Euro Car Parks Fine for overstay not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss

ncg

Hi, Picked up on a number of posts on here about disputing these fines. Personally for me this is a matter of principal. I have paid for 6 hours of parking and Euro Car Parks say I have overstayed by 39 Minutes. It was captured by CCTV. There was no notice put on the car. The fine came in via post just over a week later (within 14 days). I have read some of your post NEWBIES etc. I have already put in an appeal largely based on this, which has now been declined, so I now have to decide whether to just pay the fine or hold out and ignore what ever comes next and wait to to see if it goes to court. I feel the strongest argument that is its not Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL) Unfortunately the car park is not local so can't really visit to check the signs and whether they have sufficient etc. (its the Euro Car Parks Manchester-Castelfield) car park. Had a quick look on Google maps and there doesn't seem to be sufficient signage at the entrance, however that may be an old image depending when Google did it, having said that it doesn't actually look so old as it shows work going on in the area for the Tram line which was still going on when I had parked there. As follows was my appeal. I would really appreciate any advise/feedback on the best way to continue to defend this please, its more a matter of principle than the money. Essentially had I paid 50p more on the day I would have had sufficient parking time, I just didn't expect to be there that long. If their argument is someone else could have used the space (the car park was pretty empty actually) For an hour parking it was £1. So how can £100 be a direct reflection on their losses, so this is clearly a fine, which as I understand cannot be enforced?

Feedback greatly appreciated. Thanks

Re PCN number:

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

1. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge.

2. It is noted that you make reference to a "P&D Permit purchased that did not cover the date and time of parking", yet you have not disclosed any further detail about this time and date, this being the case there is no legal basis to make any such claims for charges. Furthermore you are charging a significant amount of money to park on this particular car park. In the case of ParkingEye vs Cairgius it was held that only the hourly charge is being lost but if you claim a parking permit had in fact been purchased then no loss has occurred. An invoice with a charge of £100 is clearly a penalty and as a private company again you have no legal basis to make a penalty claim.

3. The car park in question you refer to yourselves "as the creditor" but again you have chosen not to disclose if your are the legal owners of this land therefore legitimate interest in enforcing a charge. If it is the case that you are not the legal owners of this land then please reply with full details of who is in fact the owners including full address and contact details

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Full details of the "P&D Permit" you refer to and finally the legal owner of this land including contact details and address. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

onlyfoolsandparking

Very unlikely to win on GPEOL, its just so out of date, much more chance of success on 'Signage'


Other more experienced posters will advise a good defence and your absolutely right in not wanting to pay it, make the right moves by following the advice on here and there's a good chance you wont have to pay it.


1. Is ok
2. Is ok but don't expect a decent answer, they never answer until they absolutely have to.
3. They wont disclose Landowner contract details coming out with their usual BS about it being 'Commercially sensitive' of course they will show a Contract at court stage but it will just be a poor WS signed by one of their own dogs saying they have authority.


You should make your letter a SAR!! which will help you and your last bit about only accepting correspondence via first class mail isn't binding upon them, they don't have to comply and probably wont.


I asked them for everything and more in dealing with my PCN and they gave me nothing but 'GENERIC' responses, they don't care, have no morals and are only interested in you paying, keep fighting and learning more about the game you are now in.

ncg

Hi, thanks for your reply. I don't remember what signs there where but they have sent me an image of a sign for that car park and its seems to comply. Don't remember if there was one on at the entrance, however I think the sign they sent in their reply may have been next to the machine, definitely didn't read it though. Just paid for the parking. Didn't realise there where cameras the entrance exit. Very small car park pretty deserted to be honest.

onlyfoolsandparking

Even if their signs do comply don't take the scammers word for it, in fact never believe anything they tell you.


Your in the stage now of investigating as much as possible regarding the car park in question, composing a decent rebuttal letter and then expect the usual generic template reply.


Its all done step by step in reality and you have to take it all on that way


1. PCN (NTK or windscreen)
2. Appeal (usually rejected)
3. POPLA code IF its BPA, if its IAS no appeal, waste of time
4.Debt begging letters (DRP, ZENITH and others)
5 Pretend solicitors letter (Gladrags, BW lying legal)
6 Real solicitors letters (LBA, LBCCC) REBUTTAL letter sent back from you
7 MCOL from the court
8 NEWBIES section learn all about small claims and how to win

ncg

The big questions are. 1 How likely is it they take it to court? 2. How much will this escalate the cost if I lose? and 3. Is it really worth the hassle when its £60 to settle now?

To be honest it really is more about the principal. Part of me wants to just pay and not have it hanging over me, the other says no what the hell right have you got to rip people off like that and why is nobody stopping them.

Snakes_Belly

@ncg. I think that we all have mixed feelings about the merits of defending the claim through the courts. The problem is that these companies are bullies who work on the fact that it is difficult for a lay person to challenge them in courts.

I am a sort of 'feel the fear and do it anyway' kind of person. If I fail, well it will be a lesson in choosing my battles more carefully (but I don't intend to fail). My only worry is that I may come up against Mr Pickup and hysteria might set in.

If you search the board for the name of the PPC you will find if anyone has been taken to court by them.

The Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss will not apply to a short stay free car park. It would be better to illustrate how the Beavis case does not apply to a paid longer stay car park. The Claimant will probably use the Beavis case and you will need to stop that in it's tracks.

The main thrust of many cases is whether a contract was formed by the signage. Where you made sufficiently aware that you would have to pay £100.00 if you failed to meet the terms and conditions?

onlyfoolsandparking

Well that's the million dollar question, some do take to court, some not so much, some of the scammers are bigger 'more likely to do court' than others and that's of course your choice (when you've found out which bracket your scammer falls into) whether you fight it or pay.


I've said before on here some peoples time is worth more to them than others, then of course there is the principle and those that will say if you pay your propping up a company to then carry on scamming, its not an easy decision when you weigh up the pros and cons in more detail.


There are 'people' who are trying to stop them Sir Greg Knight MP for one and many on here who refuse point blank to pay them, again the choice is yours and nobody can really judge you whatever you decide.