Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Must have put wrong reg plate details
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
pcpaul
Hi,

I'm writing this for a friend "Lynda" who doesn't have a computer.

Having just received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Excel, Lynda asked me for help because she did purchase a ticket, the circumstances of which are as follows:

One machine was broken so when Lynda went to the other machine a lady was already purchasing a ticket but couldn't remember her car registration (And couldn't see it) so told Lynda to go ahead and purchase her ticket while she went to check, Lynda proceeded to input her details and paid £2.40 for OVER 2 hours. She then displayed the ticket in her car and went to the hairdressers.

Having returned to her car in around 1 hour, 20 minutes Lynda drove home unaware of any problem.

The PCN says there is no record of her registration (ANPR) being paid for so we can only assume that she input it incorrectly or perhaps the other womans details were not cleared. Lynda no longer has the ticket.

Excel want her to pay £60 within 14 days or £100 after this.

Can we do anything or is it a lost cause?

Thanks
Paul
SchoolRunMum
NEVER a lost cause!!

Is this the Peel Centre at Stockport or Cavendish Retail Park, or where?

For starters, try a search of this forum for the single keyword 'Peel' or 'Excel' and read all the other similar Excel threads and follow their appeal wording. We have had Excel threads over the Summer where there has been a typo as well, JUST LIKE YOUR QUERY. And - after the initial appeal has been rejected - Lynda can in her POPLA appeal )among the usual winning points we can help with) cite a BBC article where an Excel Spokesperson assured the BBC that they check for car reg typos (methinks Excel doth protest too much!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zkz1k/f...private-parking

Lynda must write her appeal as the registered keeper because it gives her a stronger appeal at POPLA stage, NOT as driver! Pleeeease read other Excel threads as you need to be ready for Excel's letter and how to respond if they ask for the driver's name, which you do not give. And she doesn't even write much about 'what happened' the appeal should be more about why the keeper feels the charge is not a genuine loss, the signage was pants, etc.

And to save me further typing, here's a FAQ thread I wrote on MSE which shows you everything from appeals through to POPLA and even the email addies to complain to if no POPLA code is forthcoming:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

HTH
pcpaul
Thanks for the prompt reply, The car park is Providence Street, Wakefield.

I did search the forum and do research before posting but the cases I found seemed to still have the ticket or know what registration they inputted, whereas Lynda has no ticket and thought she HAD put in her correct registration.

All she has is that she knows she paid £2.40 and the approximate time she did it. Surely Excel records would show that around the time of her entering the car park the machine received a payment of £2.40 for which they have no corresponding ANPR.

Thanks
Paul
pcpaul
Is this ok for my appeal?

"The car for whom I am the registered keeper was parked at Providence Street, Wakefield on 23.11.13. at approx’ 11.12AM
The driver paid to park vehicle registration number XXXXXX paying £2.40 for upto 2 hours.
I received a PCN for £60 saying my vehicle had been parked without displaying a valid ticket.
The PCN Number is XXXXXXXXXX

I know that you are required by the BPA Code of Practice to make checks to make sure that PCNs are not issued in error - so you should simply be able to make the necessary checks now and you will indeed find the payment of £2.40 which will contain all or part of my vehicle number plate.

Please cancel this charge or provide me with a POPLA code so I may appeal."

Paul
Pug205GRD
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Tue, 10 Dec 2013 - 19:40) *
Is this ok for my appeal?

"The car for whom I am the registered keeper was parked at Providence Street, Wakefield on 23.11.13. at approx’ 11.12AM
The driver paid to park vehicle registration number REG PLATE paying £2.40 for upto 2 hours.
I received a PCN for £60 saying my vehicle had been parked without displaying a valid ticket.
The PCN Number is XXNNNNNNN

I know that you are required by the BPA Code of Practice to make checks to make sure that PCNs are not issued in error - so you should simply be able to make the necessary checks now and you will indeed find the payment of £2.40 which will contain all or part of my vehicle number plate.

Please cancel this charge or provide me with a POPLA code so I may appeal."

Paul


I assume you have just made up the Reg Plate and PCN Number and not used the real ones in that post? If you have then change them ASAP!
pcpaul
wink.gif
pcpaul
Can someone advise me if my appeal wording is any good please? Last thing I want is to end up paying £100

Paul
ManxRed
I would add in the sentence that 'neither the landowner or yourselves has incurred any kind of financial loss, so your charge represents an unenforceable penalty'.

Although to be honest, it doesn't much matter what you put, they'll reject it anyway. Still, that is the very point that they will lose the POPLA appeal on, so it gives them a fighting chance to be reasonable about this (pigs might fly).

Come back when you get the rejection, and we'll help you draft the proper POPLA appeal.
Jlc
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 09:27) *
Still, that is the very point that they will lose the POPLA appeal on, so it gives them a fighting chance to be reasonable about this (pigs might fly).

Agreed - but the trouble is they think their charge is reasonable so that's why they will reject but at least you've given them the opportunity to save themselves £27 at POPLA. At least they can't whine that a different appeal reason is used.
pcpaul
Lovely, thank you smile.gif

I received an automated reply saying the appeal cannot be processed without "Name of Motorist", do I just ignore it or should I reply saying I am not required to supply this?
ManxRed
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 09:35) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 09:27) *
Still, that is the very point that they will lose the POPLA appeal on, so it gives them a fighting chance to be reasonable about this (pigs might fly).

Agreed - but the trouble is they think their charge is reasonable so that's why they will reject but at least you've given them the opportunity to save themselves £27 at POPLA. At least they can't whine that a different appeal reason is used.


Exackerly!

QUOTE (pcpaul @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 09:51) *
Lovely, thank you smile.gif

I received an automated reply saying the appeal cannot be processed without "Name of Motorist", do I just ignore it or should I reply saying I am not required to supply this?


Oh lovely! Copy that to the BPA and the DVLA (the email addys on this forum somewhere if you do a search) and ask if they will investigate this breach of the BPA Code of Practice for you. Let's see if we can land them in some brown stuff.
pcpaul
Sorry for being a bit dim but do I copy the whole email or just the relevant paragraph?
ManxRed
Forward them the whole email and highlight the offending paragraph asking them to confirm your understanding that naming the motorist is not a mandatory requirement to submitting an appeal, and if so then you would like them to investigate why this parking company is stating this in response to your appeal.

It should be aimed at the BPA and cc'd to the DVLA.
pcpaul
I'm struggling to find the correct DVLA email address both in here and via Google
Jlc
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 09:51) *
I received an automated reply saying the appeal cannot be processed without "Name of Motorist", do I just ignore it or should I reply saying I am not required to supply this?

As already noted this is not required for them to process a keeper appeal. Although, some may feel inclined to name the driver and thus rendering the 'protections' from the Protection of Freedom's Act irrelevant.
ManxRed
This is a popular one, but wait for a bit to see if anyone else has any better suggestions:

Elizabeth.Symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 10:15) *
Forward them the whole email and highlight the offending paragraph asking them to confirm your understanding that naming the motorist is not a mandatory requirement to submitting an appeal, and if so then you would like them to investigate why this parking company is stating this in response to your appeal.

May be worth adding the question "Why is it that Excel are continuing to do this when a recent circular from the BPA Ltd has explicitly told PPCs that they mustn't do this?"
Just to rub in the point, you know!
pcpaul
I sent an email to BPA cc DVLA re the excel email saying my appeal cant be processed without "Name of motorist".
Will update if/when I get a reply

smile.gif
SchoolRunMum
That was all completely unnecessary, seeing as that was only the auto-response, no need to ever reply to that. People always read it then post about it here and there's no need, it's an AUTO response, that's all. Nothing has changed, they have your appeal as 'motorist' (keeper in this case) and you are now awaiting the rejection.
Gan
As another angle for these "name the driver" letters :

POFA provides the right to pursue the driver subject to meeting certain conditions
The obvious one is the deadline to send the Notice to Keeper

Schedule 4 Para 8(2)(g) says that the NTK must inform the keeper of arrangements to resolve complaints and disputes

If the arrangement is NOT in fact available, does the PPC lose this right ?

If this is possible, "No number, no right, matter closed, send number if disagree" could be used as an alternative to the "35 days deemed accepted, send number if disagree" letter
nigelbb
QUOTE (Gan @ Mon, 16 Dec 2013 - 09:43) *
As another angle for these "name the driver" letters :

POFA provides the right to pursue the driver subject to meeting certain conditions
The obvious one is the deadline to send the Notice to Keeper

Schedule 4 Para 8(2)(g) says that the NTK must inform the keeper of arrangements to resolve complaints and disputes

If the arrangement is NOT in fact available, does the PPC lose this right ?

If this is possible, "No number, no right, matter closed, send number if disagree" could be used as an alternative to the "35 days deemed accepted, send number if disagree" letter


POFA doesn't require that there is any means of appeal at all let alone an appeal to an "independent" body. All it states is that the NTD/NTK must inform the driver/keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available it doesn't mandate that are arrangements. However arguably once an NTD/NTK has been issued describing the route to POPLA when the PPC's appeals process is exhausted then reneging on that promise does render the notice invalid.
Gan
You've picked up my point EXACTLY
pcpaul
So, on 12th December I sent an email to Excel saying I was disputing the Parking charge and as of today 3rd January I have received no reply.

Can anyone advise where I stand, how long I have to wait etc..

Thanks
Paul
Gan
Wait a couple more weeks

If no reply after 35 days you can send them the "you're too late, appeal deemed accepted, matter's closed, send code if disagree" letter

If you get a demand instead, send complaints to BPA and DVLA that they're pursuing payments while an appeal is still in play

Don't expect much support from BPA
IIRC they will tell you that it's normal for a member to refuse process an appeal from a keeper unless he provides written authority from the driver to deal with it

My reading of the code of practice is that it contradicts itself in places regarding the capacity of the keeper to appeal on every ground
pcpaul
Thank you smile.gif
pcpaul
Now received a letter dated 15th Jan rejecting appeal because they say having checked their records they have nothing that resembles the reg of Linda's car.

They say we have until 29th Jan to pay £60 (After which it will be £100) and have included information for appealing to POPLA.

Is that game over? sad.gif
Gan
Not at all

By saying that they have nothing that resembles the registration, they're calling Lynda untruthful
That's a serious accusation and for them to prove

Parking companies rarely cancel tickets
The appeal procedure is just going through the motions in the knowledge that :

1 Most targets will give up when they get the rejection - thinking it's Game Over
2 Of the remainder, a large proportion will simply ignore the letters rather than go to the effort of POPLA
That way, the company never has to pay POPLA for an appeal

"Lynda" can now make the real appeal and can include the additional point that the rejection and code were not served on her within 35 days of the challenge
It's the arrival date that counts, not the date on the letter.
The Interpretation Act deems that it arrived two days after posting which is Day 36 according to my calculation
pcpaul
Our main concern though is we have no proof that she bought a ticket
pcpaul
Anyone????
TheBigBad
Now you need to craft an appeal for POPLA.

The best thing to do is to read the threads on here about winning POPLA appeals and to basically cut and paste all relevant appeal points into your letter.

You have 28 days from the date on the rejection letter to submit your POPLA appeal so first off, make sure you do not miss the deadline. Secondly, once you put your appeal together post it here and wait for feedback before you sent it to POPLA.

POPLA are not interested in what happened on the day, they do not care that Lynda may have entered her reg incorrectly. Read the threads and you will see what wins at POPLA stage. Plus it carries an added bonus in that it will cost Excel £27 so everyones a winner!!!!
pcpaul
But what I'm not seeing is on what basis we can win an appeal as we have no proof that a ticket was purcheased
Gan
Who keeps all their parking tickets for at least two months just on the off-chance that a parking company might write to them ?

It's for ParkingEye to demonstrate that Lynda didn't buy it, not the other way round
For all anyone knows the system might have processed the registration entered for the cancelled ticket before hers

Lynda's evidence for the existence of the ticket is stating that she bought it, knowing that it's a serious offence to tell lies if it ever went to court
Her account is more credible than usual because she remembers details of the other person

All ParkingEye can ever say is that they can't find it

As they didn't reject her challenge within the deadline, they're on a loser at POPLA anyway

As BigDad's advised, read other threads about appeal points
The one that wins is that the amount they're demanding isn't a genuine pre-estimate of their loss even if she HADN'T bought a ticket
TheBigBad
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Thu, 23 Jan 2014 - 19:08) *
But what I'm not seeing is on what basis we can win an appeal as we have no proof that a ticket was purcheased


Forget what happened on the day, none of it really matters. Here are some points of appeal to get you started, do a bit of research and craft your appeal using ALL of these points.

No Contract with the driver.
Inadequate Signage.
The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Appeal to Excel was not responded to within the given 35 day timeframe.

Edit: Forgot about the late response to appeal
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Thu, 23 Jan 2014 - 19:08) *
But what I'm not seeing is on what basis we can win an appeal as we have no proof that a ticket was purcheased


Read the example appeals! You'll see they don't depend on what the driver did or didn't do, but the whole basis of their claim. Focus on the "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss" argument, as that wins most regularly. Even if your friend had not purchased a ticket, their loss would be £2.40 + a bit of admin fees, not the £60 or £100 they are claiming. That's where you'll win.

pcpaul
I've just spenrt an hour looking for example appeals with no success. I've read loads of success stories and the popla decisions but I'm no closer to knowing how to word my popla appeal sad.gif
ManxRed
How hard did you look?

QUOTE
POPLA APPEAL

POPLA Code: ##
Vehicle Reg: ##
PPC: Parking Eye
PCN Ref: ##
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: ## September 2013, ##:## to ##.##
Date of PCN: ## September 2013

On ## September 2013 I was sent a charge notice from Parking Eye requiring payment of a charge of £80 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 Signage
2 Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
3 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss


1 Signage

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land
will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the
driver should be made aware of from the start. You must
use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your
terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

There was no contract between the driver and Parking Eye. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

Had the driver been made aware that Parking Eye would charge £80 if they stayed more than two hours the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the Parking area within two hours.

Any signage was either non existent or inadequate. The dark background with light lettering blended in was not obvious as a sign that would indicate and parking restrictions, and was only noticed when revisiting the site at a later date.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.

I believe that Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. If they do have such interest then I put them to strict proof to provide POPLA with the Deeds of Title in the land.

In the absence of such title, Parking Eye must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence.

I therefore put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Parking Eye and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.


3. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In this case, Parking Eye has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £80 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that Parking Eye has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case.

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £80 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. There has been no loss to the landowner as this is a free car park.

I put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to my vehicle remaining on their parking area for an extra 120 minutes.

This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed
pcpaul
I have no idea whether or not the sinage is correct or if they have a contract with the land holder so that doesn't seem relevant. Are you advising I use the wording in point 3 only as the basis of appeal? plus the fact they replied outside the 35 days.

ManxRed
OK then, delete the bit about the signage.

No one knows if they have a sufficient contract in place, but 99% of the time they haven't so call them on it. Leave that bit in.
pcpaul
Great, thank you for your help smile.gif

Does this look ok? :-

Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 23 November 2013, 11:11 To 12.24
Date of PCN: 3 November 2013

On 5 November 2013 I was sent a charge notice from Excel Parking requiring payment of a charge of £60 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
2 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
3 Excel Parking rejected my appeal outside the 35 day limit

1. Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.

I believe that Excel Parking have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. If they do have such interest then I put them to strict proof to provide POPLA with the Deeds of Title in the land.

In the absence of such title, Excel Parking must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence.

I therefore put Excel Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Excel Parking and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.


2. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In this case, Excel Parking has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £60 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that Excel Parking has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case.

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £60 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. There has been no loss to the landowner as a ticket was purchased and displayed.

I put Excel Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to my vehicle being parked on this land.

This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3.Excel Parking rejected my appeal outside the 35 day limit

I lodged my appeal against the PCN to Excel Parking by email at 09.45 on 12/12/2013 and did not receive the rejection of this appeal until 17/1/2014 by post. By my calculation this is 36 days. Again I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
ManxRed
Change the last sentence to:

I lodged my appeal against the PCN to Excel Parking by email at 09.45 on 12/12/2013 and did not receive the rejection of this appeal until 17/1/2014 by post. This is 36 days and is outside the 35 day limit for responding to an appeal as laid out in clause 37.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. Excel are therefore in breach of their own industry Code of Practice.

I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
pcpaul
Ok, thanks.

Then good to go?
pcpaul
One last question, should I say that Lynda purchased a ticket?
Gan
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Mon, 3 Feb 2014 - 15:54) *
One last question, should I say that Lynda purchased a ticket?

You've already mentioned it but be specific that the ticket was purchased and the vehicle's registration entered as instructed
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Sun, 2 Feb 2014 - 15:26) *
I've just spenrt an hour looking for example appeals with no success. I've read loads of success stories and the popla decisions but I'm no closer to knowing how to word my popla appeal sad.gif


Try this one which has more and just needs adapting:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth....php?p=62187053

Remove the Equality Act point unless Lynda has a medical condition which is relevant.

You've missed a point about unclear signage and a point about them not checking their machines properly as they promise they do when a person seemingly makes a payment at the right time but not matched to the car reg, and you've missed an ANPR reliability paragraph and you could have an Unfair Terms paragraph (but that last one is not really needed due to points #1 and #2).

Your point # 3 'Excel Parking rejected my appeal outside the 35 day limit' won't win (a PBPA CoP breach does not win a POPLA case) so is fairly pointless to a POPLA appeal.

As Gan says, in the 'no loss' point, be specific that the ticket was purchased by the driver and the vehicle's registration entered as instructed, so the machine was at fault and their records should have been checked (then continue as per the example, quoting their spokesperson on Watchdog).






pcpaul
**UPDATE**

I received an email from POPLA saying the appeal would be heard on or around 11th March 2014.

Today Lynda received a letter dated 24/2/2014 from Excel titled LIABILITY NOTICE and stating DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE, advising her to pay £100.
She assumed she had lost her appeal and nearly sent payment before it came to my notice and I have told her to ignore it as we are in the appeal process.

Lynda, being an old lady, is worried though by this letter.

Shouls I inform POPLA about it or is this standard practise?

Thanks
Paul
Jlc
QUOTE (pcpaul @ Wed, 26 Feb 2014 - 21:07) *
Shouls I inform POPLA about it or is this standard practise?

No, complain to the BPA. They must stop processing of the ticket once in appeal...
bama
For any CoP breach then a separate complaint to Trading Standards is in order.

Failure to follow the CoP is a breach of CPUTR Sch 1 para 4.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/schedule/1/made
SCHEDULE 1
Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair

1. Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not.
2. Displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation.
3. Claiming that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body which it does not have.
4. Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader, the commercial practices or the product have not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.

Unfortunately thats not one of the criminal transgressions of CPUTR.
But note the wording
QUOTE
Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair


Thats not say that the company involved hasn't gone as far as transgressing the criminal parts, arguably we do see such levels of transgression on here.
See
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry805190
For more detail on the 'meaty bits' to find out if this one has gone into the criminal realm.

And see http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/OfT%20guidan...R%20oft1008.pdf
esp Chapter 10
emanresu
QUOTE
22.18 You may not continue with a claim for debt-recovery against a driver, keeper or hirer if POPLA has
ecided against you and grants the appeal.


Here is the part of their Code of Practice they have broken. So complaint to BPS, Trading Standards and the DVLA.
pcpaul
***UPDATE***

Well what can I say?

WE only won the appeal....thanks in total to the respondents to this thread smile.gif

The appeal was upheld on the basis of the pre-estimate of loss, which included charges such as "Debt recovery"

Lynda, who doesn't yet know the result, wanted to pay the charge at the weekend because she feared debt collectors turning up at her door (Re last letter from Excel during appeal process) but I told her you guys had helped me form a good appeal and to await the outcome.

I'm absolutely buzzing smile.gif

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Paul
ManxRed
Great stuff. If only that we blokes rarely get an opportunity to prove the other half wrong!

Don't gloat too much. biggrin.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.