PE LBC again!

Stroma

They cannot claim running costs as losses, if it's tax deductible they are costs associated with their business as outlined in VCS v Ibbotson, so would have incurred these alleged costs whether you parked there or not. Also the losses must be the landowner or retailers losses not their own.

trisontana

This was also covered in a recent POPLA decision:-

The Operator submitted that the charge is based upon the cost of enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreed by the land owner and specified on site signage. However,this does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the parking contract. The loss specified by the Operator is the cost of providing parking enforcement at the site. In other words, were no breach to have occurred the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.

zzzLazyDaisy

Okay, prepare a letter referring to the original LBCCC, your letters and their template replies (with dates). Point out that the letters they have sent you do not address the issues you have raised in your earlier letters, and that it is impossible to progress this matter unless someone is willing to actually READ and REPLY to your reasonable requests for information.

Then set out the enquiries and requests that you made in your first two letters, here in your third letter.

Then PM the letter to me (you my need to split it over two PMs because of the restriction on word count). I will then check it over, make any additions/amendments, and PM it back to you.

Make sure you keep an eye on the deadline on the last letter from them.

Daisy

zzzLazyDaisy

Bobsmithers wrote: »

Ok D! I am on it. Forgive the lack of legalese in the letter when I PM it!

No prob - that's what I'm here for

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi Bob, I now have both your PM's.

Just for clarification, was the Driver a different person from the Registered Keeper?

Daisy

Bobsmithers

Well, PE have sent a response to my last letter. This being the 3rd request for information. They claim to have provided the information I am entitled to despite never having sent a PD compliant Letter Before Claim.

Also, they say in one sentence that it is too late for a POPLA appeal but that they are still open to ADR!

Any help help would be great!

Coupon-mad

I would reply saying you are glad they are open to ADR and since you have not yet been given a POPLA code (is that right in your case?) you'd like to correct them and ask for your code now. As they clearly know because they have given POPLA codes out at this stage for others, there's no restriction on time for giving out a POPLA code and of course this is the bespoke decision-making service for the industry. Say that if they do not, you are minded to complain to Nicola Mullany, the chair of the IAS board, the independent appeals service for the private land parking sector.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/bpa-welcomes-new-chair-of-independent-appeals-service

That's my suggestion anyway. Keep up the replies demanding POPLA, like a dripping tap!

Bobsmithers

They seem to indicate that POPLA is not an option but that ADR directly between the two parties is an option?

I think I should push for a POPLA code. Good idea or not?

They still think that their pre-estimate of loss calculation is a valid one too and are unwilling to provide a list of documents that they will rely on in court.

Simply not playing the game within the rules.

Stroma

If the calculation is valid why is there about 20-30 popla decisions of theirs throwing out that in the popla sticky thread ? I would press for popla if they will give you a code

Umkomaas

Knocking this out via POPLA will get rid of it in its entirety.

If they still bludgeon on and serve court papers and then drop the charge you'll get all their current nonsense about paying them a £50 cancellation fee - which is probably about the level of the initial discounted PCN.

Around, full circle! :cool: