LCP Parking Ticket

SteveDrums

Hello Coupon, you were so quick getting back to me I didn't see the post.

I'll add those points too.

SteveDrums

Righto, I'll squeeze a bit more in. I'll drop you a line when I've done it.

Thanks again for your help. You really do sound like you enjoy this!!

SteveDrums

There is a paragraph in their original reply that states a Land Reg number.

I've added bits to post 30. Could you have another read please??

Would you submit it in that format?

Steve

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks fine - for clarity I would embolden the parts where you quote LCP each time or put them in another colour, so your response is clearly separate. Then just email POPLA with the subject line saying 'POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx Urgent further representations in response to Operator evidence'.

We do enjoy beating this scam, day in day out, yes!

SteveDrums

Excellent, thanks.

I did hold back at having a dig. As you might have noticed from the 'she's' and the 'hers' that I'm dealing with this for my partner. She was a little uneasy at the addition of a joke, although I was very tempted.

Anyway, again, thanks for your help. I'll pass on the result as-and-when.

Steve

Coupon-mad

Tell her the joke came from a female (me) and I love winding PPCs up!

SteveDrums

There's a reply to the points I've made. there hearing is scheduled for tomorrow so I need to get something done tonight.

SteveDrums

In response to the comments made by xx contained within POPLA’s request for further evidence, we respond as follows:
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses..”
To quote Marina Kapour, the POPLA Assessor who ‘refused’ the appellant’s appeal against the operator, CP Plus: “A pre-estimate of loss need not reflect which is actually caused by the breach, but must be a genuine attempt to estimate the loss which could be caused.”
Our estimate of loss is a sum which has arisen and flowed directly from the issuance of this charge. Accourdingly, our breakdown is as follows:
ITEM COST DESCRIPTION
DVLA Lookup £2.50 Kadoe enquiry.
Postage and Consumables £1.41 Postage, printing, and back-office cost per PCN.
Administration costs £45.00 Labour cost for processing this notice and initial appeal @ 3 man hours
Non-payment on the date of event
£1.20 Allowing for the 10 minutes grace period, the tariff is £1.20 for half an hour
Legal advice £50.00 20 minutes at £150 per hour
Total: £100.11
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the Notice To Keeper that was returned to LCP, (quote/unquote): “..As you can see from the letter itself the address is not Grove Hill, it is , in fact Grove 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 cannot vouch for the reliability of the postman, nor the Royal Mail. All our correspondence was sent to the address obtained from the DVLA. If you refer to Exhibit 18 which was sent to you on 16 October 2014, the notes added clearly states “maybe the postman got confused.”
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..the statement made by LCP earlier in this correspondence clearly shows that LCP are recovering business costs..”
As stated above, the costs have arisen from the breach of the Terms and Conditions.
Page 2 of 3
LCP Parking Services Limited, PO Box 45694, London, SW10 1AW. T: 020 3318 0845
Registered No.: 2999319. Registered Office Address: Willoughby House, 2 Broad Street, Stamford, Lincs, PE19 1PB
In reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the words “will” and “may” on our signage (quote/unquote): “..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..”
As stated in LCP’s evidence submitted to POPLA on 16 October 2014, 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.
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding her not supplying an appeal specific to her case (quote/unquote): “..I appealed on the basis of the points that I have raised. Subjective opinion on why I did this is totally irrelevant and detracts from the truths of the matter..”
Had she supplied an appeal specific, and given good reason as to why she did not pay to park, LCP would have taken her reasons into account.
In reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the numerous appeal that have been copied and pasted from a forum (quote/unquote): “..the points within are the factors that should be considered..”
She had previously stated that LCP made a quote regarding the Beavis case in our reply to her appeal, which we did not.
She also made comments regarding the signs around the Burger King Drive-thru, which as we have previously stated does not have anything to do with her case as she did not use the Drive-thru and is therefore irrelevant.
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding our £50 settlement offer (quote/unquote): “..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 have already stated “At the very least, xx will have cost LCP the £27 POPLA fee.” The breakdown of our pre-estimate of loss shows the cost since the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, which is before the cost to POPLA, regardless of POPLA’s decision to refuse or allow the appeal.
In reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding her not naming the driver (quote/unquote): “..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.”
To quote from the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012' Schedule 4:
4.(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b) the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
5.(1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
Full details of the new legislation can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.ukor alternatively fact sheets can be found on the Department of Transport and the Home Office websites.
Please feel free to contact LCP should you require any further clarification on this matter.

SteveDrums

In response to the comments made by xx contained within POPLA’s request for further evidence, we respond as follows:
Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses..”
To quote Marina Kapour, the POPLA Assessor who ‘refused’ the appellant’s appeal against the operator, CP Plus: “A pre-estimate of loss need not reflect which is actually caused by the breach, but must be a genuine attempt to estimate the loss which could be caused.”
Our estimate of loss is a sum which has arisen and flowed directly from the issuance of this charge. Accourdingly, our breakdown is as follows:

ITEM COST DESCRIPTION
DVLA Lookup £2.50 Kadoe enquiry.
Postage and Consumables £1.41 Postage, printing, and back-office cost per PCN.

Administration costs £45.00 Labour cost for processing this notice and initial appeal @ 3 man hours

Non-payment on the date of event
£1.20 Allowing for the 10 minutes grace period, the tariff is £1.20 for half an hour

Legal advice £50.00 20 minutes at £150 per hour

Total: £100.11

My response;

This is STILL not a genuine ‘pre-estimate of losses’. How can LCP ‘pre-estimate’ that;
a) there would be an appeal in the first instance
b) therefore need man-hours to cover the appeal and ‘this notice’. - Assuming that ‘this-notice’ is the current correspondence.
c) assuming that LCP do not seek legal advice every time they issue a PCN, the legal costs included.

Also, I note that LCP are now not including the POPLA fee in this breakdown although this was mentioned in previous correspondence. I assume that, although they look for legal advice on issuing a PCN they do not expect to have to pay for POPLA as they previously stated. Although, as I pointed out before, this is free to the consumer, which allegedly is me.

I feel I should again quote the Department of Transport’s 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."

‘Administration Costs’ and ‘Postage and Consumables’ (whatever ‘consumables’ that are being referred to) are, without question, business losses. Administration, without doubt, is a business loss.


Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the Notice To Keeper that was returned to LCP, (quote/unquote): “..As you can see from the letter itself the address is not Grove Hill, it is , in fact Grove 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 cannot vouch for the reliability of the postman, nor the Royal Mail. All our correspondence was sent to the address obtained from the DVLA. If you refer to Exhibit 18 which was sent to you on 16 October 2014, the notes added clearly states “maybe the postman got confused.”

My response;
If LCP cannot be held responsible for the ‘postman’ or Royal Mail, neither can I be held responsible for not receiving the first notice. I would ask why LCP were making a point to state that I did not respond to the first notice when they’re own evidence submitted previously clearly shows that I didn’t receive it?

Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..the statement made by LCP earlier in this correspondence clearly shows that LCP are recovering business costs..”
As stated above, the costs have arisen from the breach of the Terms and Conditions.

My response,
Regardless of the allege breach, this is still not pre-estimated. Business costs, like ‘Administration Costs’ and ‘Postage’ are business losses. The Department of Transport’s guidelines that I have quoted on several occasions state; “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 reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the words “will” and “may” on our signage (quote/unquote): “..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..”
As stated in LCP’s evidence submitted to POPLA on 16 October 2014, 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 response;
It is still the case that it is badly worded and thus leaves uncertainty. There is undoubtedly a lack of attention to detail, as I have stated before.

Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding her not supplying an appeal specific to her case (quote/unquote): “..I appealed on the basis of the points that I have raised. Subjective opinion on why I did this is totally irrelevant and detracts from the truths of the matter..”
Had she supplied an appeal specific, and given good reason as to why she did not pay to park, LCP would have taken her reasons into account.

My response;

I did supply a specific appeal, it had my name on it, and I raised the points which I have stuck to throughout. This is, again, distracting once more from the facts of the matter.

In reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding the numerous appeal that have been copied and pasted from a forum (quote/unquote): “..the points within are the factors that should be considered..”

My reply;

This is a statement that I made and I stick by that. I sought advice from several areas as the 'Findlaw' website suggests. Where the information is gained is irrelevant. I fully expect the POPLA assessor to consider the points raised above the consideration of where I gained the knowledge that I have.


Contrary to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding our £50 settlement offer (quote/unquote): “..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 have already stated “At the very least, xx will have cost LCP the £27 POPLA fee.” The breakdown of our pre-estimate of loss shows the cost since the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, which is before the cost to POPLA, regardless of POPLA’s decision to refuse or allow the appeal.

My reponse;
If LCP’s pre-estimate does not include the POPLA fee, for what reason did LCP include anything in reference to it in the previous correspondence? It does appear that LCP are clutching at straws, and clearly not following the guidelines set by the Department of Transport.


In reference to xx’s comments to POPLA regarding her not naming the driver (quote/unquote): “..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.”
To quote from the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012' Schedule 4:
4.(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b) the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
5.(1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
Full details of the new legislation can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.ukor alternatively fact sheets can be found on the Department of Transport and the Home Office websites.

My response,
This is also irrelevant. I was stating that it was a distraction from facts, which again, this is. LCP are holding me responsible for the alleged charge. I have engaged. The rest is a pointless exercise.

To conclude;

Still the ‘Pre-Estimate of Loss’ does not fall within the guidelines. Business losses are not submissable, including “postage and Consumables Postage, printing, and back-office cost. Administration costs Labour cost for processing this notice and initial appeal “
I suspect legal advice would not be ‘Pre-Estimated’ at the point of issuing a PCN either. Otherwise LCP’s business practices are like no-other I have experienced.

I would suggest that the breakdown provided is, in fact, an inflated set of costs designed to meet the figure as opposed to being a Genuine Pre- Estimate.

SteveDrums

I've added this too,,

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.''