euro car parks - parking charge notice

Lube

Looks like the are trying to intimidate you

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed

Disclosure before proceedings start

31.16

(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started1.

(2) The application must be supported by evidence.

(3) The court may make an order under this rule only where –
(a) the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;

(b) the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;

(c) if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and

(d) disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –
(i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;

(ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or

(iii) save costs.



(4) An order under this rule must –
(a) specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

(b) require him, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –
(i) which are no longer in his control; or

(ii) in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.



(5) Such an order may –
(a) require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

(b) specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

(Rule 78.26 contains rules in relation to the disclosure and inspection of evidence arising out of mediation of certain cross-border disputes.)



http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm#IDAUC0HC

Sirdan

Lube wrote: »

Looks like the are trying to intimidate you

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed

Disclosure before proceedings start

31.16

(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started1.

(2) The application must be supported by evidence.

(3) The court may make an order under this rule only where –
(a) the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;

(b) the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;

(c) if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and

(d) disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –
(i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;

(ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or

(iii) save costs.



(4) An order under this rule must –
(a) specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

(b) require him, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –
(i) which are no longer in his control; or

(ii) in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.



(5) Such an order may –
(a) require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

(b) specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

(Rule 78.26 contains rules in relation to the disclosure and inspection of evidence arising out of mediation of certain cross-border disputes.)



http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm#IDAUC0HC

Waste of a quote ..none of this part applies to claims on the small claims track and even if it did it only applies to documents...as a private individual you would be being completely truthful if you said you have no documents whatsoever that have any information relevant to their claim ..I mean do you really keep a written log of who drives the car and when ? (No , I thought not) .

More importantly the whole rationale of the Civil Procedure Rules is to assist in settling matters without court proceedings ....so if they ever dared to try this on at Court I expect the Judge would take a dim view of two facts :-

1) They know this part 31 will not apply to their claim as it is a small claim

AND

2) Why have they made no request to the keeper for the documents prior to coming to court ...because if they had asked the whole proceedings could easily be avoided.

Just shows us what a lying scamming bunch of *mod edit* these low life are ...they aren't going anywhere near a court with this load of old !!!!!!!! ....IMO it's they who should be hauled before a judge for their blatant deceptive,lying,threatening harrassing behaviour(s).

alzat

Tristona - not Roxburgh but a letter from Euro Car Parks itself acting at agent for Halfords and asking for money. I'll just keep ignoring them, I refuse to get any of my money to these gits.

Munro_Bagger

Hi all! I would really appreciate advice on a paper PCN physically issued 30/12/11 to company vehicle in Cupar, Scotland. I've never received one of these before. Supermarket carpark run by Euro Car Parks.

£50 payment within 14 days
£70 payment within 21 days

Have missed first deadline due to Christmas / New Year and house move. Looked through guidance on site and debating whether to respond with 'charge levied is disproporionate', or ignore. As an aside, I will write to the manager of the supermarket stating I am disappointed with their use of Euro Car Parks and will not be shopping there again.

Can anyone advise what to do? Scared stiff. Many thanks as always

peter_the_piper

Read all the previous posts and be reassured that nothing will happen if you just ignore them. Ensure the company do not pay this unrequested invoice and then wait for the company to waste postage on further letters which are also to be ignored.

Coupon-mad

Munro_Bagger wrote: »

Hi all! I would really appreciate advice on a paper PCN physically issued 30/12/11 to company vehicle in Cupar, Scotland. I've never received one of these before. Supermarket carpark run by Euro Car Parks.

£50 payment within 14 days
£70 payment within 21 days

Have missed first deadline due to Christmas / New Year and house move. Looked through guidance on site and debating whether to respond with 'charge levied is disproporionate', or ignore. As an aside, I will write to the manager of the supermarket stating I am disappointed with their use of Euro Car Parks and will not be shopping there again.

Can anyone advise what to do? Scared stiff. Many thanks as always

This is very easy to ignore when it's your vehicle as ECP just send one of the well-known letter chains of threats shown in the top sticky thread 'PPC letters & Threats' and never actually attempt Court. They would lose if they did for all sorts of reasons and their CEO admitted in 2011 that they never do Court (no PPC would when working for a huge Supermarket IMHO). I have had a Euro Car Parks fake PCN myself and I laughed!!! There's no risk to your credit rating and the company has no liability at all.

TBH you have wasted some of your time I think, reading the site guidance because it confuses people a bit (sorry site team!). It bangs on about whether a private fake PCN was 'unfair' or not and suggest various ways to respond or ignore.

If you'd come straight here to the forum you'd soon see the practical advice is simply 'ignore'. No ifs, no buts, no attempt at 'appealing' (LOL, there is no appeal, they lie so that their bogus PCN mimicks a Council one, and to get info from you & reel you in!). Understand that the whole PPC 'business model' is very like a protection racket - and ALWAYs unfair.

Please look at the letters in the top sticky thread and also red 'welcome, please read before posting', another sticky also by Crabman which includes a very clear link to a solicitor on Watchdog. Nothing has changed. Watch it and laugh.

But your only problem is your company I think. Is the Fleet Manager clued up? Can you educate them? Is the car actually leased? If so then this can be a big problem as a stupid/credulous Lease company Fleet Manager may just pay it and expect you to fork out due to their ignorance. Almost invariably (depends on your driving contract as an employee) they can't do that - but they think they can as they often think it's a 'fine'.

It is NOT a fine.

Show the Fleet Manager(s) the Watchdog clip and these links:

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2009/5/28/question-private-parking-fines-fleets-urged/30698/

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66692

The latter forum thread from pepipoo - on which I posted as SchoolRunMum - has all the links you need for a Fleet Manager including an important link from Broadsword to the BVRLA's suggested template letters for Fleet Managers to use to tell PPCs to bog off! I also provided some links there that are relevant to your case as well I think.

So get on the case of the Fleet Managers BEFORE they are dumb enough to fall for the threatogram letters and panic/pay! This is a SCAM by a PPC, so be very clear to the company that it's YOUR business only and they have zero liability and no reason to get involved at all even when ECP write to them. See BVRLA letters which explain the position.

mrdeedee

Hi All,

Just to let you know I have not heard anything of late, the letters seem to have stopped.

Hopefully this is the end of it, it is certainly the longest they have gone without sending any mail.

Thanks for all the help and advice, I probably would have caved in if it wasn't for this forum.

CaptainTony

My wife has just received the debt recovery letter in this Euro Car Parks saga. We will ignore it but can someone explain why a company specialising(?) in "Recovery, Investigation & Bailiff Service" be a member of the BPA? Surely only their "client" Euro Carparks needs to be that?

I'm just hoping my wife keeps onside and ignores these missives, in the event of any telephones calls I will threaten them with civil action for intimidation.:T

Coupon-mad

Is the letter from Debt Recovery Plus or Roxburghe? They don't have a bailiff side at all so if the letter says 'bailiffs', report them to Trading Standards and the Police for impersonating a bailiff! But they do write [STRIKE]scary[/STRIKE] silly letters and they do belong to the BPA.

I recall that a poster here did write to the BPA and DVLA asking why a debt collector should be an appropriate member of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme and therefore obtain our data. DVLA said they reckon that such debt collectors have 'reasonable cause' to get our data as registered keepers because they act for parking companies...

You couldn't make it up could you?

Have you shown your wife the Watchdog clip and the preview letter pictures shown in the top sticky thread? It's called 'PPC letters & threats' and it's at the top of the forum view you get back to when you click the blue 'breadcrumb link' at the top of this page (as stated in my signature).

Oh, and ECP never do Court, they haven't a clue. They are making a pretence of a 'claim' against a guy with 31 fake PCNs at the moment but that's a one-off and hopelessly doomed! :rotfl:

give_them_FA

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh, and ECP never do Court, they haven't a clue. They are making a pretence of a 'claim' against a guy with 31 fake PCNs at the moment but that's a one-off and hopelessly doomed! :rotfl:

Yeah, if you look at the paperwork, I think they must have got a work experience 15 year old to write the statement of claim, utterly useless, but then again it is a one off, they have never done one before and when they end up getting spanked I don't think they will be doing one again...