Has a genuine loss ever been determined?

Libby_P

I received a Parking Eye parking charge notice today for a short overstay in a retail carpark captured on ANPR camera. I could appeal on various grounds relating to the illness of my eldest child in one of the shops but I appreciate this would probably be a waste of time. I am therefore considering an appeal on the "technicalities" relating to the charge not being a genuine estimate of loss and Paring eye having no standing authority to levy a charge (and possibly querying the process for synchronising/ensuring the accuracy of the ANPY system). However my question is whether any appeal has determined what charge might constitute a genuine estimate of loss? The amount I am being asked to pay (in 14 days) is £40 which isn't as high as many of the charges I have read about on the forums. I wondered if this lower charge had been introduced to try and overcome this appeal argument? Many thanks.

hoohoo

That will be £70 discounted to £40.

PE's average cost per ticket issued is £18, so a true cost would be something like £18 discounted to £10.

£40 is therefore not a genuine amount for checking two photos, paying £2.50 to the DVLA and posting you a letter.

Fruitcake

You are right that saying what happened on the day would be a waste of time. You seem to have a good grasp on what is needed, but should you need further advice you will find everything you need in the Sticky thread for NEWBIEs, complete with template appeal letters.

Don't hang about because parking I are a nasty bunch and will happily take you to court if you don't appeal in time. Don't worry though, you will easily beat this at the PoPLA stage assuming they don't cave in when they see a forum assisted first appeal.

Umkomaas

You may not even need to go to the POPLA stage, as PE have started baling out at the forum-based initial appeal stage.

Hit them with that and I'm sure you'll be OK. Failing that, a forum-based POPLA appeal will do the job.

The main thing now is to work within their timescales; frustrating I know that they call the shots with this, but miss them and you're looking at a whole lot of fun (small claims) you can well do without!

The_Slithy_Tove

hoohoo wrote: »

That will be £70 discounted to £40.

PE's average cost per ticket issued is £18, so a true cost would be something like £18 discounted to £10.

£40 is therefore not a genuine amount for checking two photos, paying £2.50 to the DVLA and posting you a letter.

But £18 or even £10 is too much in such a case (free car park). There is NO initial loss to anyone for overstaying or whatever. So PE had no need to spend a single penny in pursuing a zero loss. Any costs they incur in so doing are entirely self-inflicted.

Umkomaas

So PE had no need to spend a single penny in pursuing a zero loss. Any costs they incur in so doing are entirely self-inflicted.

And are penal in nature. Oops, not allowed!

trisontana

A slight hijack, but relevant (I think). I was watching Watchdog tonight and there was a feature about the so-called "admin charges" you have to pay to holiday companies to change or correct a name on an airline ticket. But do those "charges" (which can be £70 or more) actually reflect what it costs the airline to do that work? They are paying the staff a wage anyway, so no extra cost or loss is actually suffered by the company. The members of staff are just doing their normal work.

This same argument can be used for parking companies . To pursue one of their fake fines, a PPC suffers minimum "loss" . Their only actual costs are the £2.50 DVLA fee and the cost of a stamp. Everything else they claim for are just their day-to-day running costs, including staff wages. All the rest they claim for is just a work of fiction.

The_Deep

A genuine loss occurs every time someone does not pay or underpays in a pay and display car park. Overstaying in a free car par does not.

Libby_P

Many thanks, that is very helpful. Will follow the templates on here and send off - much obliged to all who guide newbies like me through this tortuous process! I have also been onto FB pages of the relevant retailers and shared my thoughts as to how discouraging behaviour like this is to shoppers. Both Boots and M and S at least replied even if they passed the buck! thanks again.

Libby_P

BTW the online appeal form has a max character count - the following may be helpful as it will fit in the character count (and hopefully covers all the salient points)


BTW has anyone had any difficulties appealing online? I have printed the "appeal submitted" screen and taken photos over it next to the date on TV news but just wondering if they ever try to say they didn't receive?!


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on the following grounds:





a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.


b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.


c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.


d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.


e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.





The purpose of this communication is:


1. Formal challenge


There will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or should you send a rejection letter, accept my claim for costs.


2. ''Drop hands'' offer


The 'charge' is baseless but I accept you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally I have incurred costs to date researching my position. Neither of our costs exceed £15, therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. You are reminded of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the charge within 35 days without further expense. If you persist then I will charge for my time at £18/hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.


3. Notice of cancellation of contract


I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer, and if I decide to use POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to most consumer contracts. It is the will of Parliament, following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts. Implied consent is insufficient, information must be provided in a durable medium in advance. You have failed to meet these requirements.


By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this charge you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss, likely to exceed £100.


I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.