Harlesden Plaza PCN: advice needed

OrdinaryPerson

We have just been stung with a PCN at Harlesden Plaza. Driver did not see the play & display signs (it was at night). Our representation to LCP has been rejected and we are looking for advice about making a POPLA appeal.

(Please be patient a this is the first time I'm dealing with this - only had council parking fines before, which is different).

I have read the guides on MSE and understand that LCP charge is not a fine. I also knows that the POPLA appeal should target within the 4 grounds that POPLA lists.

"Vehicle is stolen" is out, so that leaves the other three:

1. Vehicle is not improperly parked:

For this I plan to use the "inadequate signage" argument. But it might be tough because LCP claims that their signs passed BPA audit in 02/2015.

Has anyone won or lost at Harlesden Plaza on this ground? Can you share your experience?

2. The charge (£100) is excessive:

For this I plan to use the argument "not GPEOL" because it seems to be the most versatile winning argument overall. Some questions, please:

a) Has anyone lost using this argument (I'm not talking about those greedy operators)?
b) Can LCP argue that the £100 is not a PEOL, but an contractually agreed amount (in order to sidestep the argument "not GPEOL")? If so then how? And how can I counter this possibility?

3. Keeper not liable to pay:

For this, it looks like "Failing Schedule 4 of POFA" is the best bet for our case. Even so, it looks like the NTK is quite well crafted and any fault would be subtle, and might need someone with sharp eyes to expose. So if anyone could help I would like to ask about this.

HO87

Make sure that you have read through the Newbies thread (I know its very long but it does contain all the advice you'll need) before you - potentially - reinvent the wheel as there are basic templates you can adapt to suit.

You have the right idea with regard to the grounds of your appeal. Keep in mind that there are those who will argue that the grounds of appeal have been artificially kept as narrow as possible so as to minimise the numbers of appeals. POPLA are not independent but, at least, act more independently than their counterpart at the IPC who act more like an anonymous kangaroo court.

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

For this I plan to use the "inadequate signage" argument. But it might be tough because LCP claims that their signs passed BPA audit in 02/2015.

Tough to beat? I think not. All that the BPA audit entails is the check of a minimal number of sites (probably just one) and the only check that appears to be conducted is that there are actually signs. No assessment of visibility, illumination or legal content is made. As we have seen in the past signs have purportedly passed a BPA audit only for a closer examination of them to reveal that they do not contain a contractual offer. The audit is little more that a sop to the public. Don't forget that the BPA is just a trade protection association that exists to further and protect its members interests. It is not in any way a regulator - even if it seems to the uninitiated that that is what they are.

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

For this I plan to use the argument "not GPEOL" because it seems to be the most versatile winning argument overall. Some questions, please:

a) Has anyone lost using this argument (I'm not talking about those greedy operators)?

Occasionally, where the argument has not been properly formulated - so avoid using the acronym for starters. GPEOL only applies where the PPC allege that their charge is because of a breach of terms and conditions/contract. It would not apply where it is alleged that the PCN represents a contractual charge/fee.

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

b) Can LCP argue that the £100 is not a PEOL, but an contractually agreed amount (in order to sidestep the argument "not GPEOL")? If so then how? And how can I counter this possibility?

LPC can certainly argue that but at the end of the day the wording of their sign will seal the deal. Any mention of the word "breach" or "contravention" and their argument is likely to be stuffed.

OrdinaryPerson wrote: »

3. Keeper not liable to pay:

For this, it looks like "Failing Schedule 4 of POFA" is the best bet for our case. Even so, it looks like the NTK is quite well crafted and any fault would be subtle, and might need someone with sharp eyes to expose. So if anyone could help I would like to ask about this.

Well, if LPC's paperwork fully satisfies the requirements of Schedule 4 it would be a first. The law requires that in order to be able to invoke the keeper liability provisions the Notice to Driver and any subsequent Notice to Keeper must include the details set out in para 7 and para 9. Read Here.

Coupon-mad

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).

Please stop trying to match your appeal to POPLA's 4 headings - IGNORE the 4 headings. 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).

OrdinaryPerson

Thank you very much, HO87, for the very clear and good advice.

HO87 wrote: »

Make sure that you have read through the Newbies thread (I know its very long but it does contain all the advice you'll need) before you - potentially - reinvent the wheel as there are basic templates you can adapt to suit.

Yes, I have read that a few times and I am trying to follow the advice from there - I am asking questions to to help me with the adaption and to assess my chances.

HO87 wrote: »

You have the right idea with regard to the grounds of your appeal. Keep in mind that there are those who will argue that the grounds of appeal have been artificially kept as narrow as possible so as to minimise the numbers of appeals. POPLA are not independent but, at least, act more independently than their counterpart at the IPC who act more like an anonymous kangaroo court.

Good advice. I will make use of the three of the 4 grounds listed by POPLA, but I will also include others.

HO87 wrote: »

Tough to beat? I think not. All that the BPA audit entails is the check of a minimal number of sites (probably just one) and the only check that appears to be conducted is that there are actually signs. No assessment of visibility, illumination or legal content is made. As we have seen in the past signs have purportedly passed a BPA audit only for a closer examination of them to reveal that they do not contain a contractual offer. The audit is little more that a sop to the public. Don't forget that the BPA is just a trade protection association that exists to further and protect its members interests. It is not in any way a regulator - even if it seems to the uninitiated that that is what they are.

That's a really helpful point. I sensed that LCP was trying to scare me with "we passed BPA audit", and that it can't be beyond the BPA auditors to miss faults, but I didn't know anything about it, so thank you very much for that point.

HO87 wrote: »

Occasionally, where the argument [of "No GPEOL" - OrdinaryPerson] has not been properly formulated - so avoid using the acronym for starters. GPEOL only applies where the PPC allege that their charge is because of a breach of terms and conditions/contract. It would not apply where it is alleged that the PCN represents a contractual charge/fee.

In this case, the NTK does say, "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 ...", so from what you said above, does that mean that the argument applies?

So should I mention "No GPEOL" explicitly?

HO87 wrote: »

LPC can certainly argue that [PCN represents a contractual charge/fee - OrdinaryPerson] but at the end of the day the wording of their sign will seal the deal. Any mention of the word "breach" or "contravention" and their argument is likely to be stuffed.

Yes, the NTK does say "The driver of your vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking". But I have not been back to the car park to check their wording on the signs. The terms and conditions they sent me says "A parking charge notice may be issued ..." but it does not say what the value of the PCN is.

So can they find any reasonable ground to say that the PCN represents a contractual charge/fee? Eg, can they say something like "The terms and conditions we sent you do not mention £100, but we have signs that mention £100"?

Sorry if that might sound negative, which I don't mean to be, I am only trying to work out what the opponent could do and what the effect would be.

HO87 wrote: »

Well, if LPC's paperwork fully satisfies the requirements of Schedule 4 it would be a first. The law requires that in order to be able to invoke the keeper liability provisions the Notice to Driver and any subsequent Notice to Keeper must include the details set out in para 7 and para 9.

I'll go through the NTK again more carfully to se if I can find any non-compliance. Hesitate to post it on the forum because LCP might work out who I am and reading the discussion might give them an advantage.

Thank you again for you advice.

Coupon-mad

Read the threads that come up when you search.

For example, threads by 'lynneh' and 'harni2013' and 'SteveDrums' to name three (I just bumped his thread as there were a few new threads this past couple of weeks just like yours, none of whom seemed to have thought to search...). That's how a forum works best, new threads are only the half of it. The information on other threads already here about the same place (as long as fairly recent from 2014 onwards) is more important to search for and find.

OrdinaryPerson

Thanks, Coupon-mad, for your help.

I have seen the thread where lynneh won against LCP, when POPLA ruled

lynneh wrote: »

The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This is because the full amount of the parking charge is £100. When the amount of the parking charge is representative of damages it must be genuinely pre-estimated by the operator before a contract with the driver is formed. It is clear that the amount lost by the operator as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach is calculated at £34.90. Therefore, the operator has not shown how the £100 parking charge is justified as the loss incurred as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

But my question is could LCP learn from loosing to lynneh and now cooks up some bogus numbers that add up to £100 instead of £34.90 and claims that the new numbers are more accurate? Could POPLA agree with the new bogus numbers?

Again, I amd not trying to be negative, I am trying to work out what LCP could do and what the effects are likely to be.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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).

Please stop trying to match your appeal to POPLA's 4 headings - IGNORE the 4 headings. 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).

Coupon-mad

Nope they've lost again since then with the same GPEOL, they are a bit dim it seems. The only way you will know is when you see their emailed 'evidence pack' so come back when you get it.

OrdinaryPerson

Believe me, I have spent most of last week's evenings and last weekend searching and reading, eg, lynneh's thread and a number of others, the posting "SECOND STAGE APPEAL - POPLA OR IAS", POFA Schedule 4, etc ...

... to the point that my "boss" says to me that the time I'm spending has probably added up to more that £50 or £100 worth .

But to me it's not just money but a matter of rights and wrongs.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Read the threads that come up when you search.

For example, threads by 'lynneh' and 'harni2013' and 'SteveDrums' to name three (I just bumped his thread as there were a few new threads this past couple of weeks just like yours, none of whom seemed to have thought to search...). That's how a forum works best, new threads are only the half of it. The information on other threads already here about the same place (as long as fairly recent from 2014 onwards) is more important to search for and find.

Hurtlocker

HI OP - I got your PM but thought I'd reply here. I know that LCP's 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.

Your "boss" is right though - it does cost us more in lost productivity to contest! see: Open Letter to BPA and Car Park Operators.

OrdinaryPerson

Thanks, HL.

I hope you win, both for yourself and for everyone affected by this. Just talked to my brother in law, he won POPLA appeal on NGPEOL and it was the only argument he used.

As a newbie, I find it incredible that while NGPEOL wins most of the cases based on alleged breach of contract, the parking operators still try to claim these absurd charges.

The must have calculated cynically that only small percent go to POPLA appeal, and only half win, so they don't care about losing a small percentage of cases, because they're still making megabucks from the vast majority of cases.

A few months ago I got an unpaid transaction because I changed credit card and the insurance company couldn't collect the premium for my house insurance then they renewed cover for next year. They sent me a letter to tell me, saying that they are providing cover past the renewal date, and I need to pay them in so many days, otherwise they will cancel my policy.

They charged me 0 pence for the unpaid transaction of a few hundred pounds and for the cost of sending the letter to me.

And these disgusting parking people are trying to get £100 from us.

I have not thought about these people before, but as I understand more, they fill me with disgust, preying on people who don't know and bullying them.

OrdinaryPerson

I'm writing the POPLA appeal and I'm trying to underserstand what can be included in a GPEOL so I don't go off on the wrong track. Could someone help me?
1. Unpaid tariff: Yes.
2. DVLA search: Yes.
3. Cost in sending out NTK: Yes.
4. Overheads: No.
5. Profit: No.
6. Costs in replying to my appeal to them: Partly?
7. POPLA appeal costs: Partly?
What I'm not 100% sure on is the last two costs. I have seen some people argue that they can't include these, but is that the right argument?
If everyone appeals then they can include the full costs? If nobody appeals then the can't? So they can include fractions of those costs depending on how many PCNs they give out and how many appeals there are is that right?
So can I demand that they prove how many PCNs they give out and how many appeals there are?
If they say like to HL that it costs them some amount that looks made up, how can I dispute that? Is it their words against mine?