Victory - Appeal Allowed

Victorious_Girl

Thank you so much for your advice. Followed your guidance and won! A victory for the small person. I made my Appeal on disproportionate costs and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and it was allowed on the basis that Operator claimed most of their cost was debt recovery. Assessor stated:-
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process costs, which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because It appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

My advice to everyone else who falls victim to these companies who take advantage of unwitting or unfortunate motorists - APPEAL! Dont let them get away with unjust practice.

Dee140157

Well done. I have just had a similar victory due to forum.
Could you now put on POPLA appeals thread, saying who the company was and who the Assessor was please? It helps the main people on here who help us fight.

trubster

Which PPC?

Stroma

Is it VCS ?

arabesque_101

Victorious_Girl wrote: »

the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process costs, which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach....... I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage.

I find it very interesting (and refreshing) that POPLA don't count debt collectors costs as part of the genuine pre estimate of costs. In one sense I can see that the debt recovery costs came as a result of the breach. However, what POPLA seems to be saying, if I read it right, is even though those costs were genuinely incurred because of the breach, the operator does not know which parkers will pay up after the first overdue notice from the operator and thus have no debt recovery costs, and which parkers will resist payment, and hence incur large recovery costs. So the one size fits all £100 (or whatever) is not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss, rather it's a top end estimate taking into consideration worse case scenario recovery costs. Whereas for most parkers, it would be somewhat less than £100 If anyone has any reference to further discussion about the issue of debt recovery costs not being part of GPEOL, could they please post a link here?

Also interested in which PPC and which recovery company.

Hot_Bring

arabesque_101 wrote: »

I find it very interesting (and refreshing) that POPLA don't count debt collectors costs as part of the genuine pre estimate of costs. In one sense I can see that the debt recovery costs came as a result of the breach. However, what POPLA seems to be saying, if I read it right, is even though those costs were genuinely incurred because of the breach, the operator does not know which parkers will pay up after the first overdue notice from the operator and thus have no debt recovery costs, and which parkers will resist payment, and hence incur large recovery costs. So the one size fits all £100 (or whatever) is not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss, rather it's a top end estimate taking into consideration worse case scenario recovery costs. Whereas for most parkers, it would be somewhat less than £100 If anyone has any reference to further discussion about the issue of debt recovery costs not being part of GPEOL, could they please give me a link?

Also interested in which PPC and which recovery company.

DCA costs can't be part of the GPEOL as the PPC shouldn't be passing on any alleged "debt" until the RK / driver has had a chance to appeal to POPLA. So any appeal that reaches POPLA can't have DCA costs added.

*** And yes I know there isn't really a debt ***

Stroma

How can dca costs be added to a fake ticket when it hasn't got there yet? This is supposed to be specific for each case, and cannot be a generic costs just in case somebody else doesn't pay or appeal. It's just another desperate attempt at getting paid for something when they don't have any loss.

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

How can dca costs be added to a fake ticket when it hasn't got there yet? This is supposed to be specific for each case, and cannot be a generic costs just in case somebody else doesn't pay or appeal. It's just another desperate attempt at getting paid for something when they don't have any loss.

Surely you're not suggesting they make this stuff up? Preposterous! :cool:

There may be a very innocent explanation such as they don't have a clue about any of this. The parking profession can't be expected to get everything 'right', otherwise they'd be out of business