Jump to content

Dorchester

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dorchester

  1. I can only report on my personal experience with ECP. After sending a letter to them last July (pdf copy attached), nothing whatsoever has been heard from them. If nothing else, this proves that at least one person in their office can actually read! Lletter to ECP -Details Redacted.pdf
  2. It also states (in 34.4) of the BPA Code of Practice:- "You must give drivers advance notice of all parking charges before they enter into the contract for parking services." So, even if it was possible to read the exceedingly small print at the bottom of the photographed notice (which I doubt very much), unless the additional charges stated on the rear of the NTK (that they impose for paying by certain means), are listed on the signage, they are not complying with the CoP. If the additional charges are NOT listed on the signage, but later appear on the rear of the NTK, then this constitutes an unconscionable post-contract act, thus rendering the formation of any contract that may have been made with the parking company and the vehicle driver/keeper null and void and thus unenforceable in Law.
  3. I don't know if this information may help you supermancss, but when my son-in-law overstayed in a ECP monitored car park last July, he asked me to look into the legality of the extortionate sum that they were attempting to extract from him. On the rear of the PCN that he had received, were listed the various accepted methods of paying their 'speculative invoice'. Some of these attracted additional charges, e.g. an extra £1.50 for paying on line and an extra £2.50 for paying by cheque. None of these additional charges were shown on any of the signs displayed in the car park in question. I therefore drafted a letter for him to send to ECP, the main points of which are listed below:- The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The law covers this situation adequately with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which clearly provides under group 5 para 1(e) that "Terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionate high sum in compensation”. This means that Euro Car Parks can only charge a sum which accurately reflects the loss of income suffered arising from that breach. Insofar as my vehicle exited the car park 15 minutes late, the additional charge, if any, should be the cost of a 15 minute ticket. As there were several other parking spaces available in the car park during the entire period that my vehicle was there, it could equally be contended at Law that no actual loss whatsoever was suffered. Your stated Payment Options contain unlawful financial demands. The additional charges that you levy (£1.50 for payment online and £2.50 for paying by cheque) are not clearly stated on the signage in the car park; they are only shown on the rear of the PCN. This constitutes an unconscionable post-contract act, thus rendering the formation of any contract that may have been made with your company null and void and thus unenforceable in Law. N.b. - ECP may have altered their signage, or alternatively removed the additional charges since last July, so check the latest situation before considering the above. Needless to say, since sending the letter, nothing has been heard from ECP. I hope that the above may help.
  4. In the hope that it may be of assistance to other board members, I attach a copy of the actual letter that I sent to ECP Regards, David
  5. Thanks to your excellent and concise information given to me earlier in this thread ericsbrother, I confirmed in Post #19 that they are now out of time to chase me as the RK! So that's one in the eye for ECP - and all thanks to you wonderful learned CAGgers. Thanks & regards, David
  6. Thank you for your correction. You are absolutely correct dx, but in my defence, the letter was written several weeks ago, when I was totally ignorant with regard to these 'robbers' and their underhand tactics. Since then it has been a steep learning curve for me. I now fully realise that these 'robbers' have absolutely no authority and even less credibility; attributes that they will never possess! Thanks & regards, David
  7. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448580-PCN-from-Euro-Car-Parks-Is-it-Legal&p=4780870#post4780870 Attached to the last post in the above thread is a pdf of the letter that I sent which persuaded them to take no further action. Please feel free to use it should you wish.
  8. In the hope that it may be of assistance to other board members, I attach a copy of the actual letter (above) that I sent to ECP Regards, David
  9. Many thanks ericsbrother for the full and concise answer, for despite lengthy searching, I failed to find a definitive answer. You have just confirmed to me that Euro Car Parks have obviously decided not to pursue this matter with me. So very many thanks once again to you and all fellow CAGgers who have assisted in this victory against the "robbers". Regards, David
  10. Many thanks for your reply f16. Looks like that's one in the eye for ECP then! - which I probably couldn't have achieved without the help of the kind, learned folks on here. Please do not think that I am being pedantic, but when does the '35 days' count start? Is it from when the letter is posted? From scanning many posts, all that I get is "They must reply within 35 days" or "They have 35 days in which to reply", but no where does it say when the 35 days starts or ends! Does anyone know for sure? Thanks & regards David
  11. Well, I sent the Letter of Appeal to ECP on July 8th, which was based on the points that I mentioned in my first post, and also requested that they issue me with a POPLA code should they think fit to dismiss my appeal. To date I have received no response from them. I seem to remember reading somewhere that if they have not issued me with a POPLA code within 35 days of the date of submitting my appeal to them, then the Registered Keeper liability disappears. Could any of you learned gents please confirm that this is the case, and also kindly clarify if the 35 days commences on the date of me posting my letter, or if it commences on the date when they received the letter? I do have proof of posting the letter (1st Class) to them, but no confirmation of when they actually received it. Many thanks in anticipation of your reply on this matter. David
  12. Thanks once again for the advice. I will get the appeal letter off to ECP and request a POPLA code should they reject the appeal - which they probably will. This probably means that I shall be bothering you learned GAGgers yet again at that stage!
  13. Thanks for the reply renegadeimp, your input really is appreciated. I shall appeal to ECP on those grounds - although it will probably be disallowed. Should I still mention in my appeal the points raised in my original post, simply adding the 'grace period' thing to them, or is it better to keep the originally-mentioned points for the POPLA appeal? Finally, should I request from ECP a copy of the document that legally permits them to act on behalf of the landowner? Thanks & regards
  14. Thanks for the helpful reply. The signage at the car park MAY have been unreadable, but unfortunately I did not photograph the sign and thus have no evidence to corroborate my claim. Should I still make that claim to them? If they later ask what part of their signage was unclear or unreadable, I would have no answer! - and it would mean a 300 mile round trip from my home to obtain a photo. You mention their rubbish signage; Do they generally have some legal flaws, omissions or errors contained on them? Could a 15 minute overstay be 'absorbed' as you describe above? Having checked The BPA CofP Guidelines, Section 13 (that refers to ''Grace Periods') does not specify or suggest what this time period should be. Is there a 'standard' or 'normal' grace period that is allowed? I am sorry to ask so many questions of you knowledgeable members, but being a newbee I am not fully up to speed on the best course of action to take. Its just that I do not like these robbing devils taking my hard earned cash! Thanks & regards
  15. Unfortunately we were only visiting that area and did not tale any photographs at the time.. Actually reside in Leicestershire, so it's a long way to travel to take a photo of the car park!
  16. Hello dx, and thanks for the swift response. There was no ticket placed on the vehicle. Notification of the alleged offence (on 28/05/15) was received by letter (dated 04/06/15), that contained photographs of the car registration plate entering and leaving the car park at 17:12h and 18:27h respectively. I did not respond to this original correspondence, and the NTK was dated 26/06/2015
  17. Hello, I have just received a "Notice to Keeper" from Euro Car Parks demanding payment of an £80 parking charge for overstaying my allotted time by 15 minutes in a private car park in Wish Street, Rye, on 28/05/2015. I did have a previous letter on 06/06/2015 requesting the Parking Charge, and, after reading many various posts on the board, decided to take the general advice given regarding 'speculative invoices', decided to ignore it. That was before I realised that the Law was changed in 2012 making the Registered Keeper ultimately liable for the charge, and that the "just ignore it" advice was in given in posts that preceded that date! I did overstay my limit, but I have reservations about the legality of their payment demand, as they have not substantiated the actual loss to the landowner, and they also impose various financial penalties for certain payment methods. I propose to reply to them stating that their demand is illegal for the following reasons:- 1. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In this case, the £80 charge being demanded far exceeds the cost to the landowner of the vehicle overstaying the time paid for by 15 minutes. It is in fact disputable that any actual loss was incurred by the landowner, as there were many unoccupied spaces in the car park during the last twenty minutes that the vehicle was there. 2. Your stated Payment Options contain unlawful financial demands. The additional charges that you levy (£1.50 for payment online and £2.50 for paying by cheque) constitute an unconscionable act, thus rendering the formation of any contract that may have been made with your company null and void. Would any of you kind experts on these matters please comment on my proposed reply to them, and possibly suggest any improvements that I might make? As a newcomer to this forum, I would greatly appreciate any assistance regarding this matter. Thanks and regards
×
×
  • Create New...