Urgent help needed please

pugger

From what I've heard Kevin has kicked up because POPLA delayed the hearing date and have now had the hearing early. He submitted nothing else but no doubt he will now.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Professional much?

Who made the extra submissions, you or Kev? And if it was Kev have you seen them and had the opportunity to respond? If not then complain bitterly to PoPLA about abuse of process.

Via another poster, I sent this poster an email to show the Assessor that they couldn't have it both ways (as shown in the posts I made earlier quoting the Senior Assessor Chris Adamson) and I could be wrong but that might be why this poster won. The Assessor's words were odd, as if she'd changed her mind and realised they cannot have 'either/or' which I was pleased to read! The email was sent in response to this PPC's evidence which clearly showed (in their own words) that they wanted POPLA to consider it a contractual fee but failing that, a GPEOL! And that the GPEOL seemed far too similar to PPS whose cases they were quoting. So no doubt Kev wants the final word but I can't see him turning it around.

nigelbb

pugger wrote: »

The decision has been revoked, an admin error. Because of extra submissions it apparently should have been delayed.......

As I already pointed out in the POPLA Decisions thread in this case the assessor got the decision correct but the reason wrong. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66024853&postcount=1251

The £100 claimed is definitely not consideration as a contractually agreed sum. The sign shows typical PPC stupidity in trying have it both ways & warns that "By parking in contravention of the above Terms & Conditions of use, you agree to pay the sum of £100 per day". This is a logical & legal nonsense. You cannot contract to do something that is forbidden. The sum of £100 is clearly a penalty intended to deter parking in breach of the T&Cs.

bazster

Knowing dear old bouncy Kev it'll be a final 1,000 words he wants!

pugger

I've seen the email now and it says that due to the appeal being dealt with early the operator hadn't responded to the further evidence (CM's email posted earlier). It will also be dealt with by a different assessor now.

Coupon-mad

That's good. Reconfirming it is good if two Assessors see it. Also it might help the pending PPS one I mentioned for them to compare the GPEOL statement with!

pugger

Fingers crossed!

pugger

Someone has suggested putting the original verdict in as additional evidence, is this a good idea or not?

bazster

pugger wrote: »

Someone has suggested putting the original verdict in as additional evidence, is this a good idea or not?

Why not? It can't hurt.

Coupon-mad

pugger wrote: »

Someone has suggested putting the original verdict in as additional evidence, is this a good idea or not?

I liked the idea, thought it was amusing! Can't hurt.