POPLA refusal! need help

Coupon-mad

I think you need to put the quotes from PPS in a different colour when you email POPLA so they can see which words are from PPS and which are your reply. And I suggest this response to this point:

''The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers tocosts that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, may be incurred for this individual appeal only. ''

·This seems to suggest that the ticketer had psychic knowledge that this particular PCN would be appealed to POPLA (even though less than 2% of private PCNs go to POPLA stage). It is a lie to suggest that a special GPEOL calculation was made in advance in my case; in fact the signs show that ALL PCNS issued at this site incur the same charge. There was no GPEOL before the event and if elements of time spent on POPLA appeals were to be included, this could only be on a pro rata basis (i.e. only 2% of the man-hours allegedly spent on the tiny minority of cases that go to POPLA, could be attributed across the board for every PCN issued). People who fall for this rubbish and are daft enough to pay PPS at the full rate without appealing to POPLA, cannot be liable for hours of Management time spent on something as rare as a POPLA appeal. If everyone paid at the full rate and no-one appealed at all, then PPS would be profiting by a sum representing the alleged 'POPLA appeal staff time & checks' every single time, without any such loss having been suffered. So the charge is clearly a fixed sum; a penalty applied in terrorem.

There are far too many checks and balances within the staffing costs and it beggars belief that a Manager gets involved to check every POPLA case for half a day each time. Sue Blacksmith's evidence wording is generic, word-for-word the same as was seen in other POPLA appeal responses PPS make every time. I would refer POPLA to a case back in May, 6861004046, which is in the public domain and Sue Blacksmith's words were the same then, so clearly PPS have standard computerised paragraphs. This does not take up hours of Management time - a monkey could send that generic drivel to POPLA.

I contend that the calculation must fail as a GPEOL since it is not a PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge (and even then it fails as they have included their usual £5 DVLA fee that never occurred). Indeed, in the 2014 POPLA Annual Report prepared by the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, he stated, “However, 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."

There was also no initial loss. PPS have not suffered any loss at all and were informed with proof in the first appeal that the car had a valid permit that day. As such, to proceed with this farce and incur staff time (even a truthful amount of man-hours) pursuing the charge, is a failure to mitigate the alleged loss. As PPS had not even incurred a DVLA look-up fee, as soon as they saw my appeal and proof of permit, then any further pursuit of the charge, racking up more 'loss' is unfair and so PPS are acting in bad faith. An Operator cannot incur extravagant costs in seeking to remedy an alleged breach - that remedy must only seek to restore a claimant back to the position they were in. So arguably, PPS had merely accrued the cost of a PCN on a windscreen, an automated process completed in minutes by one person - so maybe £5 admin fees at most. Anything over and above this is unrecoverable due to a failure to consider the legitimate interests of consumers (a statutory requirement under the UTCCRs) and a failure to mitigate the loss at that early stage.

user24601

Brilliant - thank you so much for your help. I have sent my email with your above text.

Coupon-mad

Good - hope you kept this in to make POPLA laugh and Sue Blacksmith fume:

''a monkey could send that generic drivel to POPLA.''

user24601

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good - hope you kept this in to make POPLA laugh and Sue Blacksmith fume:

''a monkey could send that generic drivel to POPLA.''

I most certainly did!!

user24601

Can I ask, what happens if they don't accept my appeal...what are my options?

bod1467

Same as before POFA and POPLA existed ... Pay (:eek:) or ignore. Even if you lose at POPLA it's not binding on the motorist - the PPC would still need to take you to small claims to make you pay. (At which point you may even win ... assuming the PPC even does initiate such action). Debt collector letters can be ignored completely, with perhaps a single response to say "debt denied, refer back to your client, go away I won't communicate with you any further".

user24601

Right, in response to the e-mail I sent POPLA, rebutting PPS' Case Summary, PPS have further rebutted my points. I'm ok with again, clarify how they are wrong in each case but one point I'm struggling with and it comes down the pre-estimate of loss. I will copy it in now:

The eighth point deals with genuine pre-estimation of loss which has been dealt with in our “Case Summary”. However, just to reiterate our genuine pre-estimate of loss is just that. A POPLA appeal is not a rare event as the complainant states. You will see in the section that deals with Genuine Pre-estimation of loss in our Case Summary that there are no checks or balances mentioned. The appeal the complainant mentions is not identical and I shall not comment on the remark about “monkeys” and “generic drivel”

The complainant’s comments about pre and post estimation is contradictory. He accuses us of calculating “post”- after the event - but then complains that we claimed for DVLA charges when we did not apply to the DVLA for keeper details. At what point does the complainant expect us to know for sure that we will or will not incur this charge?

In their case summary they list a load of charges, which add up to about 100quid, they also said that they used this breakdown in other cases and quoted the codes. i.e. they have some evidence of it being pre-estimated...

I was going to re-iterate that they have not supplied any evidence that these costs were calculated before the PCN.

Bit concerned at how they said i contradicted myself too...

to close off my e-mail i want to summarise the key point which is, they issued a ticket, i had a permit, therefore they didn't loose out. I think this is my strongest point right? Is there a nice succinct way to phrase this so its a no brainer to POPLA? I'm getting muddled with my terminology and don't want to give away any excuses!

Thanks

user24601

Also, would a hypothetical argument about other people maybe using the car and failing to put the permit back up do anything to strengthen the argument about the permit being continuously displayed? in their case summary they say this:

I cannot comment on how many people used the complainant’s vehicle on the day in question, however it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the permit is on display at all times.

This means they still cant prove who the driver was right?

Coupon-mad

Right but they would know who was driving if you send something now which gives the driver away so don't! The point you think is your key point, isn't your key point at all and you would have lost this POPLA appeal already if you'd written an appeal around that. So I would just pick out sentences & respond:

A POPLA appeal is not a rare event as the complainant states.

PPS have failed to justify why a full amount of 'man/Sue Blacksmith hours' is supposedly within their calculation for every PCN. They protest that a POPLA appeal is not a rare event but supply no percentages to show how many of their cases do go this far. They have shown no reason to include the duplication of all this staff time. I reiterate that most PCNs are never appealed this far, a fact proven by the POPLA Annual Report 2014 which shows a mere 285 PPS tickets went to POPLA in that full year. PPS will know how many so-called tickets (invoices) they issue every year and it is a huge multiple of 285, without a doubt, in this car park alone or it would not be profitable. POPLA appeals are not the norm at all so victims of these fake PCNs cannot be charged for Ms Blacksmith's 'valuable time' as I contend she doesn't even get a sniff at most tickets (the ones who fall for it and pay immediately are all an automated process). If everyone who got a PCN paid for this supposed cost of 3 hours, it would suggest that Ms Blacksmith manages to duplicate herself to work without sleep for tens of thousands of hours in a year, or perhaps, that PPS have a whole team of managers dedicated to wasting hours writing bespoke POPLA appeals all day every day, in readiness for the 98% of tickets that never even get that far. I beg to suggest that PPS Management should find something more useful to do (how about charity work or something that actually gives a service to Society, like POPLA does) if this is how they spend their days. I am sure POPLA have seen through the convenient adding up of certain chunks of man hours, duplicated with checks and balances which PPS don't even seem to understand are there.




{I wouldn't even reply to the rest of the bit you have quoted - and be very careful to double check you haven't said who parked/drove/placed a permit in the car, in the rest of your rebuttal}.

user24601

bod1467 wrote: »

Same as before POFA and POPLA existed ... Pay (:eek:) or ignore. Even if you lose at POPLA it's not binding on the motorist - the PPC would still need to take you to small claims to make you pay. (At which point you may even win ... assuming the PPC even does initiate such action). Debt collector letters can be ignored completely, with perhaps a single response to say "debt denied, refer back to your client, go away I won't communicate with you any further".

Just thinking on this. If, heaven forbid, POPLA reject my appeal...and I then ignor all further correspondence and 'deny the debt'...could this in any way affect my credit rating? Or are the ONLY repercussions annoying letters?

Thanks