VCS Genuine Pre estimate of Loss Documents

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

This is a call for anyone with a copy of the VCS loss document.

They are now on on v 1.8. So we need to look at the previous documents to send in to POPLA , as they are obviously trying to create a document that POPLA will eventually accept, so obviously ourselves and people doing appeals on forums need to be on their toes

The idea is that when a VCS POPLA appeal pack comes back the person then sends in the various cost documents to rubbish the GPEOL statement, people cant risk just leaving it as the is a chance POPLA might accept it:

Please email the document to [EMAIL="info@parkingticketappeals.org.uk"]info@parkingticketappeals.org.uk[/EMAIL] www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk

Version 1.8 GPEOL

CALCULATION OF OUR GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSSES:
ANPR/CCTV
£
*
PCN Creation & Issue
Quality assurance and review of ANPR/CCTV camera images used in the processing of contraventions following a breach of the terms & conditions. Obtaining, matching and checking vehicle data and vehicle keeper details from the DVLA data in order to generate a PCN along with associated postage and stationery costs. Includes a provision for lack of DVLA keeper records and unserviceable addresses. Cost of maintaining a contact centre for phone enquiries relating to PCN’s.
20.20
*
Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads
The cost of maintaining computer hardware and software associated with the initial processing ANPR & CCTV contraventions and also the core software used to maintain PCN’s post issue date.
2.15
*
1st Representations (appeals and challenges to the operator)
Receiving, logging, reviewing, writing and sending a written response to representations from the motorist. Includes a provision for cancellations arising from representations allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
18.75
*
2nd Stage Process
Receiving, logging, reviewing, writing and sending a written response to a further representations and/or evidence from the motorist. Includes a provision for cancellations arising from representations allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
14.15
*
Notice to Drivers, Follow-up and Reminder Notices
Re-issuing the PCN where, for example, the keeper names another person as the driver. The issue of standard and ad-hoc reminder notices.
7.84
DISCOUNTED STAGE TOTAL
(1) £63.09
*
Final Reminder Process
The cost of issuing a final written letter to allow the motorist to pay before further action is taken.
6.92
*
Debt Recovery Process
This cost relates to two elements of debt recovery. Firstly, the cost and time associated with obtaining a debtors background check, provision of data sets (including quality assurance), and managing and monitoring the debt recovery process in association with a third party debt collection agency (Note this is only the internal costs, as the debt collection agency adds their costs to the outstanding debt). Secondly, a provision for consideration of late appeals and cancellations arising from appeals allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
33.20
UNDISCOUNTED STAGE TOTAL
(2) £103.21
(1) Values reflect increasing processing and staff overhead costs arising from increased volumes, diversity and complexity of representations (appeals & challenges) from motorists.
(2) Values exclude costs associated with administration of POPLA, including preparation and transmission of evidence

The_Slithy_Tove

Even given that we all know that VCS are making these numbers up, i.e. LYING (as usual), their alleged costs in simply creating and processing a charge is £20.20 + £2.15 = £22.35. So, at the point where they issue the charge, why do they demand £100, or even a discounted £60. If paid straight away, they would be recovering nearly £40 more than their alleged losses at that time.

So, AT THE POINT OF ISSUE, the charge is always still higher than their losses.

bod1467

The £2.15 CPO is not allowed in the loss calculation ... it is a running cost of the business; they would incur this cost even if they issued no PCNs. So at best their loss is £20.20, and even that is debatable - "Cost of maintaining a contact centre for phone enquiries relating to PCN’s" is also a running cost of the business.

Custard_Pie

PCN Creation & Issue
Quality assurance and review of ANPR/CCTV camera images used in the processing of contraventions following a breach of the terms & conditions. Obtaining, matching and checking vehicle data and vehicle keeper details from the DVLA data in order to generate a PCN along with associated postage and stationery costs. Includes a provision for lack of DVLA keeper records and unserviceable addresses. Cost of maintaining a contact centre for phone enquiries relating to PCN’s.
20.20

Cost. If they captured a genuine motorist, compared to one with an alledged breach of contract, then the cost would still be the same.

*
Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads
The cost of maintaining computer hardware and software associated with the initial processing ANPR & CCTV contraventions and also the core software used to maintain PCN’s post issue date.
2.15

Cost - Hardware would still be there and used, regardless of whether any invoices were issued or not. They would still need electricity, etc to tick over.
*
1st Representations (appeals and challenges to the operator)
Receiving, logging, reviewing, writing and sending a written response to representations from the motorist. Includes a provision for cancellations arising from representations allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
18.75

Cost - This is a manually driven process. Staff would need to be paid just to sit behind a desk, whether they process invoices or not.

*
2nd Stage Process
Receiving, logging, reviewing, writing and sending a written response to a further representations and/or evidence from the motorist. Includes a provision for cancellations arising from representations allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
14.15

Cost - This is a manually driven process. Staff would need to be paid just to sit behind a desk, whether they process invoices or not.

*
Notice to Drivers, Follow-up and Reminder Notices
Re-issuing the PCN where, for example, the keeper names another person as the driver. The issue of standard and ad-hoc reminder notices.
7.84

Cost - This is a manually driven process. Staff would need to be paid just to sit behind a desk, whether they process invoices or not.

DISCOUNTED STAGE TOTAL
(1) £63.09
*
Final Reminder Process
The cost of issuing a final written letter to allow the motorist to pay before further action is taken.
6.92
Cost - This is a manually driven process. Staff would need to be paid just to sit behind a desk, whether they process invoices or not.

*
Debt Recovery Process
This cost relates to two elements of debt recovery. Firstly, the cost and time associated with obtaining a debtors background check, provision of data sets (including quality assurance), and managing and monitoring the debt recovery process in association with a third party debt collection agency (Note this is only the internal costs, as the debt collection agency adds their costs to the outstanding debt). Secondly, a provision for consideration of late appeals and cancellations arising from appeals allowed and requests from the client or other interested parties.
33.20

Cost - This is a manually driven process. Staff would need to be paid just to sit behind a desk, whether they process invoices or not.

UNDISCOUNTED STAGE TOTAL
(2) £103.21
(1) Values reflect increasing processing and staff overhead costs arising from increased volumes, diversity and complexity of representations (appeals & challenges) from motorists.

Cost. If they issued no invoices, then the staff would still be there.
(2) Values exclude costs associated with administration of POPLA, including preparation and transmission of evidence


So, eveything listed above is a cost that needs to be paid for whether they issue an invoice or not. It's not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as of the result of a breach of trespass. Forget the authority to pursue, sue, signage, etc.

salmosalaris

In a free car park there is no loss caused by an overstay other than a potential loss to the retailers/landowners on site . We all know why PPC's don't want to go down that route .
In other words the PPC has suffered no loss , there is no debt so however they try and justify their charge it is nothing more than the costs of attempting to collect a debt that never existed in the first place and therefore not a gpeol or recoverable . POPLA now accept this .

nigelbb

salmosalaris wrote: »

In a free car park there is no loss caused by an overstay other than a potential loss to the retailers/landowners on site . We all know why PPC's don't want to go down that route .
In other words the PPC has suffered no loss , there is no debt so however they try and justify their charge it is nothing more than the costs of attempting to collect a debt that never existed in the first place and therefore not a gpeol or recoverable . POPLA now accept this .

In a free car park there can be no contract for parking as there is no consideration on the part of the motorist. The landowner gives permission & it's under the terms of this licence that the motorist parks. An overstay is a trespass & only the exclusive occupier of the land may sue & this could never be a 3rd party PPC.

James_N

It should be noted that this document contains THIS:

" Values reflect increasing processing and staff overhead costs arising from increased volumes, diversity and complexity of representations (appeals & challenges) from motorists."

In effect, trying to put the costs of them defending the indefensible back on to the motorists they are scamming!

Annie1960

http://www.popla.org.uk/statement_28-01-14.htm

Follow the link at the bottom of this page.

The final sentence in para 37 seems to me to be the central issue. Until PPCs get substantial income from sources other then PCNs, they will not be able to show a GPEOL.

The sensible thing for them to do would be to charge the land owners a fee for the service, and reduce the PCNs to around £20.

trubster

Annie1960 wrote: »

The sensible thing for them to do would be to charge the land owners a fee for the service, and reduce the PCNs to around £20.

PPC World DONT DO SENSIBLE!

Parking Eye LTD pays £1000 a week just to be allowed to chase losses from a free car park????

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I appreciate the issues at hand

But am more concerned about getting the actual docs themselves

trubster

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

I appreciate the issues at hand

But am more concerned about getting the actual docs themselves

how urgent? I could go fishing in a vcs/excel car park