Flipping heck !!

[cardiac arrest]

Yes , got done for a parking charge in a private car park.. It was down London and I entered a shopping area to drop a friend off at the chemist while I waited. Not familiar with the area I 'assumed' that there was free parking for the shops, for maybe an hour..We were 16 minutes, and they 'allow' you 11 minutes..so 5 minutes overstay.

Anyway, cutting to the chase i appealed to POPLA and lost and LCP wanted £100, not the £50 discounted amount..plus they said if you appeal to POPLA and lose, the discount is withdrawn. Before the POPLA decision was informed I knew I was going to lose, they had all angles covered here, so I went to their online payment system, put in my PCN number and it said I owed £50...you can't enter your own amount so you can only pay what is says on their system, So I paid the £50 they said was due..

Now, 2 weeks later LCP have written to me saying they want another £50, because the appeal to POPLA was lost and the discount no longer applies. Interestingly a week before this, I actually went into their payment system to see if I could just enter an amount and pay that, but it said £100 was owing so I didn't bother. Since then they have obviously changed the amount to £50, and now they're saying it should be £100.

I'm sorely tempted to just tell them I've settled the account for the amount they said was owing, and that's that. Coming back and saying they want another £50 is not on, I paid what it said, in good faith, bla bla..

Question is, if they take me to court, do I have a leg to stand on ? (I hear LCP are a bit aggressive...).

[cardiac arrest]

just spent an hour or so reading the Beavis judgement...Am just thinking that while £85 was seen as an acceptable amount in this case, and that LCP quote this case in their POPLA evidence...great play was made in the court about the fact Beavis enjoyed 2 hours of free parking, and that in this context £85 was reasonable..LCP offered no free parking, it was pay and display, and if you ran over it was £50 or £100. so in context of the Beavis judgement, doesn't LCP seem excessive ?

[cymruambyth]

Do you have a receipt or even better a screen shot of your payment? I would guess that if they tried to take you to court the fact that you paid the amount requested on the site would be a defence.

[cardiac arrest]

Do you have a receipt or even better a screen shot of your payment? I would guess that if they tried to take you to court the fact that you paid the amount requested on the site would be a defence.

unfortunately not,but their system will show that there is no option other than to pay what it says on the screen, you can't delete or overwrite it. Hence is must have said £50 otherwise I wouldn't have been able to pay it. I can't prove it said £100 prior to that, but somewhere in their system will be a transaction that changed that.I have until 9th october to cough up the extra £50.

LCP emailed me yesterday to say it said £50 because the POPLA appeal result hadn't been given yet. I have just been on to their payment screen and it says "payment already completed for this PCN, please contact us if you have any queries".

[Still Waving]

unfortunately not,but their system will show that there is no option other than to pay what it says on the screen, you can't delete or overwrite it. Hence is must have said £50 otherwise I wouldn't have been able to pay it. I can't prove it said £100 prior to that, but somewhere in their system will be a transaction that changed that.I have until 9th october to cough up the extra £50.

LCP emailed me yesterday to say it said £50 because the POPLA appeal result hadn't been given yet. I have just been on to their payment screen and it says "payment already completed for this PCN, please contact us if you have any queries".

Take a screenshot of that, it could be useful.

It could be argued that it constitutes unfair practice to demand full payment simply because you appealed, when you had nevertheless already paid the 'discounted' amount within the allowed time.

Might also be worth browsing this site, if you haven't already -
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

[cardiac arrest]

Take a screenshot of that, it could be useful.

It could be argued that it constitutes unfair practice to demand full payment simply because you appealed, when you had nevertheless already paid the 'discounted' amount within the allowed time.

Might also be worth browsing this site, if you haven't already -
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

thanks, yes i took a photo of it to show the date..They actually said they're demanding full payment because i lost the appeal (pretty obvious if I won I wouldn't pay anything). The fact I was allowed to pay the £50 by their system doesn't seem to convince them, they just said it was like that until the case appeal had been decided.. I'll have a read of your link..thank you for responding.

[Still Waving]

thanks, yes i took a photo of it to show the date..They actually said they're demanding full payment because i lost the appeal (pretty obvious if I won I wouldn't pay anything). The fact I was allowed to pay the £50 by their system doesn't seem to convince them, they just said it was like that until the case appeal had been decided.. I'll have a read of your link..thank you for responding.

Theirs doesn't sound like an argument that would stand up. You paid the correct amount within the discount period - in good faith, as £50 was the amount showing as payable at that time, and it was accepted by their website - pending the outcome of the appeal, to protect yourself against the heavier penalty. A very reasonable course of action. In a test of reasonableness, their stance seems weak.

[cardiac arrest]

Theirs doesn't sound like an argument that would stand up. You paid the correct amount within the discount period - in good faith, as £50 was the amount showing as payable at that time, and it was accepted by their website - pending the outcome of the appeal, to protect yourself against the heavier penalty. A very reasonable course of action. In a test of reasonableness, their stance seems weak.

Thanks, when you put it like that it sounds better. I think the truth of it is that someone at LCP made an error in reducing it to £50 from £100. The discount period had expired and I had made an appeal to POPLA, so whatever outcome it could never be £50, only £100 or nothing.

Aside from that though, I've read the link you gave me,and found the case Parking Eye v Carguis. Although this was judged prior to the Supreme Court case hearing the Beavis appeal, there does not seem to be anything new in the appeal to affect the Carguis decision. Carguis won his appeal against Parking Eye because the judge ruled that the Beavis case ruling was different circumstances. In Beavis there was a 2 hour free parking period, so parking eye only made it money from people not paying and thus the £85 was considered appropriate ..however Carguis had paid £4 for 4 hours, so parking Eye made regular income from charges and did not need to charge £100 for offenders.

In my situation, LCP charge £8 for 4 hours and demand £100 for failing to comply. PE must make enough income from the parking meter not to need to apply £100non compliance fee, which in effect means it is a penalty charge, and unenforceable ...?? As I've paid £50 in 'good will', I reckon that's enough...

[Still Waving]

Thanks, when you put it like that it sounds better. I think the truth of it is that someone at LCP made an error in reducing it to £50 from £100. The discount period had expired and I had made an appeal to POPLA, so whatever outcome it could never be £50, only £100 or nothing.

Oh, I must have misread your history of this.

Good luck with it - I hope you can persuade them to take a pragmatic view.

[cardiac arrest]

Well I'm on the case now I've got my hackles up. Been on to Brent Council website to check planning permissions were sought for the signs...non found, going back to 1993..so I'm seeking guidance from a guy down there who works in the planning dept. I have a couple of examples where cases were won on this point. The second 'string to my bow' is the Parking Eye v Cargius case which counters the Beavis judgement where payment is made for parking, rather than a free period given. Not sure if this helps anyone else,but the parkingcowboys site has proved very informative..

[cardiac arrest]

I'm wondering if I can demand a copy of the LCP submission to POPLA ? The POPLA web-site only lets you see the latest document, not the previous ones..as and when you progress through their process. When LCP replied to POPLA my earlier submission disappeared, and when POPLA replied to me the LCP submission then disappeared ...Is this deliberate obfuscation wonder ?

[cardiac arrest]

2 days on and not even an acknowledgement from POPLA nor Brent BC. As I'm working to a deadline here I sent a FOI to Brent to ask if the ANPR and the signs were approved or not. I can't do same to POPLA so I'll just keep badgering them.

i am not sure why POPLA seem to be reluctant to simply attach the notes and email them to me. Is there a way I can force them to do this?

[nanna58]

Very good luck with this , take all the screenshots and photos you can ,hackles up I'd be livid xxx

[cardiac arrest]

Very good luck with this , take all the screenshots and photos you can ,hackles up I'd be livid xxx

Thank you .... I've received 3 emails from POPLA this morning with all the LCP submissions attached..so that's all their justification for their existence. Also done some research on LCP, they have 5 London car parks and a holding company based in Lincolnshire, one shareholder and his wife and one other as 'employees' They paid a dividend of £58,000 last year (nice work eh?). Their accounts though are under the threshold for details, so just a summary balance sheet,not turnover (which is what I'm after). The point of this is to add some proportion to their claim that it takes 3 hours (at £32 p/hr) to process claims for 'non compliance' ..plus ancillary costs they say it costs them £110 to deal with non compliance (breach of contract). Given they are managed by 3 people and that the owner is also on the board of 20+ other companies, it's hardly a full time job it seems. Much of it is automated with their computer system. I want to add weight to my claim that their business is funded by the routine hourly parking charges they have at their 5 car parks, and not from fines. They charge £8 for 4 hours in their car parks..but really I want to see a profit and loss account but don't know where I can find this. Any ideas anybody ?

[Still Waving]

Thank you .... I've received 3 emails from POPLA this morning with all the LCP submissions attached..so that's all their justification for their existence. Also done some research on LCP, they have 5 London car parks and a holding company based in Lincolnshire, one shareholder and his wife and one other as 'employees' They paid a dividend of £58,000 last year (nice work eh?). Their accounts though are under the threshold for details, so just a summary balance sheet,not turnover (which is what I'm after). The point of this is to add some proportion to their claim that it takes 3 hours (at £32 p/hr) to process claims for 'non compliance' ..plus ancillary costs they say it costs them £110 to deal with non compliance (breach of contract). Given they are managed by 3 people and that the owner is also on the board of 20+ other companies, it's hardly a full time job it seems. Much of it is automated with their computer system. I want to add weight to my claim that their business is funded by the routine hourly parking charges they have at their 5 car parks, and not from fines. They charge £8 for 4 hours in their car parks..but really I want to see a profit and loss account but don't know where I can find this. Any ideas anybody ?

If they are a private limited company, I don't expect you can.