how long.......

Ralph-y

I submitted an appeal to POPLA 15th Sept and was given an expected date of 21st Oct (or soon after),

this had now passed.

Do the appeal dates slip back much?

Thanks

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

Maybe by a week or two.

Ralph-y

OK thanks for that

Ralph:cool:

4consumerrights

Ralph-y wrote: »

I submitted an appeal to POPLA 15th Sept and was given an expected date of 21st Oct (or soon after),

this had now passed.

Do the appeal dates slip back much?

Thanks

Ralph:cool:

Which PPC?

And have you received an evidence pack?

The hearing date is only a guideline and there can be several reasons for the delay.

Ralph-y

4consumerrights: No I did not receive a evidence pack from VCS, only the original PNC and a refusal of appeal letter.

appeal decision from POPLA

24 October 2014

Mr Ralph xxxxx (Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number POPLAxxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, Liverpool, on 7
August 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.


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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 7 August 2014, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxx for stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited.

The Operators’s case is that the site’s terms of parking state that the area in
question is a restricted zone and no stopping is permitted at any time. The
Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed to be stationary on
the airport approach roads, which have been designed as a red route where
stopping is prohibited at any time at 22:41.They have provided a genuine pre-
estimate 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 amount of 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 notice
of rejection they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by stopping on a roadway where stopping is
prohibited. 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.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.


.........................................................


:j

thanks again

Ralph:cool:

bazster

Could you post in a sensible font size please, I haven't got my microscope to hand.

halibut2209

Won on GPEOL

Ralph-y

I would love to ........... even in 'advanced' selecting font size 1 gives this ! I have even tried the other font faces!

Ralph:cool:

bazster

It would do, 1 is the smallest size. Try 3.

Ralph-y

(After spending an hour+ trying to sort my font size out {size3 makes it bigger, if any one can sort this then please PM me} ) Our post woman knocked with ......... yup VCS evidence pack!

If any one requires sight of this then please let me know and I can scan / copy it. There is an (alleged ) witness statement from Liverpool JL Airport pertaining to be a 'contract' between
Liverpool JL Airport and VCS , that I had not seen in my browsing through the forums posts .... the rest look similar to other posts.

Shame that they do not use re recordable dvd's as it is a shame to use it for a video lasting 1.5 seconds ;-)

Ralph:cool:

bod1467

The point being made is ... we WANT you to make it bigger. Size 1 is the smallest, size 2 is the normal, and size 7 is the largest. Ignore what it looks like on your PC/whatever you are using to post, just use the default. (i.e. don't bother trying to use another font style or anything - just let the forum post it as normal).