LCP Harlesden Plaza Car Park fine

lynneh

Yes, I can see a huge difference. However some things are not relevant and LCP do seem to hold a title to manage the parking. By the way, I was not the driver!
Also this car park is not a free car park but the driver was there for less than 20 minutes and there is usually a grace period

lynneh

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: LCP
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: **/**/14

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 The amount of the charge is disproportionate.
3. No authority to levy charges.
4. Signage
5. Unlawful penalty charge
6. ANPR accuracy
7. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require LCP to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none by LCP and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty . There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can LCP lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. LCP must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles LCP to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the LCP to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the LCP produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the LCP . Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between LCP and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that LCP can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. Signage
The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for parking, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6. ANPR Accuracy
LCP are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require LCP to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that LCP produce evidence in response to these points.

7. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully

da_rule

Get rid of business rates. Also your numbers don't match after point 1, so in your summary at the top insert the correct numbers after number 1.

Also, remove all of the first paragraph that starts "I as the registered keeper...."

Other than that it looks good to go.

lynneh

Is that ok?

Redx

seems fine to me , a lot better than earlier

as for contractual authority, its their job to prove it to popla ,and your job to refute it or question it

as for grace period , these tend to be about 5 minutes or so, not 20 minutes

in any case, its mitigation and popla dont do mitigation, only legalities

so yes, looks fine for submission to popla

lynneh

Phew...thank you. What a night!

lynneh

On the HM Land Registry it says that LCP hold the title and lease from 1998 to 2020. This is dated 2003.
Do I still have grounds to appeal?

Coupon-mad

lynneh wrote: »

On the HM Land Registry it says that LCP hold the title and lease from 1998 to 2020. This is dated 2003.
Do I still have grounds to appeal?

Always. How do you think they have shown this to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss? ...but it may need a little bit more work if you have time. I must admit though I seem to recall this car park is leased by them, as you say. We have previous threads about them and I would read them first if you still have time before submitting your POPLA appeal.

Search this forum for 'Plaza' as your keyword. I think I wrote a 'stronger' POPLA appeal for someone about this place once. I think the signage was pants...so you may need to beef up your signage paragraph and also the no GPEOL wording.

If you've submitted the POPLA appeal already you could read some other threads and add more later on by email to POPLA. No worries.

lynneh

Thanks, I just don't want to lose...ha ha!

lynneh

I am going to submit my popla appeal electronically . Do I need to attach all correspondence as well?