Parking charge when store was closed

chrismlclm

Hi,
I received a PCN 3 weeks ago from a company called Euro Parking Services. They're based in Birmingham and have only been in business since the beginning of the year and are part of the IPC group. They're representing 99p stores.
I Used their car park while the store was closed, as it's only recently put up signs, which I didn't notice at the time of parking.
I appealed the charge within the 14 days. My only point was that they had to show me a GPEOL. They replied back to say that they did not have to show a GPEOL and that the charge was the "price" of parking.
I also emailed 99p stores and they just gave me the number to the parking firm and told me they couldn't help.
Do I stand a chance of getting my charge cancelled? Do you think the courts would favor with the PPC, seeing as the store was closed at the time?
The sign said parking is for patrons of the store only. I read about voiding contacts and it said the contact could be voided if the contact was impossible to fulfill. Is this a route I can take, as it was impossible to be a patron of the store at the time of parking.


Many thanks for any help you guys can provide.

Redx

if you appealed it and were turned down, there is nothing you can do

the PPC or landowner has 6 years to take you to court, only a judge can decide who is in the right (or wrong) but with the recent Beavis case being won by PE you have little grounds for complaint, as you were trespassing

by all means try to prepare such a defence as you mention, but dont expect a judge to come down on your side, if you do win it will be on a legal point , like no locus standii etc

beamerguy

chrismlclm wrote: »

Hi,
I received a PCN 3 weeks ago from a company called Euro Parking Services. They're based in Birmingham and have only been in business since the beginning of the year and are part of the IPC group. They're representing 99p stores.
I Used their car park while the store was closed, as it's only recently put up signs, which I didn't notice at the time of parking.
I appealed the charge within the 14 days. My only point was that they had to show me a GPEOL. They replied back to say that they did not have to show a GPEOL and that the charge was the "price" of parking.
I also emailed 99p stores and they just gave me the number to the parking firm and told me they couldn't help.
Do I stand a chance of getting my charge cancelled? Do you think the courts would favor with the PPC, seeing as the store was closed at the time?
The sign said parking is for patrons of the store only. I read about voiding contacts and it said the contact could be voided if the contact was impossible to fulfill. Is this a route I can take, as it was impossible to be a patron of the store at the time of parking.


Many thanks for any help you guys can provide.

Hi, welcome here.
No, that is not the route to take.
Firstly, check the signage in the car park and how much free parking is allowed. Then check to see if they say anything about parking when the store is closed ?

With regards to stating "the charge was the "price" of parking " ?
You need a breakdown of the hourly charge to park at that car park,

GPEOL (genuine pre estimate of loss), this gives the PPC a big problem as they cannot or will not reply. They are pie in the sky amounts which even a court don't understand.

Best to ask for A BREAKDOWN of the amount including VAT, nobody, even a judge would agree to pay an invoice without knowing how it was made up.

That's what you have, a simple invoice with no breakdown.
In the very unlikely event they persue this in court, as long as you have asked for a breakdown which you are entitled to, simply tell the court that they have not or refused to provide the information requested.

The problem we face is that our court system is not uniform, as they say, a different day, a different judge, a different result.
Until that is changed, both PPC's and us have no idea what will happen.

Please understand that PPC's have no legal right, no different you, you could invoice someone but getting it paid is another thing.

AS far as the debt collectors they employ are concerned, warn the PPC that this will be deemed as harassment and every letter thereafter from you will carry a charge of £25 per letter plus a £100 for harassment.
As the law is NOT defined in this mickey mouse industry, doubtful they will ever reply.

They are called COWBOYS for a reason, fight them, they will go back to their hovels waiting for next money prey

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

if you appealed it and were turned down, there is nothing you can do

the PPC or landowner has 6 years to take you to court, only a judge can decide who is in the right (or wrong) but with the recent Beavis case being won by PE you have little grounds for complaint, as you were trespassing

by all means try to prepare such a defence as you mention, but dont expect a judge to come down on your side, if you do win it will be on a legal point , like no locus standii etc

Redx was clearly typing as I was. Redx is right regarding the Beavis V Parking Eye, for the moment ?
It was decided by the Supreme Court that the charges are acceptable and that was it.
AS far as I am aware, no breakdown was part of this case and as each PPC will have different costs, it could not have been

fil_cad

Be strong and DON'T pay unless its monopoly money :rotfl: :money:

beamerguy

fil_cad wrote: »

Be strong and DON'T pay unless its monopoly money :rotfl: :money:

A while ago I would have agreed with you but now, these parking cowboys are now going to highlight the Beavis case using scare tactics.
In reality the Beavis v Parking Eye case featured the fact that the Supreme Court considered the charge fair but that only applied to Parking Eye.
So the challenge now is "what is the breakdown" let's get down to the real nitty gritty of this.

Remember the banks and the charges of £25 a pop, they were challenged and asked for a breakdown, they could not as the CHARGE was a "pie in sky" figure so they lost and it cost them £millions.

PPC 's should now come clean ... if they don't it is unfair trading

All retailers should consider the financial outcome for them

EMPLOY PARKING COWBOYS = LOSE CUSTOMERS AND PROFITS

What will bankrupt them is the refusal of the DVLA TO PROVIDE PPC's of our personal information when we have NOT given the DVLA any permission to do so. Currently by doing so, the DVLA creates STRESS AND HARASSMENT for
the general public, is that what David Cameron wants ??

chrismlclm

Thanks very much for the replies. Really helpful.
Glad I didn't go down the void contract route. Lol
The parking is free for patrons of the car park. So there should be no "price" for parking then? They did say in the letter that the "price" does not have to be commercially justifiable. Is this correct?
I'm going to request a breakdown from them anyway.
It also doesn't say anything about parking in the car park after the store is closed. Only that it's free for patrons of the store.

Redx

there are no "laws" on this topic as such, its an unregulated industry so only a court can decide on the actual legalities of each individual case, yours hasnt gone that far

if there are issues on signage and if they offered the IAS by all means try a legal point appeal based on the signage issues and landowner contracts etc

I doubt you will get anywhere arguing with any PPC, they are a law unto themselves and will refuse any requests from you other than their bank details for you to pay up

I think they will ignore any such requests from you as its in their interests not to provide the info

chrismlclm

Thanks redx. Think I'm getting it now. It's a case by case basis and it's just down to if I can put up a good enough fight to convince the judge.
Thinking that I might just pay up and just be done with it. Been spending WAY too much time reading forums for the past few weeks trying to figure out what to do.

beamerguy

chrismlclm wrote: »

Thanks very much for the replies. Really helpful.
Glad I didn't go down the void contract route. Lol
The parking is free for patrons of the car park. So there should be no "price" for parking then? They did say in the letter that the "price" does not have to be commercially justifiable. Is this correct?
I'm going to request a breakdown from them anyway.
It also doesn't say anything about parking in the car park after the store is closed. Only that it's free for patrons of the store.

They are using the Beavis excuse by saying "does not have to be commercially justifiable"

BUT we are not talking about that now, it's history

Is it your fault that the store is closed ? NO
You tried to shop, it was closed and as the sign does not make comments as to when you can park, I would just reject the invoice until they can tell you a breakdown

beamerguy

chrismlclm wrote: »

Thanks redx. Think I'm getting it now. It's a case by case basis and it's just down to if I can put up a good enough fight to convince the judge.
Thinking that I might just pay up and just be done with it. Been spending WAY too much time reading forums for the past few weeks trying to figure out what to do.

It is your decision whether to pay or not, they look for people who will just pay up, that's how they line their pockets. will you be just another stat for them who gave in ??? hope not