMEBASE AND
G24 LTD CAR PARK AMBUSH
TIME LINE:
APRIL 2010: I, along with my partner visited Home base Limited in Harrow to make purchases for our small gardening
patch.
APRIL 2010: Days later after our visit we received a notice from G24 Ltd asking us to pay £95 for overstaying in the
home base car park for 51 minutes. We were informed that the time allowed for every customer is 2 hours.
The notice:
April 2010: We think that this scheme is socially irresponsible and legally flawed and we wrote the following letters to
the concerned companies:
LETTER 1
10 April 2010
Homebase Ltd.,
Customer Services Department,
Acton Gate,
Stafford,
ST18 9AR,
Dear Sir/ Madam,
We write to express our utmost displeasure and dissatisfaction with our recent experience at Homebase, 354 High Road, Harrow.
We are recent customers to Homebase having recently taken a keen interest in gardening. That informs our decision to spend time, effort
and resources to travel to Homebase for the purpose of making purchases for our garden which we did.
As first time customers to Homebase in Harrow it is not unreasonable to assume that the parking spaces provided by Homebase are
free to use for customers as other leading business in a civilised society like the United Kingdom does.
To our utmost consternation we received on the 10th of April 2010 a letter from a company called G24 limited requesting that we pay £95
for overstaying in your car park on the 2nd of April of the same year in contravention of a notice. We were not aware of the notice in the
park in our earlier visit and we immediately drove to Homebase to check out the notice. We became aware of the notice on the 10th of
April and also of the fact that your company has an arrangement with G24 Ltd to impose such massive penalty.
It is our contention that even though there are some notices in the car park these notices were not conspicuous enough because an
average person would have thought that they were the usual disclaimer of liability for parked cars and not an ambush mechanism to
catch off guard a trusting customer believing that he was on a property provided to positively facilitate a business.
Conceding that you have the right to run your business in whatever way you chose, it is beyond imagination that you will authorise an
exorbitant charge of £95 for a 51 minutes overstay for a customer who visited your premises to do business considering that parking on a
parking lot outside the ‘free parking’ you provided all day would have cost a fraction of that.
It is ironic that Dr Quirke who drove the car on that day in over eleven years of driving has never had a parking ticket from a proper
authority and has now been issued one by an infamous ‘private company’ for legally parking in the facility provided by you and falling foul
of the ambush tactics of G24 Ltd.
Be that as it may, we believe that there is something fundamentally immoral and legally flawed in respect of the system you have put in
place in collaboration with G24 Ltd for the following reasons:
1. We drove into the parking lot in the believe that we are doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not
conspicuous enough and we were not given enough opportunity to decide whether or not we are interested in entering into a contract with
G24 Ltd
2. We were unwittingly induced into an onerous contract by Homebase Ltd
3. The notices and the terms of the contract were not conspicuous enough and were not clear
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to you or your business partner
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract pursuant to which you and your business partner G24 Ltd have made this charge are contrary to the
Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
PLEASE NOTE that we have issued a cheque for payment to G24 Ltd. This cheque is issued under protest and it is not an admission of
liability. We have issued the payment with the intention of recovering the payment once you and your business partner realise the illegality
and the immorality of this condemnable practice which will not endear any business to customers. (A copy of the cheque and G24 Ltd’s
Parking Charge Notice are attached for your ease of reference).
We shall invest our time and resources to recover this obviously unjust charge by pursuing all options available to us. We do not think it is
right for anybody or business to profit from this type of ambush arrangement.
We hope you will use your good office to prevail on G24 Ltd to return to us the money paid to them and encourage them to pursue a more
just and socially responsible way of doing business.
Best regards,
Cc:
Homebase
354 High Road
Kenton, Harrow
HA3 6HF
G24 Ltd
PO Box 3320
Gerrards Cross
Bucks
SL9 8WT
LETTER 2:
10 Apr. 10
G24 Ltd
PO Box 3320
Gerrards Cross
Bucks
SL9 8WT
Dear Sir/Madam,
PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST
We received a letter on the 10th of April 2010 from your company requesting that we pay £95 for overstaying in a car park at Homebase,
354 High Road, Harrow on the 2nd of April of the same year. (A copy of the letter/notice is attached for your ease of reference).
We hereby issue a cheque for payment to G24 Ltd. This cheque is issued under protest and it is not an admission of liability. We have
issued the payment with the intention of recovering the payment once you and your business partner realise the illegality and the
immorality of this condemnable practice which will not endear any business to customers. (The cheque and a copy of our letter to
Homebase are attached).
We believe the charge is fundamentally immoral, legally flawed and socially irresponsible. Our grounds are as followed:
1. We drove into the parking lot in the believe that we are doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not
conspicuous enough and we were not given enough opportunity to decide whether or not we are interested in entering into a contract with
G24 Ltd
2. We were unwittingly induced into an onerous contract by Homebase Ltd
3. The notices and the terms of the contract were not conspicuous enough and were not clear
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to you or your business partner
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract pursuant to which you and your business partner G24 Ltd have made this charge are contrary to the
Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
We shall invest our time and resources to recover this obviously unjust charge by pursuing all options available to us. We do not think it is
right for anybody or business to profit from this type of ambush arrangement.
Best regards,
Cc:
Homebase
354 High Road
Kenton, Harrow
HA3 6HF
Homebase Ltd.,
Customer Services Department,
Acton Gate,
Stafford,
ST18 9AR,
16th April 2010: G24 cashed the cheque sent to them under protest without responding to our legal challenge
underscoring the desperation of the company to make money by whatever means.
27th April 2010: We received a letter from Homebase putting forward justifications for this abhorrent practice without
addressing the legal issues that we raised. Homebase also attempted to distance itself from the actions of its
contractor, G24 Ltd by claiming that G24 is responsible for the fine imposed. They also seem to be implying that since
we made payment under protest the money cannot be refunded!
We are definitely not satisfied by this response.
[We have stopped buying products from Homebase and are now patronising more customer friendly businesses. We
will not be recommending Homebase to anyone.]
28th April 2010: We have sent a letter to the Office of Fair Trading requesting an investigation into this practice.
We are hoping that they will consider taking action in the interest of the general public. Our contentions are as follows:
The terms of the contract leading to this penalty have not been individually negotiated as they were unilaterally drawn
up and displayed at the discretion of Homebase Ltd and G24.The contract is in general use in Harrow and across the
country by G24 and its partners including Homebase. We therefore believe that the contract falls under Regulation 5
of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083 and the OFT has the competence to
investigate this practice.
1. Customers (including ourselves) are unwittingly induced into onerous contract by the Homebase Ltd without
adequate notification
2. Customers (including ourselves) drove into the parking lot provided by Homebase on the understanding that they
were doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not adequate. Furthermore customers are
not given adequate opportunity to decide whether or not they are interested in entering into a contract with G24 Ltd.
3. The terms of the contract are not communicated directly to people that may be affected by it
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to Homebase or G24 Ltd
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract are contrary to the Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
10th May 2010: We received a reply from the Office of Fair Trading advising us to contact the Local Authority
Trading Standards Service
11th May 2010: We wrote to the Local Authority Trading Standards Service putting forward our contentions
12th May 2010: The Local Authority Trading Standards Service replied impliedly supporting this manner of
charging customers. They did not however address the legal issues that we raised in our letter to them. We are quite
surprised by this development and we are exploring further avenues to challenge this practice. We also think that
some of the issues raised by this experience are viable leads for academic research.
New! Publication in the Law Society Gazette: "Consumer contracts - we need an
independent ombudsman" by Olufemi Amao 02/08/10
LINKS: OTHER PEOPLE'S STORIES
Latest: Further controversy over Homebase parking fines
WALTHAMSTOW: Further controversy over Homebase parking fines
1. The £95 parking ticket for taking too long to spend
2. G24 Ltd admit inadequate signage at car park
3. WALTHAMSTOW: Customer's outrage at DIY store parking fine
4. DVLA gave motorist's details to G24 after overstay in Homebase car park
5. Crazy car park charge
6. Parking boss at bay in fines row
7. Dear Store Manager
8. Homebase finally reply
Blogs and Forums
1. MSE news: The £95 parking ticket
2. Thread: G24 Parking Charge Notice, any advice? It was a Sunday & signs don't
have times or da
3. G24 Ltd using debt recovery agency
4. Homebase Parking WARNING
5. Average Ratings for Homebase www.homebase.co.uk
6. Homebase suck even more than usual
G24 Questionable Operations
Latest: Anger over parking ticket for coastguard on call-out
1. DIY stores 'prosecute' parking offenders
2. Norwich parking fine row
3. Norwich man in Riverside car park charging row
4. Ever refused to pay a parking fine? This Bristol woman has
G24 LTD CAR PARK AMBUSH
TIME LINE:
APRIL 2010: I, along with my partner visited Home base Limited in Harrow to make purchases for our small gardening
patch.
APRIL 2010: Days later after our visit we received a notice from G24 Ltd asking us to pay £95 for overstaying in the
home base car park for 51 minutes. We were informed that the time allowed for every customer is 2 hours.
The notice:
April 2010: We think that this scheme is socially irresponsible and legally flawed and we wrote the following letters to
the concerned companies:
LETTER 1
10 April 2010
Homebase Ltd.,
Customer Services Department,
Acton Gate,
Stafford,
ST18 9AR,
Dear Sir/ Madam,
We write to express our utmost displeasure and dissatisfaction with our recent experience at Homebase, 354 High Road, Harrow.
We are recent customers to Homebase having recently taken a keen interest in gardening. That informs our decision to spend time, effort
and resources to travel to Homebase for the purpose of making purchases for our garden which we did.
As first time customers to Homebase in Harrow it is not unreasonable to assume that the parking spaces provided by Homebase are
free to use for customers as other leading business in a civilised society like the United Kingdom does.
To our utmost consternation we received on the 10th of April 2010 a letter from a company called G24 limited requesting that we pay £95
for overstaying in your car park on the 2nd of April of the same year in contravention of a notice. We were not aware of the notice in the
park in our earlier visit and we immediately drove to Homebase to check out the notice. We became aware of the notice on the 10th of
April and also of the fact that your company has an arrangement with G24 Ltd to impose such massive penalty.
It is our contention that even though there are some notices in the car park these notices were not conspicuous enough because an
average person would have thought that they were the usual disclaimer of liability for parked cars and not an ambush mechanism to
catch off guard a trusting customer believing that he was on a property provided to positively facilitate a business.
Conceding that you have the right to run your business in whatever way you chose, it is beyond imagination that you will authorise an
exorbitant charge of £95 for a 51 minutes overstay for a customer who visited your premises to do business considering that parking on a
parking lot outside the ‘free parking’ you provided all day would have cost a fraction of that.
It is ironic that Dr Quirke who drove the car on that day in over eleven years of driving has never had a parking ticket from a proper
authority and has now been issued one by an infamous ‘private company’ for legally parking in the facility provided by you and falling foul
of the ambush tactics of G24 Ltd.
Be that as it may, we believe that there is something fundamentally immoral and legally flawed in respect of the system you have put in
place in collaboration with G24 Ltd for the following reasons:
1. We drove into the parking lot in the believe that we are doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not
conspicuous enough and we were not given enough opportunity to decide whether or not we are interested in entering into a contract with
G24 Ltd
2. We were unwittingly induced into an onerous contract by Homebase Ltd
3. The notices and the terms of the contract were not conspicuous enough and were not clear
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to you or your business partner
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract pursuant to which you and your business partner G24 Ltd have made this charge are contrary to the
Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
PLEASE NOTE that we have issued a cheque for payment to G24 Ltd. This cheque is issued under protest and it is not an admission of
liability. We have issued the payment with the intention of recovering the payment once you and your business partner realise the illegality
and the immorality of this condemnable practice which will not endear any business to customers. (A copy of the cheque and G24 Ltd’s
Parking Charge Notice are attached for your ease of reference).
We shall invest our time and resources to recover this obviously unjust charge by pursuing all options available to us. We do not think it is
right for anybody or business to profit from this type of ambush arrangement.
We hope you will use your good office to prevail on G24 Ltd to return to us the money paid to them and encourage them to pursue a more
just and socially responsible way of doing business.
Best regards,
Cc:
Homebase
354 High Road
Kenton, Harrow
HA3 6HF
G24 Ltd
PO Box 3320
Gerrards Cross
Bucks
SL9 8WT
LETTER 2:
10 Apr. 10
G24 Ltd
PO Box 3320
Gerrards Cross
Bucks
SL9 8WT
Dear Sir/Madam,
PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST
We received a letter on the 10th of April 2010 from your company requesting that we pay £95 for overstaying in a car park at Homebase,
354 High Road, Harrow on the 2nd of April of the same year. (A copy of the letter/notice is attached for your ease of reference).
We hereby issue a cheque for payment to G24 Ltd. This cheque is issued under protest and it is not an admission of liability. We have
issued the payment with the intention of recovering the payment once you and your business partner realise the illegality and the
immorality of this condemnable practice which will not endear any business to customers. (The cheque and a copy of our letter to
Homebase are attached).
We believe the charge is fundamentally immoral, legally flawed and socially irresponsible. Our grounds are as followed:
1. We drove into the parking lot in the believe that we are doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not
conspicuous enough and we were not given enough opportunity to decide whether or not we are interested in entering into a contract with
G24 Ltd
2. We were unwittingly induced into an onerous contract by Homebase Ltd
3. The notices and the terms of the contract were not conspicuous enough and were not clear
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to you or your business partner
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract pursuant to which you and your business partner G24 Ltd have made this charge are contrary to the
Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
We shall invest our time and resources to recover this obviously unjust charge by pursuing all options available to us. We do not think it is
right for anybody or business to profit from this type of ambush arrangement.
Best regards,
Cc:
Homebase
354 High Road
Kenton, Harrow
HA3 6HF
Homebase Ltd.,
Customer Services Department,
Acton Gate,
Stafford,
ST18 9AR,
16th April 2010: G24 cashed the cheque sent to them under protest without responding to our legal challenge
underscoring the desperation of the company to make money by whatever means.
27th April 2010: We received a letter from Homebase putting forward justifications for this abhorrent practice without
addressing the legal issues that we raised. Homebase also attempted to distance itself from the actions of its
contractor, G24 Ltd by claiming that G24 is responsible for the fine imposed. They also seem to be implying that since
we made payment under protest the money cannot be refunded!
We are definitely not satisfied by this response.
[We have stopped buying products from Homebase and are now patronising more customer friendly businesses. We
will not be recommending Homebase to anyone.]
28th April 2010: We have sent a letter to the Office of Fair Trading requesting an investigation into this practice.
We are hoping that they will consider taking action in the interest of the general public. Our contentions are as follows:
The terms of the contract leading to this penalty have not been individually negotiated as they were unilaterally drawn
up and displayed at the discretion of Homebase Ltd and G24.The contract is in general use in Harrow and across the
country by G24 and its partners including Homebase. We therefore believe that the contract falls under Regulation 5
of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083 and the OFT has the competence to
investigate this practice.
1. Customers (including ourselves) are unwittingly induced into onerous contract by the Homebase Ltd without
adequate notification
2. Customers (including ourselves) drove into the parking lot provided by Homebase on the understanding that they
were doing business with Homebase and the notices to the contrary were not adequate. Furthermore customers are
not given adequate opportunity to decide whether or not they are interested in entering into a contract with G24 Ltd.
3. The terms of the contract are not communicated directly to people that may be affected by it
4. The charge has no relation to any alleged damages to Homebase or G24 Ltd
5. This charge constitutes an illegal penalty
6. The terms of the contract are contrary to the Unfair Terms and Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
10th May 2010: We received a reply from the Office of Fair Trading advising us to contact the Local Authority
Trading Standards Service
11th May 2010: We wrote to the Local Authority Trading Standards Service putting forward our contentions
12th May 2010: The Local Authority Trading Standards Service replied impliedly supporting this manner of
charging customers. They did not however address the legal issues that we raised in our letter to them. We are quite
surprised by this development and we are exploring further avenues to challenge this practice. We also think that
some of the issues raised by this experience are viable leads for academic research.
New! Publication in the Law Society Gazette: "Consumer contracts - we need an
independent ombudsman" by Olufemi Amao 02/08/10
LINKS: OTHER PEOPLE'S STORIES
Latest: Further controversy over Homebase parking fines
WALTHAMSTOW: Further controversy over Homebase parking fines
1. The £95 parking ticket for taking too long to spend
2. G24 Ltd admit inadequate signage at car park
3. WALTHAMSTOW: Customer's outrage at DIY store parking fine
4. DVLA gave motorist's details to G24 after overstay in Homebase car park
5. Crazy car park charge
6. Parking boss at bay in fines row
7. Dear Store Manager
8. Homebase finally reply
Blogs and Forums
1. MSE news: The £95 parking ticket
2. Thread: G24 Parking Charge Notice, any advice? It was a Sunday & signs don't
have times or da
3. G24 Ltd using debt recovery agency
4. Homebase Parking WARNING
5. Average Ratings for Homebase www.homebase.co.uk
6. Homebase suck even more than usual
G24 Questionable Operations
Latest: Anger over parking ticket for coastguard on call-out
1. DIY stores 'prosecute' parking offenders
2. Norwich parking fine row
3. Norwich man in Riverside car park charging row
4. Ever refused to pay a parking fine? This Bristol woman has
| CSR, Consumer Protection & the Law Banks charge customers exorbitant rates in complicated arrangements, some retailers and their contractors set parking traps for consumers, credit rating agencies ensure that a sizable number of consumers cannot obtain regular credit, pay day loan and the like profited by ensnaring desperate consumers in spirals of bad loans at exorbitant rates. Why are these happening in the face of the various laws and institutions put in place to protect consumers? This is a research project into the relevance of the consumer protection framework in the UK to the ordinary person. |
| FACEBOOK CAMPAIGN: Please join 'Justice Falls' on facebook to fight this irresponsible practice CLICK HERE |
| A personal note: We bought this bird feeder from Homebase to feed birds and squirrels for free and we do not charge parking penalty if they stay for the day. Our contribution to a green world. That is being human. |
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for
themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies
it." - Frederic Bastiat