Eurocarparks DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Mo_alvi

Coupon-mad said:

You are misunderstanding.  That's talking about the SECOND notice.

Paragraph 8 is only applicable when the first PCN was in the windscreen.

Ok, in that case,  next step is to complain and ask how is the paragraph 8 applicable when this was the first notice received by the keeper. 

Does this sound okay? 

Gr1pr

Plus add that no notice to Keeper PCN has ever been received , so no keeper liability 

Complain as keeper using the complaints link listed in the BPA AOS members list 

Complaining ( or even appealing. ) to a postal letter or invoice does not indicate liability as keeper, or who was driving either.  You are reacting as keeper to a letter or letters demanding money ( what, how , why. ? Are the gist of the complaint. ) 

Let them make the mistakes and give nothing away 

Mo_alvi

Hi All, Thank you for the unimaginable support.

I will be complaining to ECP as BPA complaint section had "Operator complaint outcome". 

Please could someone suggest if the text below needs any amendment? I just want to ensure that no mistakes are made from my end.

"Re PCN number: 8---------
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.
To date, no Notice to Keeper PCN has been received. As such, there is no keeper liability.
The Notice indicates a PCN was issued 'by post,' yet it cites paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, which exclusively pertains to windscreen PCNs.
Please provide evidence substantiating the existence of the supposed first PCN."
Many thanks in advance. Will send the complaint once one of the experts approve the above

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

That's an appeal, not a complaint.

Mo_alvi

Coupon-mad said:

That's an appeal, not a complaint.

"To date, no Notice to Keeper PCN has been received. As such, there is no keeper liability.

The Notice indicates a PCN was issued 'by post,' yet it cites paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, which exclusively pertains to windscreen PCNs.

Please provide evidence substantiating the existence of the supposed first PCN."

should I simply ask them for the points mentioned by yourselves?  Is this okay for a complain? 

Coupon-mad

Google how to structure a complaint letter. Clearly it needs a proper start and ending.

Mo_alvi

Coupon-mad said:

Google how to structure a complaint letter. Clearly it needs a proper start and ending.

Subject: Dispute of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) - 123456789

Dear Eurocarparks,

I am writing to formally dispute the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) number 123456789 issued on 27/9/2024.

I have reviewed the details of the PCN and have identified several discrepancies:

 * Non-Receipt of Notice to Keeper PCN: To date, I have not received a Notice to Keeper PCN. As such, there is no keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 * Inconsistent Citation of Regulations: The Notice indicates that the PCN was issued 'by post,' yet it cites paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. This paragraph exclusively pertains to windscreen PCNs, which contradicts the claim of a postal delivery.

Given these inconsistencies, I request the following:

 * Evidence of First PCN: Please provide verifiable evidence substantiating the existence of the supposed first PCN, including proof of postage and delivery.

 

I trust that you will investigate this matter promptly and fairly. I look forward to a swift resolution to this dispute.

Yours faithfully,

Is this okay? 

Nellymoser

Coupon-mad said:

But instead complain online that no PCN was served by post or to the driver, so why have they cited para 8 of the POFA? Make them explain and prove the existence of the supposed first PCN.

You're not writing to dispute the PCN you are writing to formally complain and you must say that before outlining what you are complaining about.
In addition to details you mention and Coupon-mad advises you could say the first notice received was a final reminder. This denied the keeper or driver the opportunity to pay the discounted amount or appeal the PCN.
Say you will escalate this complaint to BPA if Euro Car Parks response is unsatisfactory. 

Mo_alvi

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally complain about the recent Parking Charge Notice (PCN) number 123456789 issued on 27/9/2024.

The first notice I received was a final reminder, denying the keeper or driver the opportunity to pay the discounted amount or appeal the PCN.

I question the validity of this PCN on the following grounds:

 * Non-Receipt of Notice to Keeper PCN: To date, I have not received a Notice to Keeper PCN. As such, there is no keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 * Inconsistent Citation of Regulations: The Notice indicates that the PCN was issued 'by post,' yet it cites paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. This paragraph exclusively pertains to windscreen PCNs, which contradicts the claim of a postal delivery.

I request the following:

 * Evidence of First PCN: Please provide verifiable evidence substantiating the existence of the supposed first PCN, including proof of postage and delivery.

If Euro Car Parks fails to address this complaint satisfactorily, I will be forced to escalate this matter to the BPA.

I look forward to a prompt and satisfactory resolution to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Could someone please advise if this appears satisfactory? Thank you for your patience.

Coupon-mad

I don't understand.

This still isn't right and reads a bit ChatGPT. When I suggested Googling it I didn't mean use an American bot to write it.

You did get a NTK (the final reminder that cites para 8 of the POFA is trying to be a hybrid NTK, following what they are calling a postal Notice to Driver).  None of it makes sense, as there is no such thing as a postal Notice to Driver.