PCN Company Claim POPLA Rejected Claim

James_N

TipsyTaylor wrote: »

Yes, I had to pay or I couldn't leave the car park and yes, you have to pay every time you leave, but...the is no charge for under 30 minutes (I think, maybe 20) and there are other car parks within the grounds of the hospital. I had driven myself to the hospital to have a scan on my neck which, at the time, could potential have been something very serious. This was my argument in my appeal.

Unfortunately, mitigation or explanation NEVER works at POPLA.
What does work is GPEOL.

Redx

TipsyTaylor wrote: »

Yes, I had to pay or I couldn't leave the car park and yes, you have to pay every time you leave, but...the is no charge for under 30 minutes (I think, maybe 20) and there are other car parks within the grounds of the hospital. I had driven myself to the hospital to have a scan on my neck which, at the time, could potential have been something very serious. This was my argument in my appeal.

like I said , a grace period to find a car parking space , or leave free of charge , usually its 20 minutes on the ones I have been to , so you exit with the ticket or token , then find somewhere else to park , or start the whole process over again , like groundhog day

none of those arguments work at popla , as you have now seen and have been told , their website tells you what cannot be included in an appeal too

How is your appeal considered?

The Assessor considers all of the evidence from you and from the operator but cannot allow an appeal because of mitigating circumstances.



Grounds of appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are as set out below. If you are not sure which ground applies then just explain your case fully but remember that the Assessor cannot allow an appeal solely because of mitigating circumstances.

• The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed.
• The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid.
• The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.
• I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you had paid to park the vehicle in the first place (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) is not in itself a valid ground of appeal.

TipsyTaylor

James_N wrote: »

Unfortunately, mitigation or explanation NEVER works at POPLA.
What does work is GPEOL.

I've since learnt this James!

Will keep an eye on this site and come back for some more advice if needed! Thanks all!

TipsyTaylor

Hello again everyone! Received the below on email now (nothing in the post). Is this still part of the standard threat?

Afternoon Mr Taylor

All correspondence and comments have been added to your file as per our pre-action protocol.

We have received a response from our client Car Parking Partnership as follows.

Your appeal was received and rejected on the 23rd August 2013 by POPLA – see attached.

This decision will not be overturned.

We have photographs as evidence as the registered keeper/driver you are solely responsible and liable for any parking contraventions etc. that are issued to the vehicle since 1st October 2012 under new legislation part of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

I have provided the link to Car Parking Partnership web site for you to look at the photographs. https://www.carparkingpartnership.co.uk Please click if you have received a civil parking notice click here, then enter your vehicle registration and your civil parking notice number is CP*******A and then view evidence. (Attached for your records).

As this matter has been outstanding for a considerable amount of time now, unless we hear from you within the next seven days from the date of this email 29th June 2014 We will refer this notice back to our client Car Parking Partnership who will in turn request authorisation from the Hospital to process this notice to the next stage of Legal Proceedings.

Please either email or call this office on 0121 550 1966 during normal working hours to discuss, or email us info@legalservices.co.uk

"The charges applied to you by issue of this CPN relate directly to our "Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss" (GPEOL).

In calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company we incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions at the registered landowners locations we manage on behalf of and at the bequest of.

If motorists adhered to the advertised terms & conditions at each location, and subsequently paid any fees due for not doing so, these costs would not exist.
There is a basic tenet of English law that the burden of proof lies with the accuser - in this instance you allege that the appropriate authority does not exist but have failed to provide any tangible proof to support this submission."
All our procedures adhere to the British Parking Association along with all the signage on the site.

Please see methods of payments below:-

Visit our web site https://www.icclegalservices.co.uk 3% fee
Direct debit card/visa - £2.00 fee
Pay direct into the bank - no extra fee
Set up a standing order - no extra fee
Postal Orders- will be a fee at post office
Cheque- no extra fee

Our bank details are as follows:-

Barclays Plc Account Name: - I.C.C. Legal Services (UK) Ltd Sort Code: **-**-**Account Number: 9******6.
Please ensure that you use reference number ***-*****.

We hope this will not be necessary and now look forward to receiving your remittance of £ 90.00 by return.

Kind Regards

Louise.
I.C.C. Legal Services (UK) Ltd.,

Umkomaas

Do a search here on MSE and via Google on ICC Legal Services if you are at all concerned about them.

Despite the masquerade of them somehow being 'Legals', they are not solicitors. Treat them as any other Debt Collector.

Hot_Bring

Ignore them - toothless liars.

And if it did ever go to court then this phrase alone would undo them :

"In calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs"

They can't include standard operational and administrative costs for running their, corrupt, business.

TipsyTaylor

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Ignore them - toothless liars.

And if it did ever go to court then this phrase alone would undo them :

"In calculating our GPEOL we have included the operational & administrative costs"

They can't include standard operational and administrative costs for running their, corrupt, business.

I wanted to respond with something like this, but didn't want to prod the angry bear and become the first person they follow through with. Can't actually explain why, but I really want to email them and let them know what I think?

Hot_Bring

TipsyTaylor wrote: »

I wanted to respond with something like this, but didn't want to prod the angry bear and become the first person they follow through with. Can't actually explain why, but I really want to email them and let them know what I think?

I prod PPCs quite regularly but it's obviously a personal choice.

You could go back with something like :

"Your GPEOL doesn't conform to contract law, as well you know. You can carry on sending your pointless threats if you like but it's your money you are wasting. Issue court papers or shut up."

I regularly send something similar to G24 and strangely they now ignore me. :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Then email back and say something like:



Afternoon Louise,
First: Stop spamming my email account. This is harassment, so cease and desist NOW.

For your information before you send the file back to your client marked 'uncollected':
There is no debt to chase - private parking tickets are not debts and have no credit agreement relating to them of course and no basis in law. Despite your template paragraph about GPEOL that you chose to hit the button to add, I can inform you that CPP do not base their charges on any GPEOL. Because the tariff was paid for the car park, there was not even an initial loss. Guess what, if I had known to say this at POPLA stage I would have won, as every appellant does. Only I was honest and wrote a normal appeal. You may find this useful when you get a fake PCN yourself one day, Louise.

Stop contacting me and pass the file back to the client NOW to do their worst because I won't be paying you or CPP anything. Then I would open up a new tab on your PC and look for a real job, if I were you.

End of conversation,

Hot_Bring

Wow - slightly harsher than your normal responses CM !!!! :eek:
Like it