vcs liverpool parking charge

Stroma

You really need to embellish on this, it's unlikely to succeed the way you've put it across, I've seen hundreds of appeals and in my experience you have a higher chance of it failing. Not as much as mitigation but why take a gamble when you have one chance at this only?

Coupon-mad

stigg77 wrote: »

Note. Ukpc changed to vcs

But VCS' website isn't 'damning in this regard' about revenue raising...

Why don't you post some extra points as evidence as well to POPLA, lots of people do. And for the price of a stamp you can add to what you have emailed as long as you make it clear which 10 digit case it relates to and that you have already submitted some evidence by email.

We have seen too many POPLA adjudications lost when a poster doesn't wait and put together a more detailed appeal with the killer points. Did you have in there 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' and 'no contract with landowner which is BPA compliant and gives VCS the legal standing to make contracts with drivers and to enforce tickets themselves in the courts'?

stigg77

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 LOSSVCS 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'.!

This is what I took from your copy at the top of this page and sent it like you advised by paper copy. Although I had an email today from popla telling me they are sending my evidence to vcs and my case will be considered on or soon after the 20th November. So I hope they will still use the paper copy when they get it?!

Guys_Dad

Stigg77 - I think you need to make a little more of the GPEOL (genuine pre estimate of loss).

Don't mean to be offensive, but your appeal layout is poor and we already have at leat 2 instances of adjudicators missing things.

There is a thread on here by Billy Bumble called sneaky ticket. Please look on page 2 at the draft I did for her, based, in turn, on other posts.

See how it is laid out and see how the points are expanded.

I think yours would be better laid out in a similar way. It's only an opinion, and I would heed the other comments from really experienced people. We want you to win, we are not having a go.

But it's your decision and good luck with whatever you decide.

Umkomaas

It's starting to look very much like bits and pieces stuck together, send them to POPLA as they come up, hope they can join them together and then hope for the best.

Stiggy, it might be better to rework the whole shooting match, lay it out point by point and in a much more digestible format for an already seriously overworked POPLA assessor. The chances are that if they either can't understand the contents of a 'Blue Peter' approach to your appeal, or it looks too complicated to make it worth their while dissecting it and reassembling it, they may just reject it (more likely than not in my opinion).

It's up to you, but you do seem to be rushing things (what is your 28 day deadline date?), so if time allows try to revamp and resend, perhaps even asking POPLA to ignore all previous submissions and substitute your final version for all preceding ones. We're happy to check out a tidily laid out revamp, but probably all regulars are too busy with all the other threads to try to work through a long, one-paragraph appeal again. Sorry.

This is not meant to be hyper critical rather an attempt to get you through this unscathed. Hope you take it in the way it is intended.

stigg77

Here's to all you doubters of my appeal ... too short. ...all in bits. . Not enough meat on the bones..... etc etc etc I WON!!!!!!! WOOHOOOO.Although u all thought id fail I would however like to thank those that helped me.very much appreciated

Redx

stigg77 wrote: »

Here's to all you doubters of my appeal ... too short. ...all in bits. . Not enough meat on the bones..... etc etc etc I WON!!!!!!! WOOHOOOO.Although u all thought id fail I would however like to thank those that helped me.very much appreciated

please copy and paste a redacted copy of the decision so that it can be added the the sticky thread on appeal wins - the more the merrier

just make sure there are no identifying references like names, ref numbers etc

thanks

Stroma

stigg77 wrote: »

Here's to all you doubters of my appeal ... too short. ...all in bits. . Not enough meat on the bones..... etc etc etc I WON!!!!!!! WOOHOOOO.Although u all thought id fail I would however like to thank those that helped me.very much appreciated

You took a gamble, that is up to you! But we don't recommend doing it this way, and for very good reason, you get one chance at this only! But congrats anyway

Guys_Dad

stigg77 wrote: »

Here's to all you doubters of my appeal ... too short. ...all in bits. . Not enough meat on the bones..... etc etc etc I WON!!!!!!! WOOHOOOO.Although u all thought id fail I would however like to thank those that helped me.very much appreciated

Always happy to be proved wrong if the motorist wins. And glad if short appeals continue to win. And you seem to have got a quick adjudication.

As said, it would be a great help if you could post the decision so we can help others. Please add the assessor's name as well. :beer:

Umkomaas

Well done stiggy. I was concerned that POPLA might not be able to see the wood for the trees in your appeal, but obviously they did, so that's a great outcome.

As Stroma says, it was a bit if a risky route, you gambled and it paid off. :T

PS - have you ever tried Russian Roulette? :eek: