vs Highview - POPLA Evidence pack

youseeme

Hi all,

I have been following the newbies thread and submitted via Popla after Highview rejected my appeal (as expected), I have just received the evidence pack from Highview and was hoping the experts could help me with suggesting anything I might need to do to win....

(Take the space out between the http & /)

The evidence pack is shared here:
http /1drv.ms/Um23zw

My original Popla appeal is here:
http /1drv.ms/Um29XX

They state I was not a customer of the retail park where as I was, I don't have a receipt but do have a bank statement with a purchase from one of the shops on it - do you think I should submit this as evidence?

Thank you for your help!
J

bazster

Your links don't work.

Is that the entire basis of their claim? That you weren't a customer?

If you ask them to prove that they'll find it quite difficult (i.e. impossible). You don't need to prove anything, it's up to them to prove their case.

youseeme

Thanks for replying, sorry about the links try these ones...

(remove space between http & /)

http /1drv.ms/Um23zw - Popla Highview Evidence

http /1drv.ms/Um29XX - My Popla appeal

The non customer forms part of their evidence but they go on about proper signage etc too.

Thanks again,

Jamie

Dee140157

http://1drv.ms/Um23zw - Popla Highview Evidence

http://1drv.ms/Um29XX - My Popla appeal

Dee140157

Wow not only are you paying for the employee, you're paying their N I stamp!
Sign says you are allowed 2 1/2 hours, but in response to you - their rejection (page after your initial appeal) they say you are on.y allowed 2 hours, which is it?

Yes if you have evidence on your bak statement that you were a customer, then do submit this.

So advice, re read evidence ce pack carefully. Point out any flaws you can find (I have only pointed put a couple) and email them to POPLA as your response along with evidence of the credit card statement (with some details redacted, but I would make sure your name and address are visible for POPLA, just not credit card number etc.
And put the PPC to strict proof that you were not a customer against the evidence that you were.

youseeme

Thanks Dee, that's fantastic - I will look for any more flaws & submit as you suggest :T

Fergie76

So they think their GPEOL is £105.12, but are willing to accept £70? If that was a GPEOL they wouldn't be in business for very long, losing over £30 per ticket (and that's assuming it's paid).

Dee140157

Some really bad typos in my last post! I'm not really bad at spelling, just typing on an ipad!

bazster

Right:

1. Whether I was a customer is irrelevant since I appealed as the registered keeper.

2. The average spend of customers at the retail park is irrelevant to whether my vehicle's visit caused a loss. Highview has presented no evidence that my vehicle's presence actually did prevent another vehicle parking, this is sheer speculation on their part, and in any case any loss of custom would've been a loss to one or more of the several retailers on the site, it would not and could not have been a loss to Highview.

3. Highview cannot count the costs of processing appeals in their supposed pre-estimate of loss. It's a pre-estimate, with the emphasis on "pre" and, as such, would (or at least should) have been displayed on their signage. Are they clairvoyant? Did they know in advance that I was going to appeal? And do their supernatural powers stretch to dynamically altering the signage for each vehicle depending on whether their clairvoyant powers have told them whether the driver or keeper will appeal (bearing in mind that many notices are not appealed)?

4. Furthermore, the vast bulk of their fictitious loss consists of staff costs. These are normal costs of running the business. The staff are employed anyway. Their costs are tax-deductible against profit. These are not losses arising from an alleged breach of contract by some driver of my vehicle.

5. I have neither admitted nor denied being the driver. I have appealed as registered keeper.

6. I do not accept Highview's assertion that it has authority to act for the landowner, and I put them to strict proof of the same by production of a relevant contract.

7. Highview's Notice to Keeper fails to state the basis of their claim. It says nothing about any alleged overstay. It simply demands money without stating why. Accordingly it is not compliant with POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and I cannot be held liable as registered keeper.


That's my take on their BS anyway.

youseeme

Wow thats excellent, thank you very much Bazster!
Looks like I have quite a few points to go on, I will get them added to my appeal as well.

:beer:

Dee140157

It's better than mine, apart from the 2 or 2 1/2 hour mistake!