Euro Car Parks Said It Thought CMA Emails Were a Scam — What the Regulator Said
A fair account of Euro Car Parks' explanation and the CMA's response, presented as two sides of a correspondence chronology.
Euro Car Parks told the CMA that its communications had been blocked because company personnel believed the CMA messages were fraudulent or part of a phishing or scam attempt. The CMA did not accept this as a reasonable excuse for the company's failure to comply with the information notice.
Euro Car Parks' explanation vs the CMA's conclusion
This section does not ridicule the explanation. It presents the correspondence chronology and lets each side speak through the documented record.
Company personnel believed the CMA's communications were fraudulent or part of a phishing or scam attempt, and as a result the messages were blocked rather than actioned.
The CMA did not accept the phishing explanation as a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the statutory information notice.
The methods the CMA says it used
The range of methods is relevant to assessing the explanation. The CMA says it did not rely on email alone.
Questions a fair reader would ask
These are questions, not accusations. The answers are in the documented record.
- Q1How was the original notice delivered, and to whom?
- Q2What other methods did the CMA use beyond email?
- Q3Were letters hand-delivered to the registered office?
- Q4Were directors contacted directly?
- Q5At what point did the company respond, and what prompted the response?
The exact chronology should be verified against the Final Enforcement Notice before publication. The notice records the CMA's account of the communications and the company's representations.