Hi all,

First time poster, I've seen some similar threads, but none quite match my situation so I thought best to check with your fine selves before acting. I may even have been informed slightly before action is required too.

The vehicle is company car, and the notice I have a photocopy of has been sent to the Hire/Lease Co.. I assume once they inform ECP that my co. is in charge of the car, and they that I was the driver, then it's mine to fight...

Anyway, our business is IT, I was working at one of the business on the Bishop Centre on 11th May, and they have clocks of me going in and then coming out 4.5hrs later. The free period is apparently 3hrs, and I was there for that time, working on the site.

I had no idea this car park was a) anything but free or b) camera controlled, so wasn't expecting this.

If I'm named as the driver, and this comes back to me, how do I respond? If I was unaware, I can't have entered into any contract, and therefore can't be in breach of it? Correct?

All of the defences I've seen have based around either not being the driver, or having been a legitimate business user. I'm hoping that my company naming me as the driver, and that I wasn't a user of the business, will still give me a reasonable defence?

The PCN mentions £75 due, but £45 within 14 days of that notice, stamped 20th May, which seems a little unfair unless they'll restamp when it's issued to me.

I assume that the company that you were working for has allocated spaces. If so tell them to get the charge cancelled (or you will be adding the amount to your bill) as you had their authority to be there and that overrides ECP's money making contract. If they wont or dont them you appeal to ECP saying that you were entitled to be there by dint of permission form land occupier and they should cancel or supply POPLA code and a copy of their contract that shows an entitlement to override the landowner's authority.

Thanks

It's possible they have spaces, but to be honest I'm not sure, it was a one time visit. And we don't really have a good enough relationship with the customer to start involving them in our parking disputes, I'd rather handle it myself if necessary.

So I need to appeal to Euro saying that I had permission from an occupier to be on the premises and thus that they should cancel the PCN?

Is it for them to prove that I didn't have explicit permission?

Will they ask for the customer I was visiting? Do I have to tell them? Again, I don't really want to involve the customers in this.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

It is for them to prove their claim, not you to disprove it. As it is camera capture they have to send the demand out within 14 days of the alleged breach. The lease co can then either forwrd it to you or tell ECP who was driving it at the time and then ECP are obliged to write to you as the driver. When you get this demand you can respond as above but I would be forewarning the lease co that you wont be paying it and tell them that if they pay it on your behalf you wont be reinbursing them as you accept the liability and they no longer have any interest in the matter.

Excellent, thanks for your help.

No doubt I'll be back when the official paperwork comes through to me. I've already advised my company that I will be contesting it, I doubt the lease co. will pay it, but I'll mention the same to them.

How does this read?

The driver had authority from a land occupier of Bishop's Centre to use the facilities in order to complete chargeable services on their premises as such please cancel this Parking Charge Notice immediately or issue a POPLA code along with a copy of your contract showing your entitlement to override a land owner/occupier's authority.

I also note:

Send cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (to include a

£2.50 handling charge for cheque processing) to...

and

Web payments (an be made online at [redacted] (handling charge of £1.50)

Isn't fair either is it?

Yup, your letter is fine. Unlawful charges at payment and that itself is enough to repudiate any contract. they are dumb.

Just received the following:

Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:

Parking Charge Notice Number: redacted

Vehicle Registration Mark: redacted

Car Park: Bishop Centre - Taplow

Date of Issue: 11/05/15

Time of Issue: 1925

Breach of Terms and Conditions: A

Your vehicle was parked longer than

maximum period allowed

the

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for

the following reasons:

Please be advised that staff and contractors/visitors parking on site are required to provide their

details to the store so that they can be added to an exemption list for the duration of stay. Your details

had not been provided to Euro Car Parks and so the notice was issued correctly. If you were given

authorisation by the store to park on site beyond the maximum period allowed then you should

contact the store to request a cancellation, the store will then forward the cancellation to us following

the correct procedures and we will then have confirmation of your entitlement to park on site on the

day. If no cancellation request is received then this notice should remain payable.

Please make payment of the discounted amount of £45 by visiting our website at

ECP. Please note there is a £1.50 handling charge for credit and debit card

payments. Alternatively make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (to include a £2.50

handling charge for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London,

NW1 6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.

Payment can also be made using our automated telephone service on 020 3553 4559 (no handling

charge is applicable). This amount is now due and the charge will be held for 14 days to allow time to

make the payment. If payment is not received by this time the charge will increase to £75 (plus

applicable handling fee).

You can make an appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) within 28 days online at

POPLA with the following reference number blahblahblah. Alternatively, if you wish to

appeal to the Independent Appeals Service by post a copy of the appeal application can be sent at

your request. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case the ability to

pay the parking charge at the reduced rate will be at an end. If you opt to pay the parking charge

notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the

monies owed to us via debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Best course of action? I do not really want to contact the customer, but if it's the best thing to do then I will.

Having to remove URLs is a pain in the bum by the way

You can cost them money by appealing to POPLA, there are several reasons for your appeal that will defeat their claim without contacting the customer.

I would start off with the old favourite of: The appellamt does not believe that Euro Car Parks have the lawful authority to make claims and take action to recover monies in their own name so demands to see sight of said contract with landowner if one exists.

The appellant had the authority of the occupiers of the land to park there. This authority is superior to any contract that ECP may have, assuming they actually have any authority at all so no breach of contract can have occurred.

That in any case, the appellant does not believe that the amount claimed represents any loss caused by his vehicle being parked on a property they have no interest in and as such is an unlawful penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a schedule of loss. If ECP claim that a loss has occurred then a breakdown of their losses should be provided for the appellant to consider.

Also, ECP is claiming processing costs for payment that are a breach of the consumer contracts regulations, illegal acts making any contract that relies on an unlwful act to fulfil it void as repugnant.

That, my friend, is pretty awesome.

Doing it now.

Thanks.

Submitted, formatted and copied for anyone else's use:

The appellant does not believe that Euro Car Parks (ECP) have the lawful authority to make claims and take action to recover monies in their own name. Demands made by the appellant to see said contract with landowner, if one exists, have been ignored by ECP.

 

The appellant had the authority of the occupiers of the land to park his vehicle in that location, and for the entire duration of his stay. This authority is superior to any contract that ECP may have, assuming they actually have any authority at all, so no breach of contract can have occurred.

 

In any case, the appellant does not believe that the amount claimed represents any loss caused by his vehicle being parked on a property they have no interest in, and as such the penalty is unlawful rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a schedule of loss. If ECP claim that a loss has occurred then a breakdown of their losses should be provided for the appellant to consider.

 

Finally, ECP is claiming processing costs for payment in breach of the consumer contracts regulations, illegal acts making any contract that relies on an unlawful act to fulfill it void as repugnant.

Ok, now you have cost the parking co £27 regardless of the outcome. That is one of the joys of the scheme ( and also why many parking cos are migrating to the IPC, who dont charge as much and always find in the favour of the parking co and then act as a dca and solicitor to get you to pay up. Trouble is they are useless when it comes to matters of fact and the law so the gain for the parking co is temporary)

Received the following this morning, POPLA must not have a lot to do:

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking

 

charge notice number ..., issued in respect of a vehicle with

 

the registration mark ... .

 

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead

 

Adjudicator.

 

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any

 

amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be

 

refunded by the Operator.

Thanks for your help ericsbrother

ECP have bailed out to save a tree and a couple of quid in postage. They may well not have to pay the £27 fee by claiming that they cancelled the ticket before POPLA got involved but that would be a stretching the truth a bit. Still doesnt matter to you.

Well done to you for challenging them when most just pay up and complain afterwards.

Wicked.

Well impressed

Quick question. Is that last bit some legaleese or a bit wrong?

"illegal acts making any contract that relies on an unlawful act to fulfill it void as repugnant."

I think that was a slight typo by ericsbrother...

The general gist of it being, you cannot form (or rely on) a contract that originates from or includes an illegal act. By charging £1.50 or £2.50 they render the whole contract repugnant in (conflict with or incompatible with) law. Whilst they are legally (if not morally) allowed to charge a processing fee, that fee cannot be for more than it actually costs them to process the payment.

Which even on the worst banking terms you can imagine wouldn't be anywhere near £1.50 for a card payment or £2.50 for a cheque.

I think that was a slight typo by ericsbrother...

 

The general gist of it being, you cannot form (or rely on) a contract that originates from or includes an illegal act. By charging £1.50 or £2.50 they render the whole contract repugnant in (conflict with or incompatible with) law. Whilst they are legally (if not morally) allowed to charge a processing fee, that fee cannot be for more than it actually costs them to process the payment.

 

Which even on the worst banking terms you can imagine wouldn't be anywhere near £1.50 for a card payment or £2.50 for a cheque.

Thanks for that, I thought the 'English' looked a bit strange even for legalese, although I am still unclear as to how such a small handling charge would be deemed unreasonable when handling charges are allowed.

ie £25-£50 for a banks automated systems to process a bounced check where the actual costs would probably be less than a pound!

(Not standing up for the bandits here, just want to be on solid ground should such a thing occur again to me since the change in laws/practices)

would the following be more 'correct' if the charges are indeed illegal?

Finally, ECP is claiming processing costs for payment in breach of the consumer contracts regulations, making any contract that relies on them an unlawful act to fulfill and void as repugnant.

the banks charge an amount that is agreed beforehand when you open the account, it is part of their terms and conditions. With this it is a charge that is applied at the point of payment and bears no relationship to any agreement that may have existed that caused the debt otherwise the notice would say the contractual charge is £76.50 including payment processing. This makes the additional charge an unfair condition in a consumer contract and is this unlawful. Also they appear to be refusing to take payment by legal tender without the addition of a handling fee and again that is unlawful under the Coinage Act.

Either way, it is a contractual condition that is unlawful and renders the original contract void

the banks charge an amount that is agreed beforehand when you open the account, it is part of their terms and conditions. With this it is a charge that is applied at the point of payment and bears no relationship to any agreement that may have existed that caused the debt otherwise the notice would say the contractual charge is £76.50 including payment processing. This makes the additional charge an unfair condition in a consumer contract and is this unlawful. Also they appear to be refusing to take payment by legal tender without the addition of a handling fee and again that is unlawful under the Coinage Act.

Either way, it is a contractual condition that is unlawful and renders the original contract void

Thank You for that enlightening explanation ericsbrother

It was the bit that said charges were legal if immoral that threw me.