Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Euro Car Parks - Illegal tickets??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4923 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey there,

 

I parked in a Chislehurt Sainburys car park about 3 weeks ago. Because it was one of the nicest days of the year me and my friends wandered around Chistlehurst high street and the park, popping in and out of sainburys a few times. When I got back there was a lovely sealed plastic bag under my window wiper of a "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" from Euro Car Parks. Oh joy!

 

Now I've looked at the documents a few times and there's loads of faults with them. Firstly my registration is missing from one of the documents, secondly the time is different on two types of the documents. The car park (as I later found out) was a 2 hour no return, which lays suspicion on my as to why there are two different times.

 

The time on the Customer Information sheet says from 15:26 to 17:09, which just put's it within the 2 hour no return section. However! on the actual PCN, it says from 15:26 to 18:15! (which is really dodgy if you ask me) But it means I can say state to them that I returned within the two hours and parked in the same place.

 

What should I do? State the evidence to them in a letter? Or just ignore them like I've heard. I'm just a student about to head off to uni so I really can't afford to pay up >_

 

Any help would be great, thanks :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to wait it out and keep you guys posted :)

 

Just one thing, can anyone clarify the legal rights I have against this? I've read this thread but I'm not fully sure of where I stand, and I don't want to get a knock on my door or a phone call where I don't have a leg to stand on you see. Cheers :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do knock on your door or phone you up, just tell them to "go away" (how you word that is up to you). Just remember that these people are just private citizens. They are not the police or the council and they do now have any more power than you or me to demand this payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to wait it out and keep you guys posted :)

 

Just one thing, can anyone clarify the legal rights I have against this? I've read this thread but I'm not fully sure of where I stand, and I don't want to get a knock on my door or a phone call where I don't have a leg to stand on you see. Cheers :D

 

Dont worry about your legal rights, its those consters that dont have any!!!, they wont knock on your door, if you get a call, just tell them to go away etc etc

 

Chill and have a beer:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help. I have had 26 parking tickets for exceeding time in sainsburys euro car park, i have absolutely no clue what to do.

 

So a bit of history, 3 months ago i parked in sainsburys to leave my car and go to my place of work, the enter and exit time sign was not working and i asked the sainsburys staff and euro car park staff whether its ok for me to park. they said cctv not working so yes, i have been parking for last 3 months and just got a letter to say that my hirer company has been paying these tickets and now wish to claim funds from me, it has been agreed that any tickets shall be paid by hirer company first then re claimed by me, where do i stand in claiming back these tickets. totalling £1300

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi

Just an update on my previous comments.

Today, 28 June I received a letter from Control Account PLC claiming to be writing to me on behalf of their client Euro Car Parks.

 

They now want £119.38 to be paid within the next seven days after failing to settle my outstanding parking charge notice.

 

All they say is that by settling this amount, it will prevent the requirement for further action.

 

Quite an official looking letter.

 

I will continue to ignore this. It does get you thinking though to what might happen!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Official Letter from a PPC that will be a first

 

they cant issue an "OFFICIAL LETTER" they dont have the legal right to or the BRAINS

 

the may try and play on the term "OFFICIAL" and get the pre-school division to type it up :rolleyes:

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

A common definition of "Official" is "A person who holds public position; or an authority"

 

Presumably, that's why parking tickets issued by Councils, etc, are "Official", they are issued by a public authority.

 

And of course, those issued by Private Parking Companies are not - the clue is in the word "Private"!

 

Simple - innit?

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For your reference, that which EPC issue - Parking Charge Notices do not exist in law.

FPN - Fixed Penalty Notice - Police

SCT - Standard Charge Ticket - Parking ticket under 1984 RTA

PCN - Penalty Charge Notice - Parking ticket under 1991 RTA and TMA 2004

ECN - Excess Charge Notice - Parking Ticket under 1984 RTA (less used)

 

EPC are clearly trying to be sneaky by calling it a Parking Charge Notice, I bet they didnt issue any of these before 1991!

 

The four listed above generally should be paid, unless there missing signs, incorrectly worded ticket etc etc etc.

Do not pay Parking Charge Notices, there is no legal backing to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you receive a 'parking charge' for parking when there is no offer to park because they are not allowing it, despite trying to charge for it?

 

apologies, i know my statements arnt exactly 100% clear, but I am not quite sure what you are saying / asking.

 

It appears that they are trying to immitate a Penalty Charge Notice (by shape, size, issue criteria and name). But they are not enforceable in any way as there is no legislative backing.

 

They are issuing the Parking Charge because they say you have parked illegally. (you havent but thats not the point)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pointing out the irony of calling an invoice a 'parking charge' when there is no contractual offer to park in the first place. They are not charging a fee for parking when they are trying to forbid it.

 

That's the way these companies trip up - it must be a penalty for breach of contract, not a 'parking charge' because there is no offer to park in exchange for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I received one of those awful letters!

 

I'm almost 100% certain that I'll be ignoring it having read all the useful tips on here but I have one small concern; does it ever get as far as bailiffs visiting your home? I have teenage children who are sometimes at home on their own and am terrified that they might unwittingly answer the door to one of these creatures!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I received one of those awful letters!

 

I'm almost 100% certain that I'll be ignoring it having read all the useful tips on here but I have one small concern; does it ever get as far as bailiffs visiting your home? I have teenage children who are sometimes at home on their own and am terrified that they might unwittingly answer the door to one of these creatures!

 

Worry not my fair maiden!, for it to get to baliffs it would have to go to court(and then some) and these cretins dont do court, just threatening letters.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I received one of those awful letters!

 

I'm almost 100% certain that I'll be ignoring it having read all the useful tips on here but I have one small concern; does it ever get as far as bailiffs visiting your home? I have teenage children who are sometimes at home on their own and am terrified that they might unwittingly answer the door to one of these creatures!

Please don't confuse debt collectors with bailiffs. The former are just private citizens with no special powers. They cannot enter your property, they cannot seize goods and they cannot blacken your credit record over parking charges. If they do turn up tell them to go away or you will call the police.

 

Bailiffs (who are "officers of the court") only come on the scene in the very unlikely event that the case goes to court, the even more unlikely event that you lose and you refuse to pay whatever the judge orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today I received one of those awful letters!

 

I'm almost 100% certain that I'll be ignoring it having read all the useful tips on here but I have one small concern; does it ever get as far as bailiffs visiting your home? I have teenage children who are sometimes at home on their own and am terrified that they might unwittingly answer the door to one of these creatures!

 

Hi. Relax :) Baliffs will not come to your door for these invoices. The PPC/ DCA letters are all threats and thats all they are. The only way a baliff would come to your door would be if you went to court (extremely rare!), you then lost and then refused or could not pay the amount awarded. That is is very long drawn out process and certainly not how the PPCs/DCAs make you think it is ;) Ignore them

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4923 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...