ECP DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Harmonyguru

The driver of this car attempted to pay after staying in a Euro car park but when they inputted the registration it said they had only just arrived. There was no way of speaking to anyone or calling anyone to address. There was also no way of changing the time. A photo of the car park terms and conditions also clarifies that payment was to be made upon exiting the car park. They also kept a pdf receipt of this payment as they wanted to make sure there was proof that an attempt to pay for the parking was made. 2 weeks later they received a letter to say their payment did not cover the duration. As the owner of the car, I made an appeal to Euro Car Parks stating all of this but it was rejected, even though their correspondents ignored the fact that their machines incorrectly read the time of the vehicle when parking payment was made. I would massively appreciate it if someone could take a look through the evidence I have provided and let me know if it's worth my time to go through POPLA to make a formal appeal.

Driver has already been identified in the first rejected appeal.

Do I have a case and so I have a reasonable chance of winning?

Gr1pr

Show us redacted pictures of both sides of the PCN 

Then study the BPA CoP version 9 section 13 plus the extra notes regarding consideration periods plus grace periods etc too

The CoP should mention that the monitored time starts at the entry time, not the payment time 

Why does the receipt mention £2.50 when the sign mentions £3. ?

h2g2

Gr1pr said:

Why does the receipt mention £2.50 when the sign mentions £3. ?

The receipt says £2.50 excluding VAT + (£2.50 * 20% = £0.50) VAT for a total of £3 including VAT. So there's no error on that single point. (Not to otherwise justify the PCN.) 

Gr1pr

Ok , so post the 2 redacted pictures then 

Harmonyguru

Sorry thought these had already been added in my previous post. I've also added a redacted copy of the rejection letters.

Gr1pr

So they allege that the vehicle was onsite for almost 5 hours, so 8 hours is £6.50 , so why did the payment go through at £3 and not the full £6.50 at the time the driver paid and left . ? A discrepancy of £3.50 unpaid 

There is a phone number on the sign and also they are a big company with a website, so why wait until a PCN arrived. ? It should have been sorted by phone that night or the following day by the driver, as a faulty machine problem 

Ps

The times on the rejection letter dont match those in the NTK PCN letter 

The payment covered the one hour in the rejection letter despite them showing the one hour times, plus they alleged that it was onsite for 4 hours and 48 minutes ! It cannot be both 

LDast

The OP has already been advised elsewhere about this. They have identified themself to be the driver so there is no point in looking for non compliance with PoFA.

The following was suggested as your main point of appeal to POPLA:

The car park operates as a Pay on Exit facility in the following manner:

1. When a car enters the car park, its Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) and entry time are recorded automatically.

1. Upon exiting, the driver must enter their VRM. The system calculates the payment due, which is displayed on a screen.

1. After the payment is made, the barriers rise, allowing the vehicle to exit.

The driver only needs to enter their VRM; no other input is required, and the payment amount cannot be altered by the driver.

Although a tariff board is displayed, it serves only as information. The driver is required to pay the amount calculated by the check-out system and cannot estimate the charge based on the tariff.
In this case, the driver entered their correct VRM upon exit and paid the amount demanded by the system. The creditor does not dispute these facts.

However, the keeper later received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) alleging that the driver did not pay the correct tariff for their time on site due to a system error in calculating the amount due. The specific times and tariffs are included in the creditor's evidence, but the issue at hand is one of principle and accountability, not details.

In summary, the creditor seeks to impose a parking charge due to a failure in their own system. I argue that, as a matter of law, common sense, and fairness, this appeal should be upheld.

Harmonyguru

Does anyone know how I may look into identifying the landowner of this car park? Or at this point is that strategy pointless?

Gr1pr

Fruitcake and Umkomaas regularly post that advice on here in numerous threads

Its never pointless to contact the landowner 

The advice above by Ldast should be followed too, same as the advice over on the ftla parking forum 

fisherjim

So what time did you actually enter the car park 17:55 or 22:38?

This whole sorry thing shows why ANPR is not fit for purpose!

Umkomaas

Gr1pr said:

Fruitcake and Umkomaas regularly post that advice on here in numerous threads

Its never pointless to contact the landowner 

The advice above by Ldast should be followed too, same as the advice over on the ftla parking forum 

SOME IDEAS FOR DETERMINING WHO OWNS THE LAND 

1. Google searches

2. If a retail park, check on any signage which lists the on-site outlets

3. Ask retailers on the site if there is a managing agent

4. Ask retailers on the site to whom do they pay rent

5. Contact the local authority and ask who pays the non-domestic/business rate for the car park (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website)

6. Contact the local Valuation Office and ask if they know. They often have a website which might provide the information 

7. Contact The Land Registry and for around £3 they should be able to provide definitive detail

8. If you haven't already done so, give us the name of the car park/site/location, we may have seen other cases there.