POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno

Not really, the most common for ages was GPEOL [not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss], but that's now being rivalled by PSDSU [Parking Scum Didn't Show Up], probably because the PPC sees that you're going for GPEOL in your POPLA submission and so doesn't bother fighting it [resulting in a PSDSU win].

Coupon-mad

Ghostofjohnlennon wrote: »

In fact, there have been about 5 recent decisions on here with identical wording! (Now that I read them!)
Are the cowboys on the run?

VCS were busy working on their new 'calculations/manipulations' of the GPEOL argument:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4925895

Post #24 onwards - you just missed out on the fun!

cola109

Thank you to everyone who helped me, really appreciate it! Please see below letter from POPLA

30 May 2014

Reference xxxxxxxxxxxx

RK (Appellant)
-v-
MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxx arising
out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark
xxxxxxx.

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 allowed.


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.


Christopher Adamson
Assessor:j:beer:

Ghostofjohnlennon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

VCS were busy working on their new 'calculations/manipulations' of the GPEOL argument:



Post #24 onwards - you just missed out on the fun!

And only just missed out...the evidence pack from VCS arrived this morning...only 2 days late
It includes the 'new' legal arguments and shed loads of stuff!!


Will anonymise and post for reference

prosnap

Does it include an unredacted copy of the contract between them and the landowners?

Ghostofjohnlennon

prosnap wrote: »

Does it include an unredacted copy of the contract between them and the landowners?

Dropbox.com and then this /sh/vurkpa0dsjvgy9y/AAChxjTARXiZFG_AyTpkoqtSa
(won't let me post link as a newbie)

This is the evidence pack.

Document G7 is a statement by JLA authorising VCS to manage parking, issue PCNs and pursue - all related to parking.
As my PCN was for (allegedly) stopping on the access road, I'm not sure if that is covered?
It also refers to a contract, but does not include a copy.

There is also a press release (which is buried on the JLA website) warning drivers not to stop on approach roads.

At first look, it is all quite intimidating, but once you read through the details, there are many statements which are just untrue. Good luck in taking it on. (Fortunately for me, VCS were 2 days late in submitting - what a shame!)

bazster

RE Ghostofjohnlennon's VCS evidence pack, I've started a separate discussion so as not to clutter this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65715635#Comment_65715635

BenefitMaster

Ghostofjohnlennon wrote: »

Document G7 is a statement by JLA authorising VCS to manage parking, issue PCNs and pursue - all related to parking.

They can authorise it all they like. JLA is not "relevant land" as there are byelaws.

prosnap

Ghostofjohnlennon wrote: »

This is the evidence pack.

Thank you

Just as most of us thought .... No sign of the contract!

Might be fun to let Lucy know that her name was used in a losing court case. It should show her how useless her parking company is ... Allegedly

eire13

Thanks to everyone on this site for help with my POPLA appeal which has just been allowed.

The alleged charge was for stopping in a no stopping zone at Luton Airport.

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 allowed.


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.