LCP Parking Ticket

SteveDrums

Right, is this any good?


I would like to appeal this PCN from LCP at Harlesden Plaza, on the following grounds:

1 Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012. No keeper liability.
2 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss.
3 Unclear and unlit signage.
4 ANPR Accuracy and Compliance.


1. NOTICE TO KEEPER - NOT PROPERLY GIVEN UNDER POFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter omits the required information if it were to establish 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012. LCP have not included all the below required wording from paragraph 9, Schedule 4, of POFA 2012, namely: ''9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.''

In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and due to the many omissions, it is a nullity. As the driver has not been identified for this parking event, LCP do not have the right party for this PCN since they have failed to establish 'keeper liability' which is fundamental to their case against me.

2 NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS


The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days, returned to £100 and reduced once more following appeal) 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.

The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges states that these are not automatically recoverable: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.”.

I am aware from previous POPLA findings this same site that this Operator has not proved the above to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. On 13/12/13 POPLA Assessor Sakib Chowdhury stated in a decision about the same issue at Harlesden Plaza, that ''The amount put forward that could amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, does not amount to a substantial proportion of even the reduced charge. Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.''


LCP has not previously provided either myself or POPLA with a written calculation of their losses prior to their decision to set their PCNs at a fixed sum of £100 (or £50) at this site. They cannot now change this figure in an attempt to re-write their 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. A new calculation after the charges were set at £100 (or £50) would neither be genuine nor a 'pre-estimate' and would merely be an attempt to come up with a version which POPLA might accept. This would be contrary to the principles of fairness, transparency and good faith under the UTCCRs - As having requested the same and not received any reference to the request in the reply to my appeal. I can only assume that LCP cannot provide a breakdown that will meet the requested £100 (or £50) sum and therefore cannot accept that this is fair and just.

3 UNCLEAR AND UNLIT SIGNAGE - NO CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DRIVER

LCP have sent me the alleged 'full car park terms and conditions' which their website says are 'available upon request' but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read.

There are no low-positioned, clear, illuminated signs on entry to this car park which would have communicated any terms of parking to a driver. So the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. LCP failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as was found in a comparable camera-reliant car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”
LCP have quoted the Beavis case in their letter. However this is going to the Court of Appeal now and was a decision in small claims only, full of caveats and no case law whatsoever since there is nothing that supports a penalty in a consumer contract. This would be a breach of the UTCCRs.

4. ANPR: ACCURACY & COMPLIANCE
I call into question the ANPR system accuracy and compliance, since this car park has no parking staff on site. So I require the Operator to present records which prove the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the data. BPA CoP 21.2 and 21.3 make these documented checks a requirement.

The BPA Code of Practice also says:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras.''

No signs at this car park tell drivers how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, so the system does not operate in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. I contend LCP have failed to comply with the ICO terms of registration and are in breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary as they have not yet shown me a sign which covers this 'ANPR data use' requirement.

In addition to the above, I recently visited the car park on foot to take time to read the signs. I came across a white sign that states a PCN 'will' be issued twice and once that a PCN 'may' be issued. - Which does leave questions in regards to the accuracy of anything else writte within the body of the text. I also took time to visit the Burger King side of the same car park. A banner in this area states that there is 'no stopping or waiting' for anyone other than Burger King customers. This would lead me to believe that the parking charge does not apply in this area, as, of course, the area cannot be both be covered by a parking tariff and a 'no-waiting' rule. If it is one it can't be the other.

Also, I have noted LCP's comments regarding the template used to appeal. This is very contradictory as it appears that all bar one of the documents received from LCP have been, in fact, templates.

It is respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Dee140157

Which actual bit of POFA 12 does the NTK fail on? I don't have a clue.

You do not need to write out the whole thing, believe it or not POPLA have access to it too. Make it simpler.

Eg

The NTK doesn't to tell me what the parking charge is . This goes against paragraph 131 section a)
The NTK does not tell me who the creditor is. This breaks paragraph 458 c)

I know those are made up references, but is honestly can't work out what is actually missing from your NTK.

Repetition :

The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.

I think although I don't particularly like it, the GPEOL is covered as are the other points. Does that come from another appeal for this same site that was successful? I honestly don't know all the variations on the GPEOL paragraphs.

SteveDrums

Essentially, the information on that was based on the other LCP cases I've been looking at. The notice is the same, so I assume the failure are also the same? - I'm not really 'up' on the details of why and how, just that it appears to make sense to appeal on the basis....

Coupon-mad

IMHO that bit should be fine, because basically you've quoted the entire paragraph 9 so to rebut that appeal point I would say LCP would have to respond to show compliance with each and every section you quoted! That would not work for an IAS appeal for an IPC member but at POPLA the onus falls upon the Operator to rebut everything.

Keep your eyes peeled for LCP's evidence email before POPLA make the decision, and check their calculations of their alleged loss. They used to show a figure of £34.90 as their loss which is hilarious and easy to rebut (I have shown you what lynneh did in my post #20 above so you can see what to email POPLA if you get a similar evidence pack). That would be a win for you, if they still use the £34.90 calculation.

Equally, if LCP change their calculation this time, then you need to rebut that, saying summat like:
'LCP cannot 're-write' a GPEOL after the event, or it falls foul of the definition explained by POPLA Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade; it would merely be a statement of actual loss made up afterwards. The GPEOL statement for this exact 'contravention' in this same car park was completely different in July 2014 because POPLA decision 3411604002 is in the public domain. In that decision, POPLA Assessor Farah Ahmad found ''It is clear that the amount lost by the operator as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach is calculated at £34.90. Therefore, the operator has not shown how the £100 parking charge is justified.''

SteveDrums

I noticed that whilst I was looking at it a while back. Bit of a shambolic affair LCP, isn't it?

Thanks for your help, I'll get it sent.

SteveDrums

I have a reply.....


In response to the points raised in xx appeal to POPLA, it has been noted that although she has numbered each of her points, those numbers do not correspond with the further comments she has made further into her appeal, however, we respond as follows:
<late nights; Steve>

xx’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..the NTK has not been correctly ‘given’ under POFA2012 and due to the many omissions, it is a nullity. As the driver has not been identified for this parking event, LCP do not have the right party for this PCN since they have failed to establish ‘keeper liability’ which is fundamental to their case against me”:

The Notice To Keeper is compliant. Please refer to Exhibits 1,2 and 3.
The Registered Keeper, xxxx, was respectively requested in the Notice To Keeper to provide LCP with “the name and current address of the driver so that we may write to them and request payment, and you should also pass this Notice to the driver.” It should be noted that xxxx has not supplied the driver details.
xxx’s comment to POPLA regarding No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss:
The charge is issued in order to recover our outgoings that have arisen solely from the issuance of this Parking Charge to xxxx.

LCP incur significant expenses for issuing each notice, including (and not limited to) costs per notice issued, the cost to the DVLA, consumables, postage of the Notice to Keeper and Final Notice to Keeper, administration and man hours required in verifying the notice is accurate and dealing with her appeal, and ultimately the cost to POPLA. To date (and post submission to POPLA) xx has cost LCP £80, any balances remaining after (and if) the £100 is paid are put toward back office wages.

It is entirely unfair that LCP should now be “out of pocket” as the result of a driver that has not taken the time to ensure that she complies with the stated terms at our facility and is now solely basing her defense on information garnered from the internet. Had she opted to submit an appeal after the initial Notice to Keeper was sent to her, then she would have still had the opportunity to settle this charge at the lower amount of £50, however she has opted not to do so and cost LCP.

As you will note from the enclosures the first correspondence received by xxx was after the Final Notice to Keeper was sent by post to her, a substantial time after the Notice to Keeper was issued. We are of the view that she chose to ignore the first notice, also based on information garnered from the internet.
<we didn’t receive that first one for two reasons, the first being that, we moved during the time this was going on, the second is that they addressed it incorrectly anyway>

By remaining in the car park for 38 minutes and 36 seconds, xx agreed to pay this sum if she failed to purchase a ticket in order to comply with the clearly advertised Terms and Conditions on site. 38 minutes is ample time to read any of the numerous signs on site. As you will no doubt agree circa 40 minutes is a rather long time to either be “sat in the car” or deciding whether or not you wish to park and pay for your parking.

LCP believes the £100 charge is fair and reasonable. The full amount of the Parking Charge is £100 and was approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department of Transport in 2012. The
reduction of 50% for early payment within 14 days were prescribed and approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Office of Fair Trade in 2012.
Private management of car parks is essential for landholders. They have a right to operate their land as they see fit and allow motorists to use this land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The contracts, and its clauses, are necessary to prevent abuse of private land. The terms and conditions of parking on private land are on display at the car park and it is the obligation of the motorist to comply with these when they park in the car park.

Private car park management is essential, it prevents abuse of private land by unscrupulous drivers and there is justification for private car park management as it helps to combat this abuse. It also ensures there is a reasonable turnover of cars within the car park and free bays available at any time for motorists that require parking and are prepared to pay and abide by the Terms and Conditions.

It should also be noted that LCP Parking Services Ltd is the Lessee of the car park as well as the operator.

As a compromise and in order settle this matter in an amicable manner, LCP would be prepared to accept £50 in full and Final settlement of this matter. This is purely to cover our expenses for the POPLA fee and direct costs that have arisen from the
Parking Charge issued to xxx.

xxx’s comment to POPLA (quote/unquote): “Unclear and unlit signage” and “There are no low-positioned, clear, illuminated signs on entry to this car park..” and “..the requirements for forming a contract…were not satisfied..”

It should be noted that xxx visited the car park at xx:xx in the afternoon, thus the “illuminated signs” comment is immaterial. For reference, all of our entry signs are reflective.

Exhibits 2 and 7-14 inclusive were enclosed with LCP’s xxx 2014 reply to xxx’s appeal. The detail of each exhibit is listed at the end of this evidence submission. All of our signs at the car park entrances are set out in accordance with Appendix B of the AOS CoP and in terms of clarity and scale of text and were all approved by our BPA audit held on site on the xxxx 2014.

Our ANPR system at the car park allows a grace period of 10 minutes from time of entry to reach an exit or the Burger King Drive Through. LCP believe 10 minutes is sufficient time to drive straight through the car park (as it is sometimes used as a short cut), and it is also sufficient time to drop off or pick up a passenger before exiting.

xx’s comment to POPLA (quote/unquote): “LCP have quoted the Beavis case in their letter.”
LCP’s reply to her appeal does not state anything re the Beavis case.

<oops, late night, Steve>

xxx’s comment to POPLA regarding the (quote/unquote): “ANPR: Accuracy & Compliance..” and “..since this car park has no parking staff on site.”
Our ANPR cameras and payment machines are maintained, adjusted, calibrated twice weekly and synchronised daily with internet time at 4am to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of all the images and payments.

xxxx’s quoting the BPA Code of Practice 21.1 to POPLA (quote/unquote): “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” And “No signs at this car park tell drivers how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, so the system does not operate in a ‘reasonable’, consistent and transparent manner’.”

Our enclosed signage plan and photos of the signs, which were also sent to xxx after her initial appeal, shows the location of all our signs, indicated by the code ‘F’, are situated within the car park, there are 4 in total. The ANPR sign is shown on the signage plan as code ‘A’, there are 2 ANPR signs, both show the camera managed symbol and both state what the data captured would be used for. The ANPR sign clearly states: ‘Vehicle keeper details may be requested from the DVLA’, and also the grounds for the issuance of a Parking Charge.

We manage the Car Park by ANPR to ensure compliance by users in order to deliver empty spaces to visitors that have a requirement for an empty parking space. If we did not have management controls on site then the car park would be fully occupied by “Rogue” non-paying customers to the detriment of paying customers visiting the area.

xxxx’s comment to POPLA (quote/unquote): “..they have not yet shown me a sign which covers this ‘ANPR data use’ requirement.” and “..a white sign that states a PCN ‘will’ be issued twice and once that a PCN ‘may’ be issued.”
The ANPR sign at the entrances to the car park clearly shows the car park is camera managed and for what reasons a Parking Charge may be issued.
xxx’s comment to POPLA regarding (quote/unquote): “..the Burger King side of the same car park. A banner in this area states that there is ‘no stopping or waiting’ for anyone other than Burger King customers. This would lead me to believe that the parking charge does not apply in this area, as of course, the area cannot be both be covered by a parking tariff and a ‘not waiting’ rule. If it is one, it can’t be the other.”

Her copied comments regarding the “banner” are irrelevant.
It is flagrantly clear that xxx’s appeals are copied from the internet. Rather than co-operating with LCP and submitting a specific appeal to be considered which clarified why she failed to comply with the Terms and Condition or submit a reason as to why she did not purchase a ticket in mitigation of the charge, she has opted to submit a generic appeal in order to protract the matter further.

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 thoroughly before reaching a decision. Ultimately, xx has declined to settle this charge at the discounted rate.
In summary, xxx is now responsible for settlement of this charge in full.
It is clear that her vehicle was parked in an LCP facility without complying with the

Terms and Conditions.
At the very least, xxx will have cost LCP the £27 POPLA fee. Had she adopted a more constructive stance and submitted a relevant appeal, we would no doubt have extended the window for settlement of this matter at the lower amount. Again we would be more than happy to settle this matter at the lower amount of £50 as a gesture of goodwill and as compensation to LCP by xx.

It is blatantly clear that xxx is aware who the driver was, if not in fact herself and this does not negate the fact that her vehicle was parked.

Ultimately,xxx/the driver did not heed the signs at the car park; did not pay whilst the car was parked for circa 38 minutes. Had a ticket been purchased, we would not have issued the Notice to Keeper.

Please feel free to contact LCP should you require any further clarification on this matter.

Exhibit 1
Notice To Keeper, dated xx 2014, ‘return to sender’ marked “not xxx” and “not xxx” Notice To Keeper returned to LCP xx 2014, address checked against Kadoe and is correct.
<no it isn’t, the letter was addressed differently to the envelope and so it went back to them, shambles, Steve>
Exhibit 2 Notice To Keeper, dated xxx 2014, posted again.
Exhibit 3 Final Notice To Keeper, dated xxx 2014, posted.
Exhibit 4
xxxx’s email correspondence, dated xxx 2014.
Exhibit 5
LCP’s reply to xxx’s email correspondence, dated xx 2014. Our reply included Exhibits 2 and 7-14.
Exhibit 6 Covering email for LCP’s reply to xxx’s email correspondence, dated xx
2014
Exhibit 7
ANPR sign (‘A’ on signage plan). It clearly states the car park is private property, and that a PCN will be issued for not having paid and registered your vehicles registration at the payment machine (point 1).
Exhibit 8
24 hour Pay and Display Tariff Board sign (‘D’ on signage plan). There are 3 in the car park also states a PCN will be issued for non-payment in lieu of parking time (point 3).

SteveDrums

Exhibit 9
Picture of the entry/exit from/to Tavistock Road clearly showing the BPA endorsed Car Park entrance signs, our ANPR camera signs (‘A’ on signage plan), the Tariff boards and payment machines (‘D’ on signage plan). xxxx would have driven past the signs and Tariff board and payment machines upon entering indicating this is a Pay & Display car park.
Exhibit 10
Picture taken from within the car park facing Tavistock Road clearly showing the ‘Number Plate Controlled Car Park’ sign (‘F’ on signage plan), the Terms and Conditions (‘B’ on signage plan), the ‘Have You Paid?’ sign (‘E’ on signage plan), the ‘Pay Here’ sign above the 2 payment machines. xxx would have driven past the signs and Tariff board and payment machines upon entering indicating this is a Pay & Display car park.
Exhibit 11 Pictures of entrance to car park from Manor Park Road showing the BPA endorsed Car Park entrance signs: our ANPR sign (‘A’ on signage plan), Camera Managed sign (‘F’ on signage plan) and ‘Pay and Display 24 hour charges apply Private Land’ sign (‘C’ on signage plan).
Exhibit 12 Picture of entrance to car park from Manor Park Road showing the Tariff Board and payment machines (‘D’ on signage plan), on the right after entering.
Exhibit 13
Terms and Conditions of the car park (‘B’ on signage plan).
Exhibit 14
Signage plan clearly showing where in the car park our signs are placed.
Exhibit 15 Screen print of payment history for xxx’s VRM, clearly showing no payments have ever been made.
Exhibit 16 Screen print of payment record for xxx 2014 around the time xxx’s VRM was in the car park. It clearly shows no payment has been made.
Exhibit 17 Screen print of image history for xxx’s VRM showing she entered the car park from Tavistock Road and exited on to Tavistock Road.
Exhibit 18 Notes made for this Parking Charge Notice.
Exhibit 19 The “banner” sign around the Burger King drive-thru.


-- I can post these is necessary.

I will make a point or two below shortly.

Coupon-mad

Send a further representation to POPLA by email with the POPLA code in the subject line. Include this fact:

no it isn’t, the letter was addressed differently to the envelope and so it went back to them

And the fact they haven't managed to rebut your assertion that the NTK is non-compliant (not proved by simply showing a copy of the offending document!).

And the fact they have not demonstrated a GPEOL! Looks like they haven't bothered to attach a breakdown/list of heads of cost of these 'consumables and wages'?!

And the fact they cannot charge a consumer for a POPLA fee, as the Dept for Trade confirmed this service must be 'free of charge' to consumers.

And the fact they cannot just list some costs including POPLA appeal work, seeing as only 1% of cases ever go to POPLA so it can't be in the reasonable contemplation of this PPC when issuing every PCN, that POPLA is even inherently likely to follow. As such, what constitutes the charge for these PCNs?

(I assume they have shown POPLA that they own the leasehold title of the car park, from Land Registry Records? If not then you could throw in they've not shown they have the authority of the landowner). If they have proved this then don't mention that bit.

SteveDrums

Ok point one.....

LCP State;

"LCP incur significant expenses for issuing each notice, including (and not limited to) costs per notice issued, the cost to the DVLA, consumables, postage of the Notice to Keeper and Final Notice to Keeper, administration and man hours required in verifying the notice is accurate and dealing with her appeal, and ultimately the cost to POPLA. To date (and post submission to POPLA) xx has cost LCP £80, any balances remaining after (and if) the £100 is paid are put toward back office wages.
It is entirely unfair that LCP should now be “out of pocket” as the result of a driver that has not taken the time to ensure that she complies with the stated terms at our facility and is now solely basing her defense on information garnered from the internet. Had she opted to submit an appeal after the initial Notice to Keeper was sent to her, then she would have still had the opportunity to settle this charge at the lower amount of £50, however she has opted not to do so and cost LCP."

I would point out that;

The Department for Transport guidelines state that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

I would conclude that Costs of Issuing the Notice, postage of Notice to Keeper, and Final Notice to Keeper, Admin and Man Hours are all business losses that LCP are trying to recover. As is the 'remainder' to be paid back into office wages. Therefore, the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses.

Equally, there has been several invitations for LCP to break down there cost to highlight exactly which losses they have allegedly suffered. The vagaries of LCP's response to this highlights that there is, in fact, no justification in a £100 or even a £50 charge for the alleged offence.

Also that it would be foolhardy of me to ignore and not research the matter as fully as possible using the internet. This is clearly what it is there to be used for. To this end the 'Findlaw' website suggests the following "Just as you would seek advice when going to court, you should in most cases seek advice when choosing and pursuing ADR." - Which is exactly what I have done.

LCP State;

"As you will note from the enclosures the first correspondence received by xxx was after the Final Notice to Keeper was sent by post to her, a substantial time after the Notice to Keeper was issued. We are of the view that she chose to ignore the first notice, also based on information garnered from the internet"

I would point out that;

The Final Notice to Keeper was the first piece off correspondence received. As LCP have provided a copy of one of the returned letters. You will notice that the words "Not xxx Hill" and "not E18 xxx" written on the returned envelope. As you can see from the letter itself the address isn't xxx Hill, it is , in fact xxx End, nor does the postcode correspond. I would suggest that LCP had, in fact, sent this particular piece of correspondence, and possibly more, to the wrong address. Thus their statement that the address was "checked against kadoe and is correct" is erroneous. I suspect this is the reason that the original document was not received.

LCP States;

"LCP believes the £100 charge is fair and reasonable. The full amount of the Parking Charge is £100 and was approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department of Transport in 2012. The
reduction of 50% for early payment within 14 days were prescribed and approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Office of Fair Trade in 2012."

My point;

To reiterate, the statement made by LCP earlier in this correspondence clearly shows that LCP are recovering business costs clearly conflicting with the statement from The Department for Transport guidelines
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In addition to the same the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges states that these are not automatically recoverable: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.”

To me it is clear that LCP are attempting to create a loss where none had existed prior to the issuing of the PCN. As The Department of Transport Guidelines state that the losses mentioned (Costs of Issuing the Notice, postage of Notice to Keeper, and Final Notice to Keeper, Admin, Man Hours and 'remainder' to office wages) are all business losses excluded by the Department of Transport's guidelines.

The fact that LCP have stated on many occasions that they are willing to accept £50 as opposed to £100 for the alleged offence highlights this flagrant bending of the guidelines.

LCP States;

xxxx’s comment to POPLA (quote/unquote): “..they have not yet shown me a sign which covers this ‘ANPR data use’ requirement.” and “..a white sign that states a PCN ‘will’ be issued twice and once that a PCN ‘may’ be issued.”
The ANPR sign at the entrances to the car park clearly shows the car park is camera managed and for what reasons a Parking Charge may be issued.

My point;

The photographic evidence provided by LCP (Exhibit 7), does, in fact, confirm my original point, although I had transposed the wording (i.e. there are two mentions of the word 'may' and one 'will'). As you can se the following is printed from the 8th line of the sign "Failure to comply MAY result in the Issuance of a Parking Charge". Then in the 20th line "A Parking Charge WILL be issued for...". And, finally at the bottom, in the small print, "Failure to comply MAY result in a parking charge". There is no clarity to the sign, or indeed attention to detail. I reiterate that this does leave questions in regards to the accuracy of anything else written within the body of the text.

LCP state;

It is flagrantly clear that xxx’s appeals are copied from the internet. Rather than co-operating with LCP and submitting a specific appeal to be considered which clarified why she failed to comply with the Terms and Condition or submit a reason as to why she did not purchase a ticket in mitigation of the charge, she has opted to submit a generic appeal in order to protract the matter further.

My point;

I appealed on the basis of the points that I raised. Subjective opinion on why I did this is totally irrelevant and detracts from the truths of the matter.

LCP State;

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 thoroughly before reaching a decision. Ultimately, xx has declined to settle this charge at the discounted rate.

My Point;

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I shall repeat that the alleged charge should not consider business losses as per the quote from the Department of Transport I've used twice already in this correspondence. So again, this is a distraction from the facts.

Regardless of the number of 'these appeals' that POPLA have seen, the points within are the factors that should be considered, and I am sure will be above the clear exasperation shown by the writer of LCP's correspondence.

LCP State;

At the very least, xxx will have cost LCP the £27 POPLA fee. Had she adopted a more constructive stance and submitted a relevant appeal, we would no doubt have extended the window for settlement of this matter at the lower amount. Again we would be more than happy to settle this matter at the lower amount of £50 as a gesture of goodwill and as compensation to LCP by xx.

My point;

Again, the mention of a 'constructive stance' is distracting from the facts.

Also, LCP are again willing to settle for £50, having only given a loss of £27 in total in the entire body of this correspondence. More evidence to suggest that the charge of £100 is completely false and £50 although closer to the £27 of losses that LCP have stated is still not providing a statement of pre-estimated losses and would almost certainly fall under 'business losses' that are non-recoverable in this way, as has been highlighted previously. Also, the £27 loss is for the fee for this POPLA case which, as I'm sure the POPLA assessor will know is not submittable as a pre-estimate, as how were LCP to know that this case would go to POPLA?


LCP state;

It is blatantly clear that xxx is aware who the driver was, if not in fact herself and this does not negate the fact that her vehicle was parked.

My point;

Again, a totally irrelevant paragraph. I have been and still am engaging over this issue with LCP regardless of who the alleged driver was. Equally, throughout this correspondence LCP have referred to me as the alleged offender, until this point in the correspondence. Another example of the lack of attention to detail that LCP clearly suffer from.


Finally;

I notice that LCP have failed to rebut my assertion that the Notice to Keeper was non-compliant. As this is not proven by simply showing a copy of the document.

To summarise;

It's very clear from the information given that a 'Genuine pre-estimate of loss' as many of my points above have illustrated has not been provided. Nor has a break-down of the costs implied been provided. Only one figure of £27 based on the fact that this is now a POPLA case, which LCP could not have pre-estimated prior to the alleged offence. Equally the use of ADR is free to the consumer, which, allegedly in this case, is me.

LCP have demonstrated inconsistencies throughout this case in both their correspondence and their signage and have used irrelevance to distract from the truths of this matter in their evidence to POPLA. The major issue is in regards to the aforementioned 'Genuine pre-estimate of loss' which is very clearly lacking. Along with many other points raised above.

It is respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Coupon-mad

That's great. If it were me I would just add somewhere a little joke or dig about what 'consumables' might be (their sandwiches?) and I would add when talking about the £27 POPLA fee the fact that the Government insisted when the Bill was passed that any ADR like POPLA must be free to the consumer (i.e. it cannot be charged back by a PPC arguing they've made a loss).

You will win - they always lose on no GPEOL!