PCN From LCP - Harefield

Umkomaas

Deflecting the PPC away from the Registered Keeper (the lease company or your company) by confirming you were the driver, was fortuitously the right thing to do. If the PPC had just dealt with either above they would have probably paid the charge then invoiced you for the amount plus (in terms of a lease company) landed a hefty admin charge on you too.

Coupon-mad

Dee140157 wrote: »

This is typical of an evidence pack.
The main thing to look at is their breakdown of expenses and point out every thing that should not be in a GPEOL eg business expenses.
Send an email to POPLA with the elements that you dispute and anything else in the evidence pack you can pick holes with.

I am fairly certain C-m picked holes in it for Lynneh, so she may be able to send you the same information.

LCP will lose if they haven't quantified their loss at more than £34.90 & haven't answered the points about the signs...etc. That's where they went wrong with lynneh and she wrote her own rebuttal and emailed POPLA thus:


In response to LCP's evidence and information, I would like to put forward the following points:

LCP haven't bothered to provide a full pre-estimate of loss so it's like the decision made by the POPLA assessor Sakib Chowdhury in the previous case at Harlesden Plaza that I mentioned in my appeal (the £34.90 doesn't even add up to the £50 reduced charge)!

LCP have not shown the lights above the signs work, the 2011 picture is at dusk and yet the lights are off. LCP have only said one of their signs was reflective so are we to guess which ones could be seen, as LCP's own photos show the car arrived in pitch darkness.

The blue & yellow sign would not have been seen by a driver going to the drive thru. The blue & yellow sign is above the P&D machines and not part of the drive-thru route.

The blue & yellow signs don't state what the amount of the parking charge even is. There is no certainty of terms.

The white sign says 'a PCN may' be issued. Then lower down 'a PCN will be issued' then again at the bottom 'a PCN may be issued'. There is no certainty of terms, so the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail.

Conversely, the Burger King banner attached to the fence sets yet another set of terms (again unclear) saying that the area is for BK customers only and that otherwise there is 'no stopping or waiting'. So, that would be a matter of trespass then would it? Clearly the £1.20 tariff does not apply to that area because the banner does not allow stopping or waiting. So what is it then, a tariff area or a no stopping zone - it can't be both.

The signs don't contain the full parking t&cs which seem to have been attached only to LCP's evidence here. That wording wasn't readable on any sign.

LCP has complained about the template appeal - which is contradictory when clearly their own POPLA evidence is a template! Given away by the fact they are still using an old 'costings of £34.90' calculation that failed in the Sakib Chowdhury case cited as well, I request that you allow my appeal.



************************************************************************************************************

ONLY COPY THAT IF IT'S THE SAME EXACTLY IN YOUR CASE! IF NOT THEN ADAPT IT!

IF THEY ARE USING A NEW CALCULATION PLEASE COPY & PASTE IT HERE URGENTLY.

harni2013

Thanks CM much appreciated.
I have taken the above and adapted it to my situation. I would really appreciate it if someone could give it the once over before i send it off.

LCP Still haven’t bothered to provide a full pre-estimate of loss despite myself asking for one in my appeal. Assuming they are using the same pre-estimate loss as they have done in previous cases assessed by yourselves, the £34.90 pre-estimate still doesn’t add up to the reduced charge of £50 let alone the full charge of £100 which they are trying to justify!
LCP have also tried to further justify their charges (yet still without a breakdown as requested) since I have put my appeal forwards to yourselves by suggesting that because I have used a previous appeal copied from the internet and adapted to my particular situation, that this has cost them more than it would if they were assessing a tailored appeal.

"It is blatantly clear ****** appeal is copied from the internet. Rather than co-operating with LCP and submitting a case specific appeal to be considered, he has opted to submit a generic appeal in order to protract the matter further. Ultimately, this has cost LCP more than it would in order to consider a straightforward appeal. We are certain POPLA has received numerous of these appeals and trust you will thoroughly consider all the facts"

I would like to see LCP justify this as they them selves have used a template appeal. Its common sense that it will take less time, less man hours (and therefore lower costs to them selves) to use a generic appeal rather than a fully tailored appeal. I would also like them to justify how using a generic appeal from the internet is not co-operating with them. No where under their appeal process, nor POPLA appeal process does it even suggest the use of a generic appeal is not allowed.
Furthermore, the fact that they are trying to justify their extra costs because I have used a generic appeal suggests to me that they are aware of the fact that their charges are not a pre-estimate of losses and furthermore, they are assuming that any user of the car park that may receive a charge notice from them will instantly appeal. This is obviously not the case as unfortunately a lot of people do fall victim to companies such as LCP so this means if I hadn’t of appealed and had of paid the charge, I would also of been paying for their costs during the appeal process which I would not of gone through.

Finally with regards to the signage on site, if you look at exhibit 11 (Automatic number plate recognition sign ‘A’ on signage plan) as provided by LCP in their evidence against my self, The white sign says 'a PCN may' be issued. Then lower down 'a PCN will be issued' then again at the bottom 'a PCN may be issued'. There is no certainty of terms, so the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail.

Taking the above and my previous appeal information into account, I request that you allow my appeal.

Coupon-mad

I would like to see LCP justify this as they them selves have used a template appeal.

They haven't 'appealed' (only you are the appellant) so delete that last word from that sentence.

so this means if I hadn’t of appealed and had of paid the charge, I would also of been paying for their costs during the appeal process which I would not of gone through.

Sorry but 'ouch, ouch, ouch' about the use of the word 'of'. Please spare the POPLA Assessor that painful chavtastic misuse of the English language! 'Would of' is wrong, as they teach you in school - it's 'would HAVE' (when you shorten it to 'would've' in speech it doesn't ever become 'would of'!). So instead that sentence could be:

'so this means if I hadn’t appealed and had paid the charge, I would also have been paying for their costs during the appeal process which I would not have gone through'

And so didn't they send POPLA any pics of the blue/yellow signs or the Burger King banner? And didn't that even state ANY calculation anywhere in any linked info (they do attach all sorts of folders in their evidence so make sure you haven't missed a GPEOL calculation). I 'would have' expected them to have stated some figures.

Umkomaas

Sorry but 'ouch, ouch, ouch' about the use of the word 'of'.

I agree CM. If you hadn't pointed this out, I would of.

harni2013

Sorry the English language never was my strong point I'm ashamed to say!

Im not referring to the burger king signs. Im referring to the main ANPR sign on the way into the car park (which will be clear to the ANPR assessor as LCP have labelled it all nicely for them!)
All of the evidence they sent me is via post and I've been through it several times to find nothing. They have completely ignored the request for a break down of costs.

Sound better?

CP Still haven’t bothered to provide a full pre-estimate of loss despite myself asking for one in my appeal. Assuming they are using the same pre-estimate loss as they have done in previous cases assessed by yourselves, the £34.90 pre-estimate still doesn’t add up to the reduced charge of £50 let alone the full charge of £100 which they are trying to justify!
LCP have also tried to further justify their charges (yet still without a breakdown as requested) since I have put my appeal forwards to yourselves by suggesting that because I have used a previous appeal copied from the internet and adapted to my particular situation, that this has cost them more than it would if they were assessing a tailored appeal.

"It is blatantly clear ****** appeal is copied from the internet. Rather than co-operating with LCP and submitting a case specific appeal to be considered, he has opted to submit a generic appeal in order to protract the matter further. Ultimately, this has cost LCP more than it would in order to consider a straightforward appeal. We are certain POPLA has received numerous of these appeals and trust you will thoroughly consider all the facts"

I would like to see LCP justify this as they them selves have used a template. Its common sense that it will take less time, less man hours (and therefore lower costs to them selves) to use a generic appeal rather than a fully tailored appeal. I would also like them to justify how using a generic appeal from the internet is not co-operating with them. No where under their appeal process, nor POPLA appeal process does it even suggest the use of a generic appeal is not allowed.
Furthermore, the fact that they are trying to justify their extra costs because I have used a generic appeal suggests to me that they are aware of the fact that their charges are not a pre-estimate of losses and furthermore, they are assuming that any user of the car park that may receive a charge notice from them will instantly appeal. This is obviously not the case as unfortunately a lot of people do fall victim to companies such as LCP so this means if I hadn’t appealed and had paid the charge, I would also have been paying for their costs during the appeal process which I would not have gone through.

Finally with regards to the signage on site, if you look at exhibit 11 (Automatic number plate recognition sign ‘A’ on signage plan) as provided by LCP in their evidence against my self, The white sign says 'a PCN may' be issued. Then lower down 'a PCN will be issued' then again at the bottom 'a PCN may be issued'. There is no certainty of terms, so the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail.

Taking the above and my previous appeal information into account, I request that you allow my appeal.

Thanks all!

Coupon-mad

Yes that's so much better and if they haven't included a GPEOL statement then they are stuffed.

harni2013

Good good

So just to confirm, i can just email this off to POPLA (emailed my original appeal) with my code and they will just add it onto the case so to speak?

Thanks guys for all the help!

Coupon-mad

Yes - put the POPLA code and explain what this is (Rebuttal of Operator's evidence) clearly in the subject line.

harni2013

Well thats now sent off to POPLA so lets see what they come back with!