Observing Euro Car Parks Ltd in court yesterday

Blindside6

Some key take-outs:

ECPL was represented by a local solicitors' agent from a neighbouring city, as expected. Decent enough lad and mostly passive.

Defendant (D) was an unaccompanied, bewildered, unemployed lady. A person of colour, her English was quite good, but thought she was in a criminal court over fines and not a civil justice centre (county court) over parking charges.

It was a block list and, of course, her case came on last, after a wait of almost two hours, which didn't assist.

Well-regarded district judge (DJ), runs a good court but known to get the law wrong in at least one high profile case locally (faked car crash). Tried to put D at ease at all times, as best he could in circumstances

Claim forms were ECPL boilerplate. 3 PCNs in a West Yorkshire town during May to August, 2022, to which D had recently moved from a different county.

D had contacted DVLA to change driving licence, forgot to change V5C.

Tracing agents located D in 2024 and, subsequently, after settlement offers from D were rejected, ECPL, via DCB Legal, issued three separate claims. The usual £100 PCN, £70 'damages', £35 court fee, £50 solicitor's costs plus interest.

At some stage, the three claims had been consolidated into one. Probably the allocating judge under case management powers. Why DCB had issued three, and not one, was not explored and ultimately cost D an extra £170.

D had issued several defence statements in close succession, the judge allowed in the second (which was threadbare) but didn't allow in the third (with which she had received assistance from an on-line template) because no application had been made for permission. Strict reading of Rules, but there we are. 

The judge didn't apply the same strictness - and other DJs don't in my experience - in noting the claim form as breaching CPR 16.5(4) and striking it out. Or applying cost sanctions.

He also appeared to read from a ECPL Reply to the third Defence (the one that was effectively struck out) which appeared, from my vantage point at least, to be procedurally defective. 

He also relied on PoFA 2012 for 'the keeper is driver if not denied' interpretation, rather than the more recent case law VCS v Edward [2023]. The point was moot, however, because D admitted she was the driver.

A redacted form of the contract, said to exist between ECPL and landowner, was exhibited and had not been challenged by D.

In the end, the judge awarded judgment to ECPL but removed the three £70 charges. The photos of the contract-forming signage in the hearing bundle did not mention the £70, the judge noted, and gave that reason for striking out those sums.

He also reduced the interest claimed at 8% since issue to 2% for 6 months, thus bringing down the amount payable from £111 to £28. Leaving the defendant with a total judgment of £583 for short overstays at car parks that, at the material time, charged £1.80 for a ticket allowing 2 hours parking.

The judge also expressed his concern over the statute of limitations applying to recovering car parking charges. Six years was too long, he observed. Only last week he'd heard a claim involving charges from 2020. That was a matter for the legislators, he correctly added, not the judiciary.

Leaving the court, my overarching view was that, better represented from the outset (Citizens' Advice Bureau - or, perhaps, landing on this MSE forum in time), the claims would never have reached the hearing stage.

Instead, the vultures get to divy up £583 between them, from a member of the public who can ill afford it and whose faith in British justice is seriously dented.

Hope this is helpful and informative to forum members.

Coupon-mad

You've summed it up. Poor lady.

A typical parking industry victim.

This is SO WRONG.

And why didn't the judge engage his brain and realise that he shouldn't be granting all three claim issue fees and three lots of (capped!) legal fees in a case where the C had negligently split the PCNs up and tripled some of the costs?

Ten years ago, some of us forum regulars at the time used to just rock up to various courts and offer to help parking case defendants as Lay Reps or Mckenzie friends, rather than just watch cases. People were so relieved. Not many turned down the offer of free help.

A few posters also sent amicus curiae notes to the judge (on the spot) pointing out important issues such as a non-POFA NTK that the hapless D had no hope of knowing about. Just to set the case balance a bit straighter, instead of the C's rep being allowed to walk all over the victims.

Blindside6

Because of my status within the court systems (civil and criminal), I could not assist the lady as a litigation friend at the hearing yesterday. Much as I was aching to do so, the roles are mutually inconsistent.

The judge is open to some criticism, of course, but criticising his brain-power is not one that can be fairly applied.

It is as old as the hills that DJs lean to represented parties when lay litigants are before them on the other side of the front bench. For the simple reason, viewed through this observer's lens, that their judgement is likely to be appealed.

The main point I drew from yesterday is: How do we reach the victims of the car park scammers (or as many as humanly possible) before it is too late to assist them efficiently and effectively in defeating the PPCs?

This forum does a good job, mostly, but the issue is worthy of serious and far wider political intervention; locally (via ward councillors), regionally (Mayors and county councillors) and UK-wide (MPs). All of them stakeholders as the car parks scams are on their patches and the victims, in vast numbers, are voters/constituents in one form or another.

Food for thought?

Coupon-mad

Yes, certainly. Always open to ideas.