Highview PCN-advice on POPLA appeal **updated**

Coupon-mad

Do the same as suggested here, like I said to that poster, look up Mr Greenslade's quote and the Highview total cases that went to POPLA last year (easy to find and very relevant):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5088171

**How can this be considered in a pre-estimate of loss; that is, to include appeals costs, when a PCN has been issued!!**

It can't - so email POPLA a full rebuttal of it, blow by blow. You are going to win anyway but it's safest to rebut the points in case of a new POPLA Assessor swallowing this drivel from Highview.

sineapse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do the same as suggested here, like I said to that poster, look up Mr Greenslade's quote and the Highview total cases that went to POPLA last year (easy to find and very relevant):
[/URL]


It can't - so email POPLA a full rebuttal of it, blow by blow. You are going to win anyway but it's safest to rebut the points in case of a new POPLA Assessor swallowing this drivel from Highview.

Thanks coupon-mad. I read that post, it was quite interesting. Read the Report as well.

I have written a draft reply-would it be worth posting for review? I think I will include my photographs as exhibits in my reply: reason being, one of the signage photographs they have given as an exhibit is very flawed: it states permit holders only on one part, and "free 1.5 hour parking for customers" a few lines below! Very ambiguous and actually pleased as they have given me some ammunition!

Coupon-mad

Yep you can show us your rebuttal draft. You will win anyway but it's good to focus POPLA's mind and have the final word.

sineapse

Dear Sirs,

Re: POPLA Appeal **********

I am writing in response to evidence received from Highview Parking Ltd (Highview) in relation to the above case.

1. Pre-estimate of loss calculation

I contend that the calculation of loss provided by Highview Parking Ltd is not genuine. A total of seventy-nine pounds and ninety pence, or ninety-four percent, of the cost issued is taken up on the cost of holding an appeal with POPLA itself. It is clearly stated that these are “the costs that we estimate at the time of issuing the PCN...”. As stated by Mr Greenslade, POPLA lead Assessor, stating that “... genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards." Furthermore, I contend that it is not an accurate assumption that every parking charge notice (PCN) will end up at the appeals process and therefore this is an unfair blanket charge placed on every registered keeper issued with a PCN by Highview. It should be pointed out that the costs associated with an appeal are incurred by the Respondant as per POPLA regulations at the time of an appeal being lodged and not at the time of the alleged breach.

Looking at the Report of the Lead Adjudicator of POPLA, published in July 2014, Highview Parking had a very small number of appeals lodged with POPLA (a total of seventy-five) out of it's total number of PCNs issued. It is therefore wholly unreasonable to assume that every PCN should have 94% of it's cost based upon POPLA appeals fees. This is clear evide nce that no genuine pre-estimate of loss has taken place, instead, Highview have created a blanket rule evidenced by the fixed PCN value of £85, for all alleged breaches.

2. Business model/Background and Signage

No evidence is provided to support the claim that “the sum, and calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner and/or his agent of the site” in the form of written, signed proof from the Landowner and/or his Agents.

No attempt is made to refute the claims that the signage was unclear within the car park itself as outlined in my original claim. Photographic evidence is offered that is clearly not contemporaneous as evidenced by the denuded foliage in the background indicating a winter setting. No photography is offered to show the lack of clear road markings to indicate the transition from the free time-limited parking area to the permit-holder's only parking area.

No comparison photography is offered that would demonstrate the grossly similar colouring and wording of the signage demarcating permit-holder's only parking and free time parking.

Indeed, the photograph demonstrating the parking sign displays clearly the level of ambiguity that Highview have used. The white-on-blue lettering states “permit holders only” whereas next to the Department for Transport approved “P” for parking sign a few lines down is stated “1 ½ hours free parking for customer's only”. I contend that this is unfair and ambiguous to the average motorist seeking to park as a legitimate customer.

In rebuttal to these inadequate photographs, I offer the following exhibits.



Image One: Entrance to customer car park (free, time-limited) off ***Road, ***


Image Two: Overview of *******Road customer car park


Note the area to the upper-right of this image, leading on from the black four-wheel-drive car.
Image Three: Transition point from free, time-limited customer car park to permit-holder's only parking


Note the distinct lack of signage, either on the driving surface or walls, nor barriers or any other highly visible markings to indicate the change in conditions.

Image Four: Image of wall as seen in Image Three indicating lack of clear signage.

It is patently obvious from this image that the writing is almost indistinguishable from a motorist who is currently in charge of and driving a motor vehicle.


Image Five: Image of free, time-limited customer parking sign


This image should be compared with the signage offered by Highview on page six of their PDF evidence document. Note the similarities in wording and the clear ambiguity.

Yours,

EnigmaPart1

Highview have yet again changed their loss statements

Coupon-mad

What was it like before, 'Enigma'?

sineapse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What was it like before, 'Enigma'?

Coupon, basic question but:

Should my rebuttal be sent as an email with the "URGENT etc" subject line or uploaded as evidence?

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What was it like before, 'Enigma'?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/omklotdm8a9eybh/Screenshot%202014-10-13%2018.22.53.png?dl=0

thats pre change. I would download the document and add it in to your rebuttal. More lies being told by more parking companies
If one lie wont work another might

I have emailed Ol Henry today at POPLA and discussed Excels creative documents (i called them deceptive) via Richard Reeve, will see what else he comes back with

Coupon-mad

sineapse wrote: »

Coupon, basic question but:

Should my rebuttal be sent as an email with the "URGENT etc" subject line or uploaded as evidence?

AIUI you can only upload evidence for 28 days so it depends if the POPLA system is still letting you do that. If not, then email it is!

sineapse

Coupon-mad wrote: »

AIUI you can only upload evidence for 28 days so it depends if the POPLA system is still letting you do that. If not, then email it is!

Won my appeal today.

No GPEOL, based on the estimates presented by the Operator mainly were of those costs incurred when sending out a PCN.

Thanks for your help Coupon-mad and the rest!