Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi i recieved a ticket from euro car parks.
i had bought a ticket in advance for two hours but it seems that the trip to the shop took a bit longer and overstayed the time by some 30 minutes.
please let me know if there is any way forward besides just paying.

once again thanks so much for all your help

regards

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

If you're willing to play the long game according to the rules, you should be able to defeat this ticket in the end.  Right now, you have to choose whether to pay the discounted price for a quiet life or stick it out for the long game, following the guidance on https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1.

If you decide to play the long game, you will receive a stream of increasingly shrill demands for payment, first from the parking company and then from debt collectors, all of which you can safely ignore.  These will probably add an extra (bogus) charge of, usually £70, and make empty threats about court action, CCJ etc.  You can safely ignore these however scary they seem.  Eventually, you will receive a letter from solicitors or the parking company itself which will call itself a "letter of claim", "letter before claim" "letter before action" or something similar giving you 30 days warning of impending court action.  This will enclose a form asking for personal financial information.  You don't need to reply to this letter or complete the forms.  Court action will follow either way, but if you reply towards the end of the 30 days saying "I dispute this alleged debt but I am anyway taking debt advice" they must wait another 30 days before starting proceedings.

Proceedings are started by the court office named Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) sending you a claim form.  Provided you fight the claim following the guidance over on https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1 you should be able to defeat the claim.

In the meantime, you must ensure that the parking company is kept informed of your current address if you ever move to an address that is different from the one to which they sent the PCN.  If you don't do that, you risk getting a CCJ because CNBC will send the claim to your old address.  To notify a change of address, send the following email (attaching proof of your new address such as an updated V5C vehicle registration certificate or utility bill) to dpo@eurocarparks.com

Dear Sir or Madam,

PCN [        ] VEHICLE [                ]

I dispute this charge and intend to defend any claim initiated in relation to it.

Please note that I no longer reside at the address shown on the PCN and correspondence sent to me there will not reach me.  I require you to erase my former address from your records.  My new address is [                        ] and I attach proof thereof.

Yours faithfully,

You must repeat the exercise every time you move house in the next six years.

There is also a "technical" error in the PoFA wording. Whilst it is unlikely that a POPLA assessor would consider it, a judge might. Having discussed this with a family member who is a long serving district judge, he agreed, that if it was raised at a hearing he was conducting, he would take this into account in deciding whether the NtK had been issued correctly with regards to PoFA and if the drivers identity was unknown, the keeper could not be liable.

In the NtK PoFA section, second paragraph, it states "you are advised..."

PoFA 9(2)(f) states that the NtK must warn the keeper...

PoFA explicitly states that the keeper "must" be "warned" in a Notice to Keeper. This means that the notice must use language that clearly communicates a warning to the keeper regarding their potential liability. If an actual Notice to Keeper deviates from this requirement and states that the keeper is "advised" instead of being "warned," it could raise questions about compliance with the statutory requirements.

In a legal context, the terms "warn" and "advise" convey different levels of obligation, emphasis, and potential consequences. While the specific legal implications can vary based on the jurisdiction and the wording of the relevant law, this is a general overview:

1. **Warn:**
  - A warning typically implies a stronger level of obligation and seriousness. When a legal document or statute uses the term "warn," it suggests that the recipient is being informed of a potential consequence or risk that they should take seriously.
  - Failure to heed a warning may result in legal consequences, as warnings are often associated with mandatory actions or compliance with certain requirements.

2. **Advise:**
  - Advising, on the other hand, suggests a recommendation or suggestion. When a legal document or communication advises someone to take a certain course of action, it implies that the action is recommended but may not be mandatory.
  - Non-compliance with advice usually does not carry the same legal consequences as failing to adhere to a warning. Advisories provide guidance rather than imposing a strict obligation.

In the context of a NtK under PoFA, as the Act explicitly states that the keeper "must be warned," it implies a legal requirement for the notice to convey a sense of urgency or seriousness regarding certain information. This could include informing the keeper about their potential liability for an unpaid charge.

If, however, an actual NtK uses language like "advised" instead of "warned," it might suggest a softer tone, emphasizing a recommendation rather than a mandatory obligation. In legal matters, the precise wording is crucial, and deviations from statutory language may be subject to legal scrutiny.

What did you do for Plan A? How far up the food chain did you go to try and get this cancelled? Don't be fobbed off by a lowly customer service agent. Find an email address for the CEO and fire off a complaint.

If ECP decide to progress all the way to a court claim, it may also depend on which roboclaim solicitor they use as to whether they will ultimately discontinue if your defence is robust enough.

Ultimately, it would be a judge who decides whether you are in debt to ECP. With a robust defence you stand a good chance that you could win. It has often been the case that ECP signage is woefully inadequate to establish a contract. Even POPLA agree on this point if argued and evidenced properly.

If it went all the way to a claim, it would be for approximately the £100 charge plus they scammers would try to add on the £60-£70 double recovery fees, interest, supposedly calculated at 8% above base rate on the outstanding charge and recovery fees from 28 days after it was due plus £35 court fee and £50 legal fees. Here again is an opportunity to get it thrown out at a hearing as they invariably calculate the interest incorrectly and as it is only discretionary can be another arrow in your bow.

Even if you were to lose a claim, it would usually be for less than the original claim because the double recovery damages and the interest are not allowed. So, a claim that is for around £225-£250 ends up being £185-£200. If paid within 30 days of judgment, there is no record of it on your credit file/history. No CCJ.

It is invariably a stand-off by the PPC and their solicitors to pressure you into paying into their scam. Unfortunately, the majority of victims end up paying into it because they have little to no idea how the civil justice system works and the repeated mention of CCJs, bailiffs etc and an eventual county court claim causes them to capitulate and pay up when they could have paid less had they fought it all the way to court.

For now, you have to play the waiting game. Ignore the debt collector letters which can be used as lining for the bottom of a hamster cage and come back if you get a letter of claim (LoC or LBC).

If/when you get a claim, you defend using the template defence that is available over on MSE forums. That defence covers most of the issues that are likely to show that a contract was never formed based on the lack of prominent signage and the fact that their signs do not conform to the BPA Code of Practice.