Euro Car Parks' Arguments Against the CMA Penalty
The appeal grounds as described in court materials. While the appeal is unresolved, the CMA's position is not treated as unquestionably correct.
Euro Car Parks has appealed the Final Enforcement Notice. According to court materials, the company's grounds include arguments that the notice was based on an error of fact, wrong in law, and unreasonable. The company also pursued a separate procedural complaint. These arguments are presented here fairly, not dismissed.
What Euro Car Parks argues
That the Final Enforcement Notice was based on a factual error.
That the notice was legally incorrect.
That the decision was unreasonable in the legal sense.
A separate challenge to the process
Alongside the appeal, Euro Car Parks pursued a procedural complaint before the CMA's Procedural Complaints Adjudicator.
The procedural complaint raised concerns about the CMA's decision-making arrangements, including alleged actual or apparent bias and information concerning the decision-makers. The adjudicator's decision is set out on a dedicated page and is not simplified here.
Read the procedural complaintEditorial note. While the appeal is unresolved, this publication does not portray the CMA as unquestionably correct. The CMA reached a conclusion; Euro Car Parks is entitled to challenge it; and the appeal process will determine the outcome. Both sides are documented.