PCN Notice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd

I had my acknowledgement email from POPLA the day after I submitted my appeal, telling me that the operator will send their evidence to me before the scheduled date of hearing.

So I don't think it is quite the end and I am bracing myself to spend more time on the rebuttal IF VCS send me reams of paper as their evidence.

While I do appreciate all the help I am getting here and am extremely grateful to people like Coupon-Mad / Umkomaas to spend their valuable time to read through my story / draft appeal etc, I just think it is scandalous that I have to spend so much time to deal with an opportunistic 'invoice' who pretend to be a parking fine.

As expected, VCS has emailed me their evidence pack. I have around 7 days before the case is considered. Their GPEOL is version 2, they have included a redacted contract between them and the landlord, rather than trying to pick out their clauses in the contract, I am thinking of concentrating on GPEOL instead.

Although I realised Parking Prankster had a detail breakdown of GEPOL for Excel Parking, is it too much to quote word to word on that document? Here is my initial draft as my rebuttal for which I laid out their claim and go straight to the point without a long winded analysis.

Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


[FONT=&quot]Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxx

VCS have submitted a 24 point ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on xx/xx/2014

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Calculation of VCS’s Genuine Pre-Estimate of Losses (GPEOL).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Most of the costs mentioned by VCS are business-running cost that is tax deductible, i.e. the staff employed to process the paperwork are employed by VCS regardless, these include[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN Creation and Issue[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1st Representations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notice to Drivers, Follow-up reminder Notices [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Final Reminder Process[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would argue that the 2nd Stage Process that they stated is NOT a GPEOL as I am only allow to make representation once to VCS in the 1st Representation stage they stated.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Debt Recovery Process cannot be classified as a GPEOL as it may or may not occur as a result of the issue of the parking charge notice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the follows verdicts from recent adjudications, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was upheld on one or more of the reasons I cite in my appeal:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On June 2014, Assessor Ricky Powell stated in his determination in response to a Excel Parking (the parent company of VCS that has the same GPEOL breakdown) that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The Operator submits that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, I reject this submission for the following reasons;

i) A pre-estimate of loss should only include losses which the Operator reasonably expects to incur as a result of the particular breach the Appellant is alleged to have committed;

ii) The costs for the ‘2nd Stage Process’ are not properly included in the pre-estimate because appellants are only entitled to make representation to the Operator once and so the Operator cannot submit that they expect to incur costs for responding to ‘further representations’. These costs would not naturally flow from the alleged breach and so I must disregard the total of £32.92 from the total;

iii) The costs for the ‘debt recovery process’ are also not properly included in this case. It is not the case that the Operator can reasonably expect, as a matter of course, the sums due not to be paid by an Appellant. It is by no means certain, or even inherently likely, that the debt recovery action suggested by the Operator in its pre-estimate will be necessary. Therefore, I must disregard the total of £14.94 from the pre-estimate.

iv) The total pre-estimate, after the above deductions, amounts to
£75.96. I do not find that this amount substantially reflects the parking charge amount of £100.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore, I find the charge to be a penalty and unenforceable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On 24th October 2014, assessor Aurela Qerimi stated in his determination in response to a VCS adjudication and GPEOL that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“They have submitted a breakdown of the losses they incur as a
result of the Appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the Operator has
included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the Operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the Appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the Operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure of dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the Appellant can re-appeal to the Operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the Operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list
submitted by the Operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the Appellant’s breach. This is because It appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages and damages sought on this
particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. There seems to be no copy of an unredacted contract included between VCS and the Landlord, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3 In my submission to POPLA, I have stated the car parking site is a private residential underground car park that required a 4 digits keycode to gain access to the car park, therefore only residents will be able to gain access to the car park. I have also stated I have a valid permit and authority to park in that car park. The car was parked in the correct bay assigned to the apartment so there is no loss to the landlord.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]VCS[/FONT][FONT=&quot] mentioned several cases in their evidence pack in support of their claims to which I respond to one as follows:

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Lord Dunedin said that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.''...''it is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

[/FONT]

Thanks to everyone who contributed, particularly Coupon-mad and Umkomaas for helping my appeal. Just been informed my appeal is allowed against VCS.


-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)



The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXX arising out of the presence at XXXXXXXX, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXXXXXXX.



The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be [FONT= ]allowed.[/FONT]
[FONT= ]
[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.





[FONT= ]Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[/FONT]
[FONT= ]
[/FONT]
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking (“the Terms”) are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit that the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to display a valid permit and is therefore liable to pay the parking charge issued.



The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one of those grounds. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator submits that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss. However, I reject this submission for the following reasons;

• i) A pre-estimate of loss should only include losses which the Operator reasonably expects to incur as a result of the particular breach the Appellant is alleged to have committed;
• ii) The costs for the ‘2nd Stage Process’ are not properly included in the pre-estimate because appellants are only entitled to make representations to the Operator once and so the Operator cannot submit that they expect to incur costs for responding to ‘further representations’. These costs would not naturally flow from the alleged breach and so I must disregard the total of £32.92 from the total;
• iii) The costs for the ‘debt recovery process’ are also not properly included in this case. It is not the case that the Operator can reasonably expect, as a matter of course, the sums due not to be paid by an Appellant. It is by no means certain, or even inherently likely, that the debt recovery action suggested by the Operator in its pre-estimate will be necessary. Therefore, I must disregard the total of £14.94 from the pre-estimate.
• iv) The total pre-estimate, after the above deductions, amounts to £76.20. I do not find that this amount substantially reflects the parking charge amount of £100.

Therefore, I find the charge to be a penalty and unenforceable.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.



[FONT= ]Ricky Powell
[/FONT]
[FONT= ]
[/FONT]
Assessor