Euro Car Parks lose in court !

bargepole

memphis73 wrote: »

Here you are...

I had to check my calendar to make sure it isn't April 1st. This is the most amateurish attempt at a court claim I've ever seen.

And they are still quoting CPS v Thomas from 2008 - absolutely laughable.

taffy056

There a re a few glaring mistakes on this, the first one is that RK becomes liable, um no its not! I suggest OP that you send a copy of this letter to the DVLA. Its got nothing to do with them where the vehicle is registered, it could be at a trading address of the person involved, they are trying to pass them selves off as some kind of gatekeeper for the DVLA. Also what has it got to do with them where you get advice from? Why is it relevant at all? And the CPS Thomas one is from 4 years ago, hardly recent is it?

esmerobbo

bargepole wrote: »

I had to check my calendar to make sure it isn't April 1st. This is the most amateurish attempt at a court claim I've ever seen.

And they are still quoting CPS v Thomas from 2008 - absolutely laughable.

You can see why they didn't want to appear in person if that was the best they could do thinking about it, imagine how poor they would have been in court, thinking on the move!

ManxRed

Did they really get a CCJ against you?

That's a cracking letter, many thanks for the amusement value alone. CPS v Thomas, brilliant!

BASFORDLAD

esmerobbo wrote: »

You can see why they didn't want to appear in person if that was the best they could do thinking about it, imagine how poor they would have been in court, thinking on the move!

I wonder if they went to the same high quality Solihull Law school like perky did

memphis73

ManxRed wrote: »

Did they really get a CCJ against you?

No ! I think their legal department might have thought the hearing was the same as a CCJ ?!

marleyboy

Well done OP - I imagine you was their test case in court. Albeit turned into another statistic they would rather nobody knows about.

ManxRed

memphis73 wrote: »

No ! I think their legal department might have thought the hearing was the same as a CCJ ?!

Thought so. Idiots.

WageSlave1_2

So, no reason at all given as to why they were choosing to stay away from the hearing. They are a big outfit with a pretty hefty income. Their last filed accounts said they had £1.4 million pounds in the bank (rather more than I have). They have 810 employees or thereabouts and not one of them could be spared to attend court?

I suppose the lesson to be drawn is just because they might be big and have a lot of money doesn't mean they aren't a chickenshit outfit {> cluck, cluck, cluck<}

Might be worth pressing Sainsbury's to disclose their contract with Euro Car Parks if it was not provided during the course of the litigation.

In the VCS v Ibbotson case Judge McIlwaine gave VCS a bit of a duffing up over the fact that their contract with Wickes did not give them the right to sue people. It is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice (Clause 6) that the contract should state whether or not the member has this right.

If they litigated without having an express provision in the contract perhaps a complaint might be made to the BPA so that those super-secret and hugely ignorable 'sanction points' might be awarded against them?

Driver8

In receipt of the CCJ !!

What a bunch of absolute rank amateurs. A ten year old could have composed a better letter.

I bet ECP hate us, tough. Just think how many people are going to see this, they're ill gotten gains will fall even further. Ha ha.