LCP Harlesden Plaza Ticket

Hurtlocker

Hello, thanks for this great resource - below is my POPLA appeal.


RE: Notice to Keeper xxx for Vehicle Reg xxx on xx xxx 2014
Dear Sir/Madam


I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from LCP Parking Services Limited. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
3) Unclear and unlit signage.
5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss


The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. As the PCN sum is massively inflated over and above the stated tariff, I requested LCP to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.


However in their letter rejecting my appeal, LCP explicitly state “The charge is issued as a deterrent”. I therefore put to you that hence if applied the charge would be punitive in nature.


POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”. This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''


The LCP Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This must amount in its entirety, only to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they have devised afterwards, since this would not be a pre-estimate.


Any later 'new' calculation (even if dressed up to look like a loss statement)would fall foul of Mr Greenslade's explanation about GPEOL in the POPLA 2014 Report and would also falls foul of the DFT Guidance about private parking charges. The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST': "19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
It should also be noted that the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and cannot include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence


However in their letter rejecting my appeal,

• LCP represent their calculated costs arisen to date –I therefore put to you that this is not a genuine pre-estimate as they have calculated costs after the event.
• Furthermore, Administration Costs of £105 are described as “Labour costs for processing this notice and initial appeal” – I therefore put to you, LPC has included costs in their charge relating to mounting a defence of the appeal, and once again this is not a genuine pre-estimate of Loss.

Hurtlocker

Continued...



Extract from LCP Parking’s rejection of initial appeal (NOT IN NTK)



The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. I suggest there was never any advance meeting held with the client, nor regard paid to any 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' prior to setting the parking charges at this site (before putting signs up and enforcing the charges, back when the contract was initially signed). I put this operator to strict proof to the contrary and to explain how the calculation happens to be the same whether the alleged overstay is 20 minutes or 20 hours.


2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability


As this was a Pay/Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due'. The NTK fails to state the amount of the parking charge which remains unpaid (i.e. the fee or tariff which allegedly remained unpaid, not the inflated sum which this Operator also calls a 'parking charge'). As keeper I can see from the limited information before me in the NTK, only that the car stayed for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was 'either/or' an overstay or failure to pay.

This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. As this operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect and record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, they are certainly able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charge' arose.

These are the omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid...'

This so-called outstanding 'payment' is not quantified at all - I have had to guess what it might have been, by going back and checking the signs to find out the tariff. Only after appealing did LCP disclose the charge for the period in question as being £2; or just 2% of the £100 penalty they have artificially imposed.



POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.''


I therefore put to you that - As the Notice to Keeper which LCP produced was not compliant with the Act due to the omissions of statutory wording, it was not properly given and so there is no keeper liability.

3 UNCLEAR AND UNLIT SIGNAGE - NO CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DRIVER

LCP have sent me the alleged 'full car park terms and conditions' which their website says are 'available upon request' but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read.

There are no low-positioned, clear, illuminated signs on entry to this car park which would have communicated any terms of parking to a driver. So the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. LCP failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as was found in a comparable camera-reliant car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”
LCP have quoted the Beavis case in their letter. However this is going to the Court of Appeal now and was a decision in small claims only, full of caveats and no case law whatsoever since there is nothing that supports a penalty in a consumer contract. This would be a breach of the UTCCRs.





5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate




I call into question the ANPR system accuracy and compliance, since this car park has no parking staff on site. So I require the Operator to present records which prove the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the data. BPA CoP 21.2 and 21.3 make these documented checks a requirement.

The BPA Code of Practice also says:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras.''

No signs at this car park tell drivers how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, so the system does not operate in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. I contend LCP have failed to comply with the ICO terms of registration and are in breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary as they have not yet shown me a sign which covers this 'ANPR data use' requirement.

In addition to the above, I recently visited the car park on foot to take time to read the signs. I came across a white sign that states a PCN 'will' be issued twice and once that a PCN 'may' be issued. - Which does leave questions in regards to the accuracy of anything else writte within the body of the text. I also took time to visit the Burger King side of the same car park. A banner in this area states that there is 'no stopping or waiting' for anyone other than Burger King customers. This would lead me to believe that the parking charge does not apply in this area, as, of course, the area cannot be both be covered by a parking tariff and a 'no-waiting' rule. If it is one it can't be the other.

Also, I have noted LCP's comments regarding the template used to appeal. The use of templates to facilitate and expedite work is both clever and efficient. Instead LCP Parking apparently prefer to recoup the cost of their inefficiencies by overinflating parking charges with “3 hours of labour at £35/hour”.


It is respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

You have missed out any point #4. The rest looks good but really would be best merged with your other thread so people can read this in the knowledge of the situation, i.e. we need to see at a glance whether the car was in the drive thru (different banner sign there, nothing about PCNs and not 'parking') or just parked in the dark, whether any payment was made, etc.

Hurtlocker

Thanks - Hopefully POPLA can count better than I can!


The NTK is in relation to 48 Minute unpaid parking charge - I thought it was a free car park. Would have been happy to pay £2 + £4 for DVLA look up and Postage, but it seems LCP would prefer to spend £28 on a POPLA appeal and get zero from me.....winning! :cool:

Hurtlocker

Hello,


POPLA have postponed consideration for the appeal till on or around the 20th February - I imagine they're workload is ballooning as more people become aware of this racket and the steps one can take to break it!


In the meantime, another company "ZZPS" who seem to be some sort of debt collection agency, have kindly informed me that my "case" has now been passed to them from LCP, and that I now owe them £160 due to extra debt recovery costs!


The best way to stop costs rising is stop senseless chasing while we wait for a decision from POPLA. Not sure why they continue to harass me and inflate this fictional charge - Should I inform POPLA?


Thanks

Hurtlocker

LCP have now sent through their reply to my POPLA appeal which is due for hearing on the 20th of Feb.

I have pasted it below and would appreciate any feedback. Should I bother with a rebuttal?

Oh - And below I've substituted my real name for someone super super bad :cool:

Hurtlocker

To whom it may concern,

3413224002 - LC10045296 / CE59HOH

In response to the points raised in [Mr McLovin]’s appeal to POPLA, we would like to comment as follows:
In reference to Mr [McLovin]’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..No genuine pre-estimate of loss.” And in particular his comment (quote/unquote): “..in their letter rejecting my appeal, LCP explicitly state “The charge is issued as a deterrent”. I therefore put to you that hence if applied the charge would be punitive in nature.”

The charge is issued in order to recover our outgoings that have arisen solely from the issuance of this Parking Charge to Mr [McLovin]; and in respect of a contractual fee for breaching our terms and conditions in the car park known as Harlesden Plaza.

LCP incur significant expenses for issuing each notice, including (and not limited to) costs per notice issued, the cost to the DVLA, consumables, postage of the Notice to Keeper and Final Notice to Keeper, administration and man hours required in verifying the notice is accurate and dealing with her appeal, and ultimately the cost to POPLA. To date (and pre submission to POPLA), Mr [McLovin] has cost LCP £110.91, any balances remaining after (and if) the £100 is paid are put toward back office wages.

It is entirely unfair that LCP should now be “out of pocket” as the result of Mr [McLovin]/the driver that has not taken the time to ensure that they comply with the stated terms at our facility and is now
solely basing his defence on information garnered from the internet. Had he opted to submit an appeal after the initial Notice to Keeper was sent to him, then he would have still had the opportunity to settle this charge at the lower amount of £50, however he has opted not to do so and cost LCP.

By remaining in the car park for 48 minutes and 30 seconds, [McLovin’s real name]/the driver agreed to pay this sum if they failed to purchase a ticket in order to comply with the clearly advertised Terms and Conditions on site. 48 minutes is more than ample time to read any of the numerous signs on site. As you will no doubt agree circa 48 minutes is a rather long time to either be “sat in the car” or deciding whether or not you wish to park and pay for your parking.
LCP believes the £100 charge is fair and reasonable. The full amount of the Parking Charge is £100 and was approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department of Transport in 2012. The reduction of 50% for early payment within 14 days were prescribed and approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Office of Fair Trade in 2012.
To quote Marina Kapour, the POPLA Assessor who ‘refused’ the appellant’s appeal against the operator, CP Plus: “A pre-estimate of loss need not reflect which is actually caused by the breach, but must be a genuine attempt to estimate the loss which could be caused.”

Also, to quote Christopher Adamson, the POPLA Assessor ‘refused’ the appellant’s appeal against LCP Parking Services Ltd (3412734010): “The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss which may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge notice. These heads of loss include an initial loss of the parking fee which the Appellant did not pay, and other losses consequential to this initial loss.

The Operator is not required to show that this is the loss which was actually caused by the breach, but that it was a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could be caused and so is enforceable against the Appellant who agreed to the charge by parking.”

And more recently, Amy Riley, the POPLA Assessor also ‘refused’ the appellant’s appeal against LCP Parking Services Ltd (3413074001), stating the same points as Christopher Adamson but adding “Taking together all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied on this occasion that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.”

In reference to Mr [McLovin]’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..in their letter rejecting my appeal,
i. LCP represent their calculated costs arisen to date – I therefore put to you that this is not a genuine pre-estimate as they have calculated costs after the event.

LCP’s response: This is an estimate of losses that have arisen and flowed from the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice.
ii. Furthermore, Administration costs of £105 are described as “Labour costs for processing this notice and initial appeal” – I therefore put to you, LPC has included costs in their charge relating to mounting a defence of the appeal, and once again this is not a genuine pre-estimate of Loss.”

LCP’s response: This is what it costs LCP to process the notice and man time spent dealing with the subsequent appeals/cases.

Our estimate of loss is a sum which has arisen and flowed directly from the issuance of this charge and is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Accordingly, our breakdown is as follows: ITEM COST DESCRIPTION
DVLA Lookup £2.50 Kadoe enquiry.
Postage and Consumables £1.41 Postage, printing, and back-office cost per PCN.
Labour costs £105.00 Labour cost for THIS notice and subsequent appeals.
Non-payment on the date of event £2.00 Allowing for the 10 minutes grace period, the tariff is £2 for an hour.
Total: £110.91

As per our advertised terms and conditions, 7(a), at Harlesden Plaza car park which is Private Property, any length of stay is payable, whether you remain in the car or not.

The full amount of the Parking Charge, which is an enforceable charge levied for breach of contract, is £100 and was approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department of Transport in 2012. The reduced amount for early payment is £50. This sum is also clearly laid out on the signage at the site and, by remaining on site, LCP contend that [McLovin]/the driver accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charges for breach of contract.

As per the above, the figure of £100 therefore has been endorsed as a reasonable upper level of charging across the industry and both the Parking Charge amounts and the reduction of 50% for early payment within 14 days were prescribed and approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Office of Fair Trade in 2012.

In reference to Mr [McLovin]’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..The Notice is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.” And in particular, (quote/unquote): “I therefore put to you that – As the Notice to Keeper which LCP produced was not compliant with the Act due to the omissions of statutory wording, it was not properly given and so there is no keeper liability.”
All of our signs at the car park entrances are set out in accordance with Appendix B of the AOS CoP and in terms of clarity and scale of text and were all approved by our BPA audit held on site on the 10th March 2014.

The Notice To Keeper is compliant. The relevant information is clearly stated on the Notice To Keeper, which was posted within the time frame as per the BPA Code of Practice fully complies with the PoFA 2012.Schedule 4. Section 56, Point 7(2). The Notice To Keeper makes plain that it is issued for Non-Payment.

Our current Notice To Keeper was drafted by BP Collins LLP to ensure full compliance with the Act.
In reference to Mr [McLovin]’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..Unclear and unlit signage – no contract made with the driver.” And(quote/unquote): “..but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read.”

A signage plan indicating where all our signs in the car park are situated was sent to Mr [McLovin] with our reply to his appeal. The Terms and Conditions signs are marked ‘B’ on the signage plan.
The lighting within Harlesden Plaza car park was installed from the outset for the purpose of ensuring our signs are prominent and legible. In the dark, the lighting is bright enough to illuminate the Pay & Display tariff boards and any driver entering the car park from either of the access roads would drive past all of the signs prior to parking and therefore any approaching vehicle’s headlights would light up the signs because they are REFLECTIVE.

Our entry signs as well as the tariff boards indicate the car park operates on a 24/7 basis.
As per our advertised signs and terms and conditions, 7(b) and 7(c), at the car park, we manage the car park by number plate recognition camera, (the photos, dated and time taken noted accordingly, were on the Parking Charge Notice) which is correlated to payments made at the pay stations, as such we have not had CEO's in attendance at this site since October 2010. The Terms & Conditions are on display throughout the car park.

Our ANPR system at the car park allows a grace period of 10 minutes from time of entry to reach an exit or the Burger King Drive Through. LCP believe 10 minutes is sufficient time to drive straight through the car park (as it is sometimes used as a short cut), and it is also sufficient time to drop off or pick up a passenger before exiting.

When a driver parks on private land, and/or a privately owned car park, they are deemed to have accepted the parking terms and conditions and have entered into a contract with the landowner. The signs displayed in the car park setting out the terms and conditions for using the car park are the terms of the contract.

If [McLovin]/the driver had read the Terms and Conditions of the car park, they would have noted:
7(a): any length of stay is payable, whether you remain in the car or not.
7(b): each vehicle is recorded as it enters the car park and again as it leaves the car park.
7(c): exiting the car park without having paid the appropriate parking charges and entering your full vehicle registration number constitutes a breach of these Tens & Conditions and vehicle keepers may be subject to a parking Charge Notice.
Also: A Parking charge notice may be issued to the Registered Keepers address by information from the DVLA for:
8(a): Not entering full registration number when making payment.
8(b): Not having validated payment using Dash telephone system.
8(c): Non payment or overstay of parking time.

In reference to Mr [McLovin]’s comments to POPLA, (quote/unquote): “..The ANPR system is unreliable and neither sychronised nor accurate.” And(quote/unquote): “..No signs at this car park tell drivers how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used..” And(quote/unquote): “..I came across a white sign that states a PCN ‘will’ be issued and once that a PCN ‘may’ be issued..” And(quote/unquote): “..I also took time to visit the Burger King side of the same car park. A banner in this area states that there is ‘no stopping or waiting’ for anyone other than Burger King customers.”

Our ANPR cameras and payment machines are maintained, adjusted, calibrated and synchronised daily with internet time at 4am to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of all the images and payments.

Our ANPR sign is situated at BOTH entrances to Harlesden Plaza car park, it clearly states the car park is private property, and that a PCN may be issued for not having paid and registered your vehicles registration at the payment machine (point 1).

The 24 hour Pay & Display tariff boards, of which there are 3 in the car park, are yellow and white and at a height where it is clearly visible throughout the car park, the clearly state a PCN may be issued for non-payment in lieu of parking time (point 3).

The picture of the ANPR sign which was sent to Mr [McLovin] with our reply to his appeal was sent in error as it did show the ANPR sign as it was prior to being amended in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. All 4 of our ANPR signs showed the word ‘may’ at the time of Mr [McLovin]’s unauthorized parking event.

Mr [McLovin] may have viewed the Burger King side of the car park on another visit to Harlesden Plaza, however, on the date of his unauthorized parking event, he entered the car park from the Manor Park Road entrance, and he exited the car park via the same Manor Park Road entrance. He did not exit the car park via the Burger King exit, nor did he exit the car park from the main car park exit, therefore, his comment regarding the Burger King Drive-thru is irrelevant. However, for your reference, the banner he has described to POPLA is there to warn car park customers they cannot park in the Drive-thru area, which some have done in the past, as it is strictly for the Burger King Drive-thru customers.
Private management of car parks is essential for landholders. They have a right to operate their land as they see fit and allow motorists to use this land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The contracts, and its clauses, are necessary to prevent abuse of private land. The terms and conditions are on display at the car park and it is the obligation of the motorist to comply with these when they park in the car park.

Private car park management prevents abuse of private land by unscrupulous drivers and there is justification for private car park management as it helps to combat this abuse. It also ensures there is a reasonable turnover of cars within the car park and free bays available at any time for motorists that require parking and are prepared to pay and abide by the Terms and Conditions.
It is flagrantly clear from Mr [McLovin]’s appeal to LCP that he copied text from the internet. Rather than co-operating with LCP and submitting a specific appeal to be considered which clarified why he/the driver failed to comply with the Terms and Condition or submit a reason as to why he/the driver did not purchase a ticket in mitigation of the charge, he has opted to submit a generic appeal in order to protract the matter further. This has cost LCP more than it would in order to consider a straightforward appeal.

Ultimately, [McLovin] has declined to settle this charge at the discounted rate and therefore is now responsible for settlement of this charge in full. It is clear that his vehicle was parked in an LCP facility without complying with the Terms and Conditions and not paying the appropriate fee.
[McLovin] did not heed the signs at the car park; his vehicle was parked for circa 48 minutes and no payment was made. Had the appropriate tariff been paid, we would not have issued the Notice To Keeper. We contend that Mr [McLovin]/the driver was parked, as why else would a driver remain in a car park for 48 minutes if not in fact parked? 48 minutes is more than ample time to have noticed or read one of our circa 30 signs at the car park.

We manage the Car Park by ANPR to ensure compliance by users in order to deliver empty spaces to visitors that have a requirement for an empty parking space. If we did not have management controls on site then the car park would be fully occupied by “Rogue” non-paying customers to the detriment of paying customers visiting the area.

It should also be noted that LCP Parking Services Ltd is the Lessee of the car park as well as the operator.

Please feel free to contact LCP should you require any further clarification on this matter.

Best regards,
Appeals
w/encs.

trisontana

"Labour costs £105.00 Labour cost for THIS notice and subsequent appeals"

Complete hogwash.Are they saying that they only pay their staff when they are actually dealing with a ticket. What about on a quiet day when there are no tickets to deal with. Don't they get paid then?Staff wages are part of the company's day-to day running costs and would have to be paid anyway.

pieranposok

Hello,

any news about your POPLA appeal? I am exactly in your situation and I would like to know whether it makes sense to send out the POPLA appeal because, in the end, only the pre-estimation of losses is the key I believe.

cheers
pap

Hurtlocker

pieranposok wrote: »

Hello,

any news about your POPLA appeal? I am exactly in your situation and I would like to know whether it makes sense to send out the POPLA appeal because, in the end, only the pre-estimation of losses is the key I believe.

cheers
pap

Hi there - It was originally due for hearing in February but I still have not heard back from POPLA. In the meantime LCP seem to have passed the PCN onto a claims handler which is a mistake on their part given the matter is with POPLA.

You are correct in saying that pre-estimation of loss (or lack thereof) is a key defence, but you will still need to make that defence via a POPLA appeal. If you do not make a POPLA appeal, then LCP will keep chasing you for payment and your ability to defend yourself would be limited if they chose to go down legal/court route.

It's about "going through the proper channels", but don't let that put you off fighting it!

Coupon-mad

If LCP have sent their 'evidence pack' (check your spam and junk email folders) please show us the GPEOL they are using as evidence.