vcs liverpool parking charge

Stroma

Don't rely on that , you have a popla code so use it. But by all means put that in the appeal, your main appeal point is going to be the per estimate of loss, they have no answer to it. Read the popla decision thread especially the last 10 pages or so

Coupon-mad

stigg77 wrote: »

Hi. I have received a letter today from the vcs. they have given me a form to fill out for p o p l a. however the the letter they sent me attached to this form is 2 days over the 35 day. In which I believe they have to reply? my last e-mail to them was on the sixth of september they have replied via letter which has dated on it the 11th of october but I did not receive it until today the 13th of october which is 37 days so does that invalidate parking charge on me? Thanks

No, it doesn't make it invalid. Do a POPLA appeal or you will have blown your chance.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

HTH, please ask if unsure about your draft appeal, once you've read all those links and 'get it' about winning POPLA appeal wording.

stigg77

Hi. I just wanted to ask what my appeal to the popla should read, given that I was advised by stroma to only base it on expense per losses. A quick draft of appeal would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Stroma

I said your main appeal point will be that, I didn't say it would be your only appeal point

stigg77

I wasn't by any means questioning your advice, I was emphasizing the point that you made about expense per losses being the fundamental base of my appeal. Apologies for any confusion, I appreciate your help.

Coupon-mad

It's covered in the links I gave you.

stigg77

The charge is a penalty and not a pre estimate of loss. A charge of £100 for an alleged stopping offence of 11 seconds is not realistic nor justifiable. This amount can not be a reflection of the VCA's genuine losses. I dont believe the VCA have suffered any losses to justify the amount. 2. VCA has not demonstrated any legal entitlement or contract with the land owner to levy fines (charges) on their behalf. 3. I asked VCA for a popla code on the 1st of August 2013 yet I did not recieve it until the13thof oct 2013 which is 73 days, 38 days over the 35 day deadline for a response. Kind Regards.!

stigg77

Does my appeal read okay to you?

Umkomaas

stigg77 wrote: »

Does my appeal read okay to you?

Getting the name of the PPC in your appeal might be a good start!

You've got a couple of the main points covered superficially, and while we are encouraging more succinct appeals, you do need to put a bit more meat on the bones.

Here is a recent example of a well developed POPLA appeal (only just sent off, so no decision as yet).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63438874&postcount=12

And here's another one.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63427539&postcount=1

Have you looked at the POPLA Decisions sticky and viewed more detailed appeals? They will give you a better idea, and there's nothing to prevent you copy and pasting relevant paragraphs from them, provided the paragraph applies to your situation, you understand what it means and you flex it a bit to suit your writing style and so 'pick and mix' paragraphs read as though they are 'one' rather than a random copy and paste exercise.

You also need to look at recent VCS threads (put VCS Humberside into the search engine as, from recollection, there was a very interesting development in that case that might help you).

So more to do I'm afraid, to give you the best chance of success.

Stroma

Try this which was posted by coupon on here

CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
VCS do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the Landowner. VCS has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). VCS has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require VCS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner

CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
VCS do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the Landowner . VCS has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require VCS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner, because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable VCS to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
VCS are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

VCS have not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - which cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. No claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply by a mere agent, VCS

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This was the case in several compelling and comparable Court decisions such as UKCPS v Murphy April 2012 (a case involving a disabled bay and no Blue Badge, where the 'Parking Charge' was found to be a penalty). Also Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is therefore unenforceable.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ask that this appeal be allowed.