LCP Parking Ticket

Coupon-mad

Good work, very thorough! I feel like I am at my place of work (a school) giving out gold stars!

Hurtlocker

Hi Steve - Did you win the appeal? Could you share the POPLA response? I'm in a similar shaped boat! Thanks

Coupon-mad

Also read lynneh's thread which is linked earlier in this thread. And search 'LCP Harlesden Plaza parking' on Google to read other cases too. LCP always lose v us at the moment, at POPLA, as they have no GPEOL (see the NEWBIES thread at the top of this forum, for acronyms explained). Use the FORUM JUMP on the right to get to page one, NEWBIES thread 2nd from the top.

After reading the Newbies thread you'll need your own thread for POPLA stage so we can help you further, Hurtlocker. The 'Forum Jump' in the right of any thread gets you home to page 1 every time, in case you are not sure.

Hurtlocker

Thanks C-M. I'v been reading through material on this forum for a while now and had used one of your templates for my initial appeal so without further a do...Thank you!!! :money: :beer:


I have Frankensteined Steve's version and submitted to POPLA just now. I was planning to wait for response from POPLA before publishing my Appeal on a new thread to avoid responses from LCP - or does POPLA send appeal to LCP anyway?


Thanks
Matt

Coupon-mad

POPLA sends the appeal to LCP anyway.

SteveDrums

Hello. Sorry about the delay, life, christmas and what not got in the way.

YES WE WON.

I will find all the articles and bit I have and post them in a nice neat way in a mo.

SteveDrums

Ok. This what you didn't see.

21/10


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) Ms K 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."


To respond;


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. Regardless of LCP's stance on the 'fairness' of that fact.


Equally, there has been several invitations for LCP to break-down their 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 Ms K 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"


To respond;


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 Grove Hill" and "not E18 2JB" written on the returned envelope. 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 State;


"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."


To respond;


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 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.”


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 State;


Ms K'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.


To respond;


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 Ms K 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.


To respond;


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.










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, Ms K has declined to settle this charge at the discounted rate.


To respond;


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.


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 again appear to be distracting attention away from the facts.












LCP State;


At the very least, MS K 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 Ms K.


To respond;


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 Ms K is aware who the driver was, if not in fact herself and this does not negate the fact that her vehicle was parked.


To respond;


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.


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

---

22/10


To whom it may concern,



I would like to add a few comments on the above case.





In response to the comments made by Miss K contained within POPLA’s request for further evidence, we respond as follows:

Contrary to Mis K'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.





Contrary to Miss K'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 Miss K'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 Miss K'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 Miss K'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 Miss K'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;



I can't see any mention of a forum in any previous correspondence. However, 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 knowledge.





Contrary to Miss K'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 Miss K'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 submissible, 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. Otherwise LCP’s business practices are like no-other I have experienced.






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 Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss 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.



I cannot see any reason why a similar case a few weeks previous to my alleged breach could cost LCP an additional £65.


I would suggest that the breakdown provided is, in fact, an inflated set of costs designed to meet the figure of £100 after the event as opposed to being a Genuine Pre- Estimate.

I respectfully request the appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

SteveDrums

---

23/10



Contrary to MS K's comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..This is STILL not a genuine ‘pre-estimate of losses’. ..” and “I note that LCP are now not including the POPLA fee in this breakdown although this was mentioned in previous correspondence.”

LCP cannot predict if a Parking Charge Notice will be appealed or not, however, on the presumption that one would, our pre-estimate of loss is as shown in the table supplied in our 22 October 2014 ‘further evidence’ to POPLA.



My response;

Therefore, how can POPLA charge each alleged offender on the presumption of an appeal? I understand that ~1% of cases go to POPLA, so expect that there are only a fraction of LCP’s PCNs appealed in the first instance. Therefore, the costing is not ‘genuine’ or 'previously estimated' by any means. In fact, it is inflated. Please refer to my comments on 22 October 2014 regarding these irrelevant costings that DO NOT follow the Department of Transport’s guidelines.





Ms K has purposely mis-read our initial evidence sent to POPLA on 16 October 2014. An appellant who takes their rejected appeal to POPLA costs LCP (and any other Operator) £27. It is paid by the Operator regardless of if the Assessor ‘allows’ the appeal or ‘refuses’ it. As she rightly states, “it is free to the consumer..” The appellant does not pay this fee.



My response;

I did not mis-read anything. LCP, in there correspondence to POLPA on 16 October 2014 stated “At the very least, Ms K will have cost LCP the £27 POPLA fee.” That is not taken out of context or mis-construed in any way. Clearly it was an attempt to have the £27 POPLA fee regarded as a loss as a result of the alleged offence, hoping that the fact that this is not submissable is overlooked when the case is assessed.





In reference to Ms K’s comments to POPLA regarding the words “will” and “may” on our signage.

As stated in LCP’s evidence previously submitted to POPLA on 16 October 2014 and 22 October 2014 respectively, 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;
Regardless of the number of times LCP state that the sign says something other than it clearly does in the picture that they supplied. It doesn’t change the fact that it has vagaries in it’s wording as I have previously stated in my correspondence of 22/10/14.





LCP also mentioned this appeal was copied from a form in our 16 October 2014 evidence submitted to POPLA.

In reference to Ms K's comments to POPLA (quote/unquote): “..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?”

Not all rejected appeals are taken to POPLA, but for those that are, as already stated, the Operator has to pay POPLA a £27 fee for each appeal.

The £50 settlement offer given in LCP’s 16 October 2014 evidence submitted to POPLA is a gesture of goodwill on this case and is regardless of the fact that LCP will not re-coup our losses as shown on our breakdown of losses sent on 22 October 2014.



My response;

It’s quite clear from LCP’s previous correspondence that they were intending to have the £27 POPLA fee considered as part of their losses as I have stated above and in previous correspondence of 22 October 2014





Contrary to Ms K's comments to POPLA (quote/unquote): “..I can’t see any mention of a forum in any previous correspondence..”

LCP wrote in our 27 August 2014 reply to her initial 20 August 2014 appeal (quote/unquote): “It is noted that we receive a nominal amount of appeals similar to yours which have blatantly been copied from various sources on the internet and relied upon as the basis of the appeal. We therefore invite you to either; resubmit a specific appeal for consideration to LCP clarifying why the driver of your vehicle was parked in our facility for 38 minutes 36 seconds without making payment at any of the 4 machines or using Dash Park or settle this charge at the reduced rate, which has been extended for a further 14 days from the date of this letter in accordance with our Code of Practice.”

LCP also mentioned this appeal was copied from a form in our 16 October 2014 evidence submitted to POPLA.



My response;

I still can’t see any mention of a forum in either the above quote, nor in the evidence supplied on 16 October 2014.





In reference to Ms K's comments to POPLA regarding a separate case (quote/unquote): “..LCP cannot 're-write' a GPEOL after the event..”

Ms K has quoted a POPLA decision from a case earlier this year and is irrelevant to her case. As LCP did not supply a breakdown table of the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss in our earlier evidence submitted to POPLA, then LCP have not re-written the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss in this specific case.

No operator is going to keep the same costs for all of time and all businesses have to take into account increasing and changing costs, as LCP have done.



My response;

The case that I quoted is clearly very similar. It was; a) the same car park, b) within days of this alleged offence and c) shows LCP’s lack of a genuine pre-estimate of costs. As I stated, I cannot see how LCP could find themselves out-of-pocket to the tune of an extra £65 within such a short space of time. Nor can I accept the business requiring legal advice on the issuing of a PCN, certainly not at a cost of £50 for half-an-hour. Clearly no business would run in this way. Equally the business costs submitted are not submissable according the the Department of Transport’s guidelines as I have stated in my correspondence of 22 October 2014. I will, however, quote them again;

“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." “



It appears Ms K is determined to drag this out despite the fact that POPLA have given the date of 23 October 2014 (today) for the case to go before the Assessor.



My response;

This is very tit-for-tat, as is an awful lot of LCP’s attempts to whitewash the fact that their GPEoL is quite obviously not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

Does LCP expect me to ignore their correspondence and not defend myself to the fullest? I expected to open an email with a result, not another response from LCP. Maybe LCP would like to avoid sending a response to this correspondence so POPLA can asses the situation? I suspect that this will not be the case.



I remain convinced that the break-down provided by LCP includes a) business losses that are over inflated and not submissable as per the Department of Transport’s own guidelines and b) quite clearly losses that simply cannot be ‘pre-estimated’, such as legal advice at £50. I would suggest that LCP cannot prove that they seek legal advice prior to issuing every PCN at £50 per-half-hour.



I respectfully request this appeal be upheld.

SteveDrums

Miss K (Appellant)

-v-

LCP Parking Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number LC.... arising out of the presence at Harlesden Plaza, on 7 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark ******.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

3412394001 2 06 November 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 7 July 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark ***** for breaching the terms and conditions of a private car park.

The Operator’s case is that the site’s terms and conditions of use of the site state that the site is pay and display car park and in this case the Appellant remained at the site for 38 minutes and 36 seconds without paying for parking and did not adhere to the conditions of parking. They enclosed a genuine pre-estimate of loss report to support their submissions.

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by breaching the terms and conditions of a private car park. The Operator has enclosed a breakdown of the costs they incur as a result of the breach. Some of these costs include legal advice of £50 20 minutes at £150 per hour among administration costs, labour costs for processing this notice and original representations at 3 man hours, DVLA and postage and consumables.

The burden of proof is on the Operator to prove their case on balance of probabilities. In the present case, I find that although the Operator has provided a breakdown of their costs, they have not clearly shown how did they arrive to legal advice costs and I am therefore, not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

Aurela Qerimi Assessor

Umkomaas

A great example of how to rebut a PPC's evidence pack - and exact a considerable amount of pain on them.

LCP's case is totally shot on GPEOL - but no doubt they'll try some more financial engineering on their next version of their Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss!

I've bookmarked this as an exemplar for newbies who ask how to rebut the evidence pack.

Well done OP, I'm well impressed.