VCS Windscreen Ticket - Media City UK - POPLA

CoreDefect

Hi CM,

Me again!

I've just received VCS' 'evidence' pack and wondered how I go about rebutting some of the things they've said, especially their GPEOL statement.

Is an email into POPLA with my representations enough to cover it?

Coupon-mad

Search this forum for 'VCS GPEOL' or 'VCS rebuttal' to find recent examples already worked on!

CoreDefect

Of course, rookie error.

I've written a rebuttal - i'd be grateful if it could be proof-read before I send it off. I'm not sure if it's too long.

---

Dear Sirs,

RE: POPLA Appeal xxxxxxx

VCS have submitted a 24 point ‘evidence pack’ in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I have no intention of addressing every point they have raised in detail as the information they have submitted is, quite clearly, a hashed template – most of which is repetitive or irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original appeal, as submitted on October 28th 2014 (28/10/2014):

1. Calculation of VCS’ Genuine Pre-Estimate of Losses (GPEOL).

Most of the costs mentioned by VCS are business-running costs that are tax deductible, i.e. Staff that are employed to process the paperwork. These include;

• PCN creation and issue
• 1st Representations
• Notice to Drivers, follow-up reminder notices
• Final reminder process

Additionally to this, I would argue that the 2nd stage process that VCS have stated is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss as they only allow one representation to be made.

The debt recovery process cannot be classified as a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss as it may not occur as a direct result of the issue of the Parking Charge Notice.

Furthermore, I would point the POPLA assessor to the following verdict from a recent adjudication, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was allowed on at least one of the points I have raised in my own appeal:

In November 2014, assessor Ricky Powell stated in his determination of an appeal against Excel Parking (the parent company of VCS who share the same GPEOL template) that:

“The Operator submits that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss. However, I reject this submission for the following reasons;
i) A pre-estimate of loss should only include losses which the Operator reasonably expects to incur as a result of the particular breach the Appellant is alleged to have committed;
ii) The costs for the ‘2nd Stage Process’ are not properly included in the pre-estimate because appellants are only entitled to make representations to the Operator once and so the Operator cannot submit that they expect to incur costs for responding to ‘further representations’. These costs would not naturally flow from the alleged breach and so I must disregard the total of £32.92 from the total;
iii) The costs for the ‘debt recovery process’ are also not properly included in this case. It is not the case that the Operator can reasonably expect, as a matter of course, the sums due not to be paid by an Appellant. It is by no means certain, or even inherently likely, that the debt recovery action suggested by the Operator in its pre-estimate will be necessary. Therefore, I must disregard the total of £14.94 from the pre-estimate.
iv) The total pre-estimate, after the above deductions, amounts to £76.20. I do not find that this amount substantially reflects the parking charge amount of £100.
Therefore, I find the charge to be a penalty and unenforceable.”

In addition to this, on 24th October 2014, assessor Aurela Qerimi stated in his determination of an appeal to VCS that:

“They have submitted a breakdown of the losses they incur as a
result of the Appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the Operator has
included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the Operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the Appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the Operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure of dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the Appellant can re-appeal to the Operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the Operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list
submitted by the Operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the Appellant’s breach. This is because It appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages and damages sought on this
particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss.”

Finally, I point the POPLA assessor to Point 17 of VCS’ evidence where they state:

“In any event, if the adjudicator considers that our pre-estimate of loss calculation is too high, or requires further clarification on any aspect; relevant details should be requested from the operator.”

By the pure nature that they have included this means that their loss statement cannot be a Genuine Pre-Estimate, otherwise they would not be open to discussing the calculation with POPLA.

2. Unclear signage and site photographs

VCS have provided a number of photographs of the site, including what they state to be sufficient signage. However, the driver disputes the area these photographs were taken is the area where the vehicle was parked at the time of the alleged contravention.

I have included an image showing the area the driver has informed me the vehicle was parked. As is clearly evident, there is no clear signage within the immediate area.

Furthermore, I would kindly point the POPLA assessor to Point 4 of VCS’ supplied evidence, where they state:

“We are unable to supply photographic evidence of the contravention due to a technical error.”

Without any photographic evidence of the contravention, I would contend that the site photographs supplied by VCS as part of their evidence are incorrect or, in fact, my vehicle committed any contravention whatsoever.

3. No copy of an unredacted contract between VCS and the landholder

VCS have only supplied a ‘signed witness statement’ – this does not constitute the unredacted contract requested in my appeal to POPLA. As they have failed to supply this contract, VCS are unable to prove locus standi.

Coupon-mad

That'll do - you will win.

CoreDefect

Hi CM,

Got the appeal decision through this morning - ALLOWED.

Thanks very much for all of your help with this, it's been an experience! Take that VCS!

I've posted my outcome in the 'POPLA Decisions' thread but I can also post here if it'll help others.

Coupon-mad

Never in any doubt!