Euro Car Parks...Signage discrepancies?

cash_mad

Hi all,
I got a PCN from the above people, who state that, as a registered keeper of the vehicle, I have incurred a charge of £90, for outstaying my welcome by over an hour. (I am not disputing the timings).
However, the entry sign to the car park, black lettering, out of white background-as per BPA code of practise, is set some 30 feet back from the entry, inside the car park, & mounted up on the camera pole.
At the actual entrance is a blue lettering out of yellow background, stating the terms. It is badly positioned, & cannot be read unless driver looks out of their side window-delaying others in the process.
I have taken date/timed photos of the signs.
I spent a time in a large department store, where I overran the time.
I have been back to the store, leaving a short letter, to give the manager an opportunity to quosh this charge, a copy of the PCN and a copy of receipt as proof of my custom.
I also pointed out that the strict timings of the car park free allowance may mean that they have lost my custom...
Although there is a wealth of info on this site & pepipoo, I don't feel confident to spout law, as I don't actually understand a lot of the language, & am not sure if I can quote, if I can't back it up...
So my question is, can I win an appeal based on poor signage, & perhaps a favourable email from the store?
Thankyou in advance.

Redx

not sure I know the answer as its a major parking company with their own car park I believe, but I suggest you read the NEWBIES-PLEASE READ THIS sticky thread whilst waiting for better guidance

I would say anyone can always appeal on signage, no matter who its with

but also wait for somebody with better knowledge to give you further advice

ps:- read this too, as they won https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4798254

Umkomaas

It's not for you to 'spout law' it's for the PPC to refute any issue you raise in its context. So, for example, you don't have to say, this sign complied with the BPA CoP, but this one didn't, you state that the signage is unclear and does not fully comply with the BPA CoP, the PPC are then put to strict proof that their signage FULLY complies with the CoP.

But there are other things you need to understand and use, signage is one, but not the 'killer'. So have a look at the following - these are really POPLA appeal stuff, you don't need to use all of them in your initial (soft) appeal to the PPC.

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Trespass
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy

But first things first, get your soft appeal into the PPC - don't expect success from that, you need a POPLA code (all explained in the NEWBIES thread).

And I don't think ECP owns/leases any car parks - others might confirm?

Redx

Umkomaas wrote: »

It's not for you to 'spout law' it's for the PPC to refute any issue you raise in its context. So, for example, you don't have to say, this sign complied with the BPA CoP, but this one didn't, you state that the signage is unclear and does not fully comply with the BPA CoP, the PPC are then put to strict proof that their signage FULLY complies with the CoP.

But there are other things you need to understand and use, signage is one, but not the 'killer'. So have a look at the following - these are really POPLA appeal stuff, you don't need to use all of them in your initial (soft) appeal to the PPC.

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Trespass
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy

But first things first, get your soft appeal into the PPC - don't expect success from that, you need a POPLA code (all explained in the NEWBIES thread).

And I don't think ECP owns/leases any car parks - others might confirm?

thanks for the clarifications, must be NCP I am thinking about seeing as the thread I linked to was defended on the usual suspects

but I did ask the OP to wait for better advice as well, which yours clearly is

regards as always

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Well done on complaining properly to the store,.

Dont worry about law issues, you will win anyway with our, if the store dont help then simply appeal the charge and await a reply, if its rejected then come and we will help you win at Popla.

It doesnt matter if you cant back it up because it will be written on and checked on here, then you will win on here and it will be the end of the matter

cash_mad

Oooooooooooooooooh, & I was ready to kiss £50 off...
Thanks v much for your replies, I will work to check on the above points...
I believe that as they can't claim for existing business expenses anyway, they can't claim for pre-estimate of loss. (Although the overstay was in excess of 1 hour-due to the signs being so effectively placed as to be invisible).
The site has a notice to say it is managed by a company, which I won't name yet - but I will phone them in the a m to try & get landowners name.
Tresspass...I doubt it, as it is a free car park, for 3 hours.
Not sure about it being an unlawful penalty charge...wording 'parking charge' is used throughout, but will look this up, in threads.
Last, but not least, ANPC accuracy & upkeep, I can use the paragraphs that are offered on here, as I understand that info !
So, I shall keep digging around, & prepare for my soft appeal to be rejected, doubtless I shall be back as things develop...

Umkomaas

Not sure about it being an unlawful penalty charge...wording 'parking charge' is used throughout, but will look this up, in threads.

If the T&Cs didn't say it was a contractually agreed charge, rather it was the usual charge for a breach of T&Cs, and the level of that charge is not a GPEOL, then there's nothing left other than an unlawful 'penalty'. Private companies have no lawful powers to impose any penalty on anyone.

Redx

cash_mad wrote: »

Oooooooooooooooooh, & I was ready to kiss £50 off...
Thanks v much for your replies, I will work to check on the above points...
I believe that as they can't claim for existing business expenses anyway, they can't claim for pre-estimate of loss. (Although the overstay was in excess of 1 hour-due to the signs being so effectively placed as to be invisible).
The site has a notice to say it is managed by a company, which I won't name yet - but I will phone them in the a m to try & get landowners name.
Tresspass...I doubt it, as it is a free car park, for 3 hours.
Not sure about it being an unlawful penalty charge...wording 'parking charge' is used throughout, but will look this up, in threads.
Last, but not least, ANPC accuracy & upkeep, I can use the paragraphs that are offered on here, as I understand that info !
So, I shall keep digging around, & prepare for my soft appeal to be rejected, doubtless I shall be back as things develop...

they can try to claim a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but usually they issue a charge that is ridiculous and so is in effect a "penalty" or punishment, which they are not allowed to do, so the appeal is based on it being a penalty charge instead of a parking charge , yes they word it as parking but effectively issue a penalty or "fine", hence you get them to prove otherwise !! if you catch my drift ?

you are trespassing as its private land, so unless you have an agreement with the landowner its trespass - no doubt about it , BUT if there are no "damages" incurred then the loss to the landowner is zero , and its those "losses" you are also disputing, especially if there are none !!

the inadequate and non-compliant signage is another issue

as is the contract (or lack of) that allows them to do what they did - another issue

hence you are getting them to prove all the issues and only one is required for a successful appeal outcome at popla

its not about you proving or disproving, but about making them prove their case in legal terms to popla assessors

4consumerrights

And I don't think ECP owns/leases any car parks - others might confirm?

Euro Car Parks (London registered address) has two mortgages outstanding at companies house:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

Euro Car Parks is a wholly owned subsidiary ot ECP (Holdings) PLC which in turn has 37 oustanding mortgages on the books.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

That's the bad news...

However ECP (Holdings) PLC is NOT a public limited company (with shares for the public to buy) it is private.

The shareholders are Brian and Rita Tucker:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01924387/ECP-HOLDINGS-PLC/group-structure#shareholders

cash_mad

4consumerrights, thanks for your post -
why is the news bad?
(I couldn't get the first two links to open, but the last one did, although reading about their company has left me no wiser).
Would it diminish my chance to fight this charge any more do you think?
I could write to the 2 shareholders, but I doubt that I'd get any joy...
TK Maxx hasn't got back to me yet...(suprise)
I am going to work on soft appeal, using cameras as main argument.
Would I be wise to leave the other stuff til POPLA? or do I have to put it all out from the off?
I must admit, I am uncomfortable with lifting templates from here - as the legal language is alien to me, but if I put my appeals up for checking with you more knowledgeable ones, I will give it a go...

Coupon-mad

''Would I be wise to leave the other stuff til POPLA? or do I have to put it all out from the off?''




Either, whatever suits you really. And do write your own version because the examples are not meant to be 'templates'.