H0riz0n Parking ticket, what's next?

Coupon-mad

tidegu wrote: »

CM, thanks a lot! You are always superb!

How likely do you think if I will win? Is these points strong enough?

100% you will win. I will eat my hat if you lose!

tidegu wrote: »

BTW, you say I only need one point to win, will other points, if they are invalid, invalidate the appeal or lead the appeal fail?

No, the opposite is true. If POPLA disagreed with everything you say except one point, then you'd still win on that point.

tidegu

Thank you CM, doing it now, hope I'll win and you save your hat

tidegu

SHAME ON THE SCUM!

POPLA says they will make the decision on or soon after today, and just this morning this scum sent a 20 page long evidence, !!!!!!???

Regarding to the GPEOL, they listed:

Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, and have been tested at the Court ofAppeal. A charge of f75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012)and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007). Further evidence, that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008] and Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007]

Anyone have any idea if these evidences are sensible? They also said:

We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in following up on breaches of the terms and conditions on site. The parking charge in this instance was established after conslderation of the following costs:
o Legal, Accounting and other professional Advice in pursuing the Charge o Preparation and sending ofthe parking Charge Notice
o Print, postage and Stationery
o DVLA Fees / processing Costs
o Wages and Salaries of staff required to deal with above including Employers Nl Contributions

Are they true or legal? Should I reply to POPLA ASAP that pointing out they are fake evidences?

bod1467

The usual bulldookey. Taking the bullets in order ...

* Cost of business, and the decision to reject the appeal and allow the pursuance of POPLA was theirs not yours, so such costs are not a GPEOL item

* Probably OK

* Probably OK, depending on what "processing costs" actually means

* Cost of business, absolutely NOT a GPEOL item

tidegu

bod1467 wrote: »

The usual bulldookey. Taking the bullets in order ...

* Cost of business, and the decision to reject the appeal and allow the pursuance of POPLA was theirs not yours, so such costs are not a GPEOL item

* Probably OK

* Is OK

* Cost of business, absolutely NOT a GPEOL item

Should I do anything now? As it is the last day of POPLA decision.

Umkomaas

All bluster. The legal citations have been made many times previously, to no avail at POPLA.

In terms of their GPEOL breakdown, they have not attributed any specific costs against each of the heads - and POPLA have steadfastly refused to accept such without figures attached.

The PPC presumably wants POPLA to believe that they somehow all tot up to £100 (or whatever their PCN was). Whilst some are legit losses (in a GPEOL sense) there's no way in the world they'd come anywhere near £100.

There's two options now - either ignore their evidence pack (unless there is anything fundamentally at odds with your actual parking event, eg conflicting dates, totally incorrect location etc) and let POPLA get on with their job.

In the alternative you could ask POPLA to hold off their decision, given the late arrival of pack, so you can have the opportunity to fully dissect it and make appropriate rebuttals.

My view would be to take the former option, but your call.

tidegu

Umkomaas wrote: »

All bluster. The legal citations have been made many times previously, to no avail at POPLA.

In terms of their GPEOL breakdown, they have not attributed any specific costs against each of the heads - and POPLA have steadfastly refused to accept such without figures attached.

The PPC presumably wants POPLA to believe that they somehow all tot up to £100 (or whatever their PCN was). Whilst some are legit losses (in a GPEOL sense) there's no way in the world they'd come anywhere near £100.

There's two options now - either ignore their evidence pack (unless there is anything fundamentally at odds with your actual parking event, eg conflicting dates, totally incorrect location etc) and let POPLA get on with their job.

In the alternative you could ask POPLA to hold off their decision, given the late arrival of pack, so you can have the opportunity to fully dissect it and make appropriate rebuttals.

My view would be to take the former option, but your call.

My first appealing ground was late NTK, they even didn't bother to reply. Instead, they tried to sum on me with all wordings like Mr XXX entered a valid contract, Mr XXX should pay xxx. Are these wording legal?

I am thinking if I could write a quick reply to POPLA, pointing out again I am the keeper and has no liability to pay anything as they are to late. Would this be good?

Umkomaas

tidegu wrote: »

My first appealing ground was late NTK, they even didn't bother to reply. Instead, they tried to sum on me with all wordings like Mr XXX entered a valid contract, Mr XXX should pay xxx. Are these wording legal?

I am thinking if I could write a quick reply to POPLA, pointing out again I am the keeper and has no liability to pay anything as they are to late. Would this be good?

You won't do yourself any harm, but it won't outrank GPEOL in whacking this into the weeds.

If you are going down the 'keeper has no liability' track, you will need to get the right form of words and state why, set in the context of PoFA 2012. It won't be of great help if you say something like 'the keeper is not liable because the NtK arrived too late'.

Make sure you cross reference any subsequent communication to POPLA with your POPLA verification code.

tidegu

Sorry to get back late! I didn't response to their stupid evidences, and after a couple of nervous days, I finally received the decision this morning, and the ticket is CANCELLED! C-M, you saved your hat and I saved £70 LOL. Thanks to everyone!

For anyone need more information about the decision - if the mods need to put my case into your database, the decision is reasoned:

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the Operator has failed to provide evidence of a contract in place with the landowner. The onus is then on the Operator to show that they have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and conditions. In this case, the Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract in place or a signed witness statement which grants them the authority to enforce restrictions at the site. I consequently have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the Operator does not have the authority to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in contravention of the terms and conditions. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the appellant.

Surprisingly they didn't consider the first most obvious ground - late NtK!

Redx

please add the decision letter (minus personal info) in the POPLA DECISIONS thread linked by the crabman sticky thread

and well done