Judge ruled against me Euro Parking Services / Gladstone / Birmingham Coach Station

foedel

Let me preface this by saying that I did not follow the advice on the forum. I should probably have asked here, but I didn't and the result was bad. I am sharing this here so that people may comment on the things I did wrong, and hopefully the knowledge here will help someone else in a similar situation. I will indicate my mistakes, and I hope forumites here will also indicate the other places I erred. I will try to attach the [redacted] trial bundle in a comment. Enjoy picking it apart.

TLDR; Went to Birmingham coach station, entered the free car park for 3 minutes, left because the coach I was expecting was delayed. Came back after 54 minutes flouting their "NO RETURN 1HR" rule.

The judge said the rule is there to prevent taxi drivers from abusing the consideration period for picking up travellers. He said the signs were clear, he sympathises and I made a mistake but he ruled in their favour. Ordered me to pay £100 + £112 in their costs.

Full story

In 2024, I went to Birmingham coach station to pick family up. Entered the car park and saw that it only permitted 30 minutes stay. The coach I was waiting for was delayed, so I left to park somewhere else. I then came back to the car park when the coach arrived. The first entrance into the car park was 3 minutes 42 seconds, I came back after 54 minutes and parked for 32 minutes. The claimants argument was that I flouted their no return within 1 hour rule.

When the PCN letter arrived, I responded almost immediately (mistake #1). I used AI to generate an appeal (mistake #2), where I indicated that I was the driver of the vehicle, and they must understand that I wasn't in the car park for that long in the first instance. They predictably rejected the appeal and it went on to mediation and then court.

My witness statement was me arguing that the IPC code stipulates a consideration period where a motorist can decide whether to accept the terms and conditions for parking or not. The judge rejected that argument. He said I am conflating two things, and that the consideration period is only for drivers to decide if they want to park or not based on if maybe the car park is too expensive. Their rule is that you may not return within an hour, and consideration period or not, the moment I entered the land, I was bound by that rule.

Nothing else that I said could change his mind. Disappointing result, but I'll chalk it to a learning experience.

Edit: Can't attach the PDF but happy to paste any requested information.

foedel

The judge did dismiss the £60 they tacked on top of the £100, and didn't award any interest. Small win I suppose.

Coupon-mad

Gladstones don't act for Euro Car Parks. You mean Euro Parking Services Ltd?

My witness statement was me arguing that the IPC code stipulates a consideration period where a motorist can decide whether to accept the terms and conditions for parking or not. The judge rejected that argument. He said I am conflating two things, and that the consideration period is only for drivers to decide if they want to park or not based on if maybe the car park is too expensive. Their rule is that you may not return within an hour, and consideration period or not, the moment I entered the land, I was bound by that rule.

I think this was a decent argument.

The first arrival & immediate leaving didn't count as a 'stay' because you rejected the contract and there is nothing that says the consideration period is only to consider if the car park is too expensive. He made that bit up.

That is a stretch and effectively means he has let them have £100 for that first 3 minute non-event, without which they could not have pursued you. The idea of the 'no return' clause applying in these circumstances is profiteering (an unfair term) in my view, especially as you didn't take up a bay, you were quick to vacate the site, so there was no 'parking event' first time.

At least you have proved us right that the worst case scenario is £212.

Gr1pr

Agreed, definitely NOT Euro Car Parks , ECP, Must be EPS, especially if Gladstones were involved

Its good to see that the typical loss figure is definitely £212 in a court claim hearing about a single pcn

foedel

My mistake, it is Euro Parking Services LTD.

Thanks for your response. That was my entire argument as well. My first entry did not count as parking, and I did not accept their terms on that entry. Argued it in as many ways as I could, but the judge wouldn't budge.

Does leave a sour taste in my mouth because preparing for this was both time consuming and anxiety inducing. Rulings like these make one feel like it's better to just pay the £60 to make them go away.

Gr1pr

Ok, but please edit your thread title etc to name EPS

Nobinium

Not specific to this, but it worries me if/when such simple private parking cases go to court. At that point, is it just not better to pay the parking charge to avoid such an anxiety-inducing and time-consuming court case? I guess it depends on you, whether you can go the way to fight it in court. It's just sad that it does end up at that stage and then you have a judge like the OP's.

I know the above is essentially admitting defeat, which is against what all of us here are about, but going to such lengths to get a ruling like that feels utterly humiliating to me.

It's really sad and it continues to anger me how the Government are continuing to let these private parking companies profiteer. I do wonder whether there is an end in sight to this.

Coupon-mad

There is an end in sight. I promise. 😎

James_Poisson

Well I think the Judge was in a strange place IMHO:

"My witness statement was me arguing that the IPC code stipulates a consideration period where a motorist can decide whether to accept the terms and conditions for parking or not. The judge rejected that argument. He said I am conflating two things, and that the consideration period is only for drivers to decide if they want to park or not based on if maybe the car park is too expensive".

But surely there is an argument that you can also decide that the bus is 54 minutes late I won't park yet.

"he claimants argument was that I flouted their no return within 1 hour rule".

But isn't that rule ambiguous when does the hour begin, also how can they pin the hour rule on a VRN when there might have been two drivers none of that is included in their contract?

As I understand it when there is an ambiguity in the contract the one that favours the consumer is the one that should be adopted. Also if the rule applies to taxi drivers it should state that, the judge just made that up!

As for just paying up, at £60 that also depends on the PPC involved ,some just use the courts as a threat and never go there, you wouldn't just pay up if this was for example APCOA.

Johnersh

It's possible to overthink this. Trial is always a risk. Lawyers talk about litigation risks for exactly that reason.

You are seeking to persuade an individual judge; an argument that works before one tribunal might not work before another. People need to understand this.

That said, given that ppcs randomly add sums to the primary debt and apply interest incorrectly, once you're past the discount period, it's easy to see why many defendants feel obliged to seek a hearing.

Bet the claimant didn't file a costs schedule, which is non compliant and inhibits argument on cost/time spent. The court then excluded a significant % of the pleaded claim. Tempting to ask for costs to be disallowed.

Car1980

He said I am conflating two things, and that the consideration period is only for drivers to decide if they want to park or not based on if maybe the car park is too expensive.

A contract is formed or it isn't formed.

You can't say a contract hasn't been formed because it was rejected over price, yet the same contract has been formed if it was rejected over poor lighting, or a simple change of mind.

We know the Midlands circuit has some poor judges. Euro Parking Services will always go to a hearing in certain favourable courts.