Urgent help needed please

pugger

Hi all. I originally posted about this on pepipoo but I need a pretty urgent response so I'm posting it here too, here's the thread- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=90439

The recipient of the ticket has now received the evidence from AS parking and could really do with some help pulling it apart. I will post the link to AS parkings response in a sec......

pugger

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zihg99lr6uy65lm/Case%20Summary%200611294001.pdf

Hot_Bring

Your worrying too much. Quite clearly in that evidence pack the PPC have attempted to justify the charge using some items that are normal operating costs.

pugger

I hope I am! Did you read through the pepipoo thread? It's been suggested this is NOT a contractual charge so I need to prove it isn't.

Hot_Bring

pugger wrote: »

I hope I am! Did you read through the pepipoo thread? It's been suggested this is NOT a contractual charge so I need to prove it isn't.

I did but in the evidence pack the PPC get themselves rather confused. They start by suggesting this is an agreed charge but then go on to try and justify it as GPEOL. It can't be both !

You appeal was a decent one - personally, if it were me, I'd just let POPLA deal with it.

Also bear in mind that this PPC have never done court so even if you did lose ( which you won't ) you can safely ignore them.

bazster

Olympic-standard whining there from Kev! Hi Kev! :wave:

He must know that he's not getting paid regardless of what happens at PoPLA, so why bother writing all that tedious tripe?

If you want to take action over the claim that this is a contractually-agreed charge, just drop a line to PoPLA pointing this out: "We consider the charge to be a contractually agreed sum, as the contract makes the statement “By parking in contravention of the above terms & conditions of use".

Parking in contravention. Breach of contract. Open-and-shut case.

You might also want to point out that Kev is basically saying "it's a contractual charge but if it isn't then it's damages for breach of contract". Well which is it? It is up to him to state the basis of his case and if he expects both PoPLA and the appellant to guess what it is then his evidence must be rejected.

As for the actual GPEOL "calculation":

Nearly all of it consists of (implausible) expenses arising, supposedly, from handling this PoPLA appeal. But (i) the supposed loss was originally claimed when the charge notice was first issued, and at that point there was no appeal; the alleged loss needs to be justified as it was then, it cannot be retro-fitted with convenient costs which hadn't been incurred at the time of the original demand and, at that time, might never have been incurred; and (ii) it is in any case the position of both the government and BPA Ltd. that PoPLA should be a free service to the motorist, therefore the motorist cannot be charged for the costs of PoPLA appeals. BPA Ltd. has recently instructed operators to cease this practise.

The alleged loss also includes staff and admin costs which are day-to-day operational costs which the operator would have incurred regardless of the parking "event" and which the operator doubtless offsets against tax.

But then, what do I know? I'm just an online anti-enforcement hobbyist!

Bye Kev! :wave:

pugger

Thanks for the replies people, I've received an email this morning which will sort this matter out. Willl update after the hearing on the 10th.

Dee140157

It was the first time I had ever seen an evidence pack, having not received one myself, so it was a good bedtime read last night. Trouble was it didn't cure my insomnia!

Coupon-mad

pugger wrote: »

Thanks for the replies people, I've received an email this morning which will sort this matter out. Willl update after the hearing on the 10th.

That email included a rebuttal I wrote for you, I hope?! Some of us have been discussing this manufactured/copied GPEOL statement by AS Parking, by email you know, and I didn't know who the poster was - presume it must be you!

pugger

It must be me! Excellent email, thank you for taking the time to put it together :-)

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That email included a rebuttal I wrote for you, I hope?! Some of us have been discussing this manufactured/copied GPEOL statement by AS Parking, by email you know, and I didn't know who the poster was - presume it must be you!

Manufactured by/copied from PPS?

How on earth can 3 hours' management time be a loss? Now I realise that Kev isn't the sharpest knife in the block so it's just conceivable that 5 minutes' worth of copying and pasting might take him three hours, but if he hadn't been doing that would he instead have been on the golf course and not getting paid?