LCP parking fine in Harlesden Plaza

Peter_Parker_2015

Hi All

Cant quite believe the cheek of these people.Received a NTK day after boxing day popping into Tescos, had no idea there were parking charges, just assumed it was Tescos.
Replied via e mail after taking a template from this website as follows

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main 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 is 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 admissions 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 alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal“drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for mycosts. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per 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 was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.


.....have now received the rejection of appeal along with a POPLA appeal form with verification code

I must admit I was close to paying it as the discounted rate finishes today but i thought id have another look on here and its rallied my resolve.

Somebody on here said NOT to challenge POPLA yourself so am not sure what to do??

Also i saw an old post from 2012 saying just ignore as it can't be enforced, is this still the case or have they got sneakier?

Any help greatly appreciated!!

Thanks

Redx

the law changed in 2012 so ignore is stupid for england or wales

you wont find any recent threads over the last 2 years telling you to ignore in those 2 "countries"

you wouldnt look at a 2012 newspaper for current news, or the 2012 tv guide for tonights programmes either

read the how to win at popla post and click on the blue words, draft a popla appeal from the examples

I have seen other threads about Harlesden on here so read them too

plus why havent you complained to tescos ? or the landowner if different ?

if this was a tesco turkey gone bad, I am sure you would complain to them about it, or if the cleaner in their toilets was rude to you, take it to the landowner and give them what for too !

put the search word PLAZA in the search box and I count at least 6 threads including yours for this site

pieranposok

A couple of weeks ago I initiated a similar thread, I sent my appeal to LCP, which was refused and they sent the POPLA paperwork to me, exactly what happened to.
I believe that their methods have changed, that is why there is an explosion of threads on this topic, we don't know on which grounds we prepare a POPLA appeal. The documentation they sent me back with their refusal is quite substantial, the only argument which is a bit week is the detailed explanation of the cost.
I would like to understand whether people have actually won at POPLA against LCP lately...

thanks
pap

Grimble

They will quote anything to worry you in to paying and not appealing, GPEOL wins every time, get your appeal done and posted up for one of the experts to look at, do not waste your POPLA code.

Fruitcake

pieranposok wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago I initiated a similar thread, I sent my appeal to LCP, which was refused and they sent the POPLA paperwork to me, exactly what happened to.
I believe that their methods have changed, that is why there is an explosion of threads on this topic, we don't know on which grounds we prepare a POPLA appeal. The documentation they sent me back with their refusal is quite substantial, the only argument which is a bit week is the detailed explanation of the cost.
I would like to understand whether people have actually won at POPLA against LCP lately...

thanks
pap

Grimble wrote: »

They will quote anything to worry you in to paying and not appealing, GPEOL wins every time, get your appeal done and posted up for one of the experts to look at, do not waste your POPLA code.

Do as Grimble says, but please start your own thread when you do.

Fruitcake

Peter_Parker_2015 wrote: »

Somebody on here said NOT to challenge POPLA yourself so am not sure what to do??

That is bad advice. Appeal using the How to Win at POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread. In line with Redx's comments, you wouldn't send someone else to complain about a gone off turkey would you?

OrdinaryPerson

We've just got stung with a PCN at Harlesden Plaza car park too. Driver missed the pay & display sign (it was at night). We think the charge is unfair. LCP rejected our appeal to them so we are weighing up whether to go to POPLA appeal.

POPA's report shows LCP winning about 66 cases and losing 33, so they seem to do well. They also have more experience with POPLA appeal than us. We question is whether we should give up and let the bully takes £50 or fight with a chance of winning of maybe 1/3.

We need to know why these cases won and lost. Is there any reader of this thread who knows about a win or loss at POPLA at Harlesden Plaza carpark? Could you share your experience? One of the threads on MSE reports a win because MSE messed up explaining the charge, but they are unlikely to make the same mistake.

One of the grounds for appeal would be inadequate signage. But LCP said they their signs passed BPA audit. So what are our chances there?

The other ground is NGPEOL. But they argue conistently that the £100 is their admin costs in putting together and sending out the NTK and not messes up, can POPLA rule otherwise? After all, BPA allows up to £100 without pre-explanation. Can they also say that the £100 includes the possibility of dealing with appeals?

Would something like the below work for NGPEOL?

The parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount
LCP’s Notice to Keeper states that
The driver of your vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking ... The driver is therefore liable to pay the Parking Charge to the sum of £100 ...
Thus, LCP is demanding this parking charge on ground of alleged breach of contract. The British Parking Association’s Code of Conduct states that
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.
I believe that the sum of £100 is disproportionate and exceeds genuine pre-estimates of loss. In discussing the concept of “pre-estimate of loss” in a key case (link to case on POPLA site), POPLA has stated that
Nevertheless, even if the sum need not reflect the losses actually incurred by the breach, it must be obvious that it cannot be something that could not have been so incurred.
In this case, POPLA stated, regarding losses to carpark operators
These would include the fee payable to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) to obtain keeper details, where required, and the administrative expenses involved. So too would costs in preparing and sending notices. A parking fee lost from another vehicle that could have been properly parked in the space occupied would also appear to be such as loss.
In these days of computers, telecommunication and automated systems, it would take little time by admin staff to contact the DVLA, and notices could be sent at the push of a button. The DVLA fee and parking fee lost amount to a few pounds.
POPLA has also excluded certain categories of costs from pre-estimate of loss
A genuine pre-estimate of loss is just what it says. The sum should represent a loss, not a profit. It is not the business overheads of the operator. It may well be that operators incur significant costs in managing parking locations but a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot be their entire source of income.

Given these principles, I submit that the charge od £100 is not based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is disproportionate.

Grimble

Please start your own thread and read the Newbies forum, get it through your head it is not a fine, it is a speculative invoice, using a POPLA appeal from the templates have over a 99% success rate.

The_Deep

Why so much negativity here among posters seeking our help?

The law states that you one is entitled in breach of contract to that amount of loss which the breach caused one. Thus, in a P&D where the customer has bilked, they owe the PPC the cost of the parking plus a reasonable amount for their expenses, say £15-£20 at most. In a free car park you do not even owe that much.

This is only a scam if you are a moron, sensible people appeal and cost the PPC money.

Do not worry that one of the ATAs is bent, and is likely to reject your appeal. These appeal decisions are so far divorced from the judicial process that any PPC relying on one in court would almost certainly lose.

Coupon-mad

Peter_Parker_2015 wrote: »

Hi All

Cant quite believe the cheek of these people.Received a NTK day after boxing day popping into Tescos, had no idea there were parking charges, just assumed it was Tescos.
Replied via e mail after taking a template from this website as follows

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main 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 is 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 admissions 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 alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal“drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for mycosts. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per 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 was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.


.....have now received the rejection of appeal along with a POPLA appeal form with verification code

I must admit I was close to paying it as the discounted rate finishes today but i thought id have another look on here and its rallied my resolve.

Somebody on here said NOT to challenge POPLA yourself so am not sure what to do??

Also i saw an old post from 2012 saying just ignore as it can't be enforced, is this still the case or have they got sneakier?

Any help greatly appreciated!!

Thanks

Stop reading OLD posts from 2012 for starters! Yes the law changed, NO do not pay it.

Search the forum for an obvious keyword 'Harlesden' or 'Plaza' and copy the people who have all won POPLA appeals here before. Several threads about this place, I remember 'lynneh' and 'harni2013' I think who won in 2014. They lose on 'no GPEOL' but include other stuff too - the thing that makes it harder is they own the lease so concentrate on other arguments.

You don't even have to write it yourself, if you find/adapt what was used before and be ready to read and rebut their 'evidence' pack (IMPORTANT).

Follow the guidance about 'how to win at POPLA' in the Newbies thread post 3 and other Harlesden Plaza posts you find by searching here and on Google (only look at 2014/15 stuff).

Hurtlocker

Hello - I fell for exactly the same trick (ah, tesco car park!).

I know that their initial rebuttal can seem rather overwhelming but stand firm. I'm currently waiting for POPLA decision which should be imminent.

You can see my case here:

LCP Harlesden Plaza Ticket

It is so important that we contest these as this is the only way that parking fines will come down to a reasonable level - currently for every 3 people who contest, 97 don't - safe to assume the more vulnerable are swooped up in the parking operators' extortionate practices.

see: Open Letter to BPA and Car Park Operators