genuine pre-estimated loss appeal

ABC246

Hi, Newbie here.


I have read the sticky and the FAQ and the POPLA desicision thread.


I notice a lot of appeal have won on the grounds of Not Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL).


I unfortunately cant fine a letter template for this?

the fine is for my van being parked at Barker and Stonehouse car park when the store was closed. There were signs saying parking was free for customers and that you had to get a permit from inside the shop.


I received a fine for £100 which is not reasonable in the slightly I feel as Barker and Stonehouse could not have suffered losses of this amount for someone parking there as the shop was closed!


I wish to appeal as keeper of the vehicle , I am not disputing the signage etc just that it is unreasonable (parking cost at other nearby parking places charge £2.60 for 2 hours and are free after 6pm, I was parked at 8pm), also I have been provided images of my van in the parking space along with the signs - due to this the blue template in the newbie thread is not quite right for my situation?




Re PCN number:

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

Yours faithfully,






I received the notice from he reason stated on my PCN is 81) PARKED IN A RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED AREA


Can I appeal the PCN on basis of genuine pre-estimated loss post-Beavis alone? Do I simply reply asking for how they come up with the pre-estimated lost and maybe refer to the cost of the parking fares at nearby parking areas and based on these 'Without prejudice' offer a reasonable amount of £2.60 to end this matter?




Appreciate any guidance or help on this matter




Cheers

waamo

Genuine pre estimate of loss stopped being an argument a long time ago. Ever since the Supreme Court made a ruling against it in Beavis vs Parking Eye.

Umkomaas

Can I appeal the PCN on basis of genuine pre-estimated loss post-Beavis alone?

Yes, you can ..... but you stand absolutely no chance of success. PE/Beavis at The Supreme Court blew that argument out of the water for private parking tickets, that's why you won't find it anywhere in templates after November 2015.

Which parking firm are you tangling with?

Quentin

That template is tried and tested.

Send it as is

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

The_Deep

I assumed because the shop was closed I could park there,

Why would you assume that Surely the opposite is more likely. Would you park in someone's driveway because they are out? In my opinion, your draft appeal is entirely unacceptable.

However, as you appear to be aware this is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

ABC246

The creditor is Vehicle Control Services Limited.






I was thinking of replying of something along the lines of:




Dear Sir/Madam,





PCN Ref No: 123456


Vehicle Reg: 123456


Date of Issue(posted): ##/##/####





On the above date, I (the keeper of the vehicle) was issued with a CPN for parking without a valid permit at Barker and Stonehouse in *****.


I challenge this notice on a number of issues.

• Unclear signage
• Inappropriate parking charge

The signage states “CUSTOMERS CAN OBTAIN A PARKING PERMIT FROM INSIDE THE STORE – All vehicles without a parking permit will receive a parking fine”


As the store was closed a permit could not be collected, the signage does not state anything about not parking there when the store is closed.





Inappropriate parking charge

The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive and unreasonable amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:

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.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

As the store was closed at the time the vehicle was parked, this could not have cause any pre-estimated loss of any value. Please provide an itemized list of how the genuine pre-estimated loss was calculated.


Without Prejudice, as keeper of the vehicle I am willing to offer a reasonable amount of £3.00 to end this matter. This is based on parking fares at other nearby parking which are between £2.60 and £3.00 for 2 hours.


Yours Sincerely

ABC246

Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.


How large does the lettering have to be? I'm not sure if this is relevant in my case...

fisherjim

Why have you come here for advice and then ignore it?


That appeal will get you nowhere, you have been advised by four long standing members who know what they are talking about, ignore at your peril!

Coupon-mad

As the store was closed at the time the vehicle was parked, this could not have cause any pre-estimated loss of any value. Please provide an itemized list of how the genuine pre-estimated loss was calculated.

Please just forget GPEOL, they will laugh at you and it has no legs.

You have also quoted the old BPA CoP from donkeys years back, to a non-BPA member!

bargepole

It seems that we have an OP who has just arrived on Earth and found this forum, after spending the last three years living in a cave on Mars wearing a blindfold and earplugs ...

ABC246

Apologies I'm not ignoring the advice, I'm just asking for clarification as I'm not sure if the signage angle is relevant is my case. if the GPEOL is useless I'm not sure if I have a chance of winning the appeal. it mentions in the letter that the charges go up if I don't pay in the timeframe so I don't want to do a frivolous appeal then end up having to pay more.


I have never received a parking ticket before so I am not aware of previous cases or the do's and don't hence why I have signed up for advice. For that I apologise for my ignorance but not sure why all the hostility when I am just seeking help/clarification...


The signage was probably adequate so I feel if I reply with the standard blue template they will just throw it in the bin.