LCP Harlesden Plaza Car Park fine

Redx

nobody cares what they say , all that we care about is your popla appeal from the links in post #3 of the newbies thread

they can say the moon is made of green cheese, doesnt make it true , let popla decide based on PROOF , not a mere statement with no facts to back it up

da_rule

lynneh wrote: »

But as you can see from my post (29), they say they do have the authority!

They lie. All parking companies claim to have authority, otherwise they would have to end their operations.

Just trust what you are being told, stop mulling over what they tell you and prepare your POPLA appeal.

lynneh

Ok, thanks...I'll get into study mode.
I'll probably be back though!

Redx

here is a list from parking pranksters website of their failures (as private parking companies)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4990843

very few if any actually follow the BPA CoP and very few if any have the legal authority to issue tickets and take people to court, which is why they do not produce unredacted contracts to popla or in court

read his blogs and books and court transcripts to see how bad these companies are, including telling lies

your next post should be a draft of your popla appeal, minus personal info , for critique

lynneh

Ok, thanks

Stroma

The thing to learn here is that all parking companies lie their teeth off, they are not interested in anything but your money, they are not car park management companies but a money generating business who are in it to rip people off. They haven't the ability to make an honest living.

lynneh

I think I have found a letter that is applicable to this case and I have another question...Should I change the name from parking eye to LCP or are they one in the same? Shows my ignorance!

lynneh

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg no ...... And wish to contend that I am not liable for the parking charge

1) The driver entered the car park at 22:20 in the evening. The car parking notices are poorly lit and the notice at the entrance to the car park does not comply with BPA regulations.

2) The maximum free stay stated on the PCN is a period is 0 hours 0 minutes, which does not allow any driver sufficient grace period to exit the car park.

3) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations specifically regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park.

4) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner.
In the appeal LCP did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs LCP has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

5) Proprietary Interest
As the registered keeper I do not believe that LCP has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give LCP any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, LCP's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
As the registered keeper, I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to LCP . As the registered keeper, I expect LCP to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

lynneh

Sorry, but has anyone had a chance to read my POPLA appeal? Is it enough?

Redx

I did and doesnt look good enough to me

not compared to this recent one that was approved (but for PE)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4973753 post #15

compare the two, see the difference ?