PCN from Euro Car Parks - signage very misleading - do I pay, ignore or appeal?

Exodi

Fruitcake said:

Euro Car Parks won't own the car park.

Can you be more specific as GSV throws up about a dozen car parks using the information you supplied. A GSV link would be best.

Working backwards from the location code provided by the OP, it looks to be 'Cornhill Street Car Park' on Google Maps.

You can see the infamous £5.50 (not) ALL DAY sign if you click the 'Photos > sign' (taken only a couple of months ago) and if you have your magnifying glass out, you can also see the actual pricing by the meter on the left.

I'm guessing from the 2 star rating that the scammers have been hard at work. I'm sure the person that typed that POPLA response had trouble keeping a straight face (but the response was completely predictable).

VT82

Thanks everybody. We will await the letters. I have also reported it to my local councillor who has forwarded it to the relevant department in the city council to be investigated.

fisherjim

VT82 said:

Thanks everybody. We will await the letters. I have also reported it to my local councillor who has forwarded it to the relevant department in the city council to be investigated.

Can't be a council owned car park though I doubt you will get much joy there unfortunately.

Snakes_Belly

When is a day not a day. When it's a Euro Car Park day.  

VT82

Hi kind folks. There has been a development on this after more than 2 years.

After ignoring the usual string of letters, and then almost a year of silence, Euro Car Parks are taking us to court! We assume they are just trying it on in the hope we ignore the letter or have moved, and hence they will get a CCJ against us by default? We are going to reply, reject the claim, and are fairly confident we will win - the car park actually changed its signage in June 2023 after being challenged by the council (spurred on by us) about it being misleading. We have the evidence for this.

Question is, as part of our rejection, should we also counter-claim for any sort of harassment? We do feel very harassed, and could do without this extra life admin, but don't suppose being taken to court is sufficient grounds for claiming to be harassed? Any advice is appreciated.

Car1980

All very good advice - except we know ECP never file court claims.  At all.

Yep, this was the correct advice at the time. Ironically ECP suddenly became the most litigious company in the country when DCB Legal knocked on their door with a big bag of cash and kindly said "we'll take all those old tickets off your hands, and keep on forwarding them to us."

There is no need to win your court claim because it will be discontinued. So the best approach is to just chill out and regard it has just filling in some online forms.

Don't bother with a counter claim. Anybody is allowed to send anyone else an invoice and then sue if it's not paid. You're actually expected to "harass" the non-payer as court should be a last resort. Your best approach is to request costs after they discontinue for unreasonable behaviour. Submitting a witness statement slightly early is a good tactic if you're intent on this.

You now need to submit your Acknowledgment of Service through MCOL.

Your defence will be the template defence in the stickied thread, with a custom version of paragraph 3.

Post what you intend to write for P3 here for feedback. Also let us know the particulars of claim. Presumably it's through DCB Legal.

VT82

Thank you. Draft paragraph 3:

The ticket in question was received, despite having paid the tariff of £5.50 for what was advertised as 'all day' parking on multiple large signposts throughout the car park. The period of parking was approximately 7:30am to 8:30pm. It was only in the small print of the tariff board that stated costs of £5.50 for up to 12 hours and £6.00 for up to 24 hours. Any reasonable person would consider 'all day', as advertised on the largest signs in the car park, to incorporate the hours of parking made use of on this occasion. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 prevents a business's 'small print' from overriding promises made in a prominent headline or other clear advertising. Indeed, the claimant was challenged by the council in June 2023 over its misleading signage, and - in an obvious acceptance of its misleading practice - updated 'all day' to instead read as '12 hours' on the large signs throughout the car park. As such, I consider there to be no breach of contract for which a claim can be made, given that the period of parking was within the timeframe covered by 'all day', and the appropriate tariff of £5.50 was paid.

1505grandad

"We assume they are just trying it on in the hope we ignore the letter or have moved,...."

Just checking  -  is the letter the actual claim form from CNBC?  -  if so can you post a post a copy redacting your personal data including VRM, password etc but leave all dates showing.

VT82

I think so but I am currently in the office and the letter is at home. Will check later. The date was 2nd September, meaning we should absolutely acknowledge sometime between the 7th (9th?) and 21st (23rd?) off the top of my head?