Paid but still had a ticket

newcruiser

Most of the PPS case is that no ticket was clearly displayed, but when I left the car just after 08.40 that morning the ticket WAS clearly displayed on the dashboard, I remember because I double checked, in the past a ticket did fall off the dashboard and I wanted to be sure it did not happen again. I have a witness who was with me that morning.
Sometime in the following nine hours it slipped, probably with movement of the car because of wind or some other factor.

EnigmaPart1

yes but all that is completely irrelevant.
Come back if you ever receive a court claim

Northlakes

OP- Did you include in your POPLA appeal a copy of the ticket you purchased as the assessors decision looks at first sight the strangest decision yet seen?

The photobucket links on your appeal don't work or is this just the passage of time?

EnigmaPart1

Northlakes wrote: »

OP- Did you include in your POPLA appeal a copy of the ticket you purchased as the assessors decision looks at first sight the strangest decision yet seen?

The photobucket links on your appeal don't work or is this just the passage of time?

I am not sure why you think that

newcruiser

I sent a copy of the ticket that I bought, with my POPLA appeal

Northlakes

Clearly if it was demonstrated by evidence of the ticket having being purchased there was no initial loss to the PPC. A breach of conditions should only leave the PPC in a financial position had a breach not occurred.

The small sums such as having DVLA access £3 and corresponding with the OP would come nowhere near the £100 claimed.

nigelbb

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

Sorry but this is a waste of time,. complaining to greenslade wont get the OP any where. Move on. If you get a court claim, then come back to us

There is no point advising someone to complain about a decision, unless an evidence pack was not received, as it wont achieve anything .

Your advice is incorrect. Complaints to the Lead Adjudicator about perverse decisions have resulted in the cases being reopened & decided in the appellant's favour e.g. as in this case where it's quite clear that all the evidence hasn't been properly read

Coupon-mad

My assessor was Amy Riley

New Assessor - never heard of her yet. I agree with nigelbb not to ignore a rogue decision by a newbie POPLA Assessor - surely her work is being checked so send in a complaint to get it under the nose of the Lead Adjudicator. This OP must complain about this decision as Amy hasn't 'got it' yet about GPEOL statements not being allowed to be statements of alleged 'actual costs' of POPLA appeals and not being allowed to include Management quality control double checks as that its part of their normal role as supervisors of teams of staff.

It was unfair of POPLA to give poor newbie 'Amy' a PPS case with a forum appeal, IMHO. Should have given her easy ones to start with, not ones she could get caught out on and cause people potential loss.

The complaint should show the cases decided last week x 2 against PPS (in the POPLA decisions thread) where the Assessor struck out £71+ of the GPEOL sums! Ask why Amy accepted the same made up costs calculation which clearly is not a GPEOL. Why no consistency?

Also as a matter of fact she is wrong with her factual 'evidence quoting' here because at no point does she show that PPS had a sign requiring the ticket to be 'continuously' displayed. NONE of her quotes from the signage covers that point, seeing as the appellant says they DID comply, they DID pay and display:

Fourthly, the appellant submits that the upright signage at the entrance & around the car park created no contract with the driver to ‘continuously display’ parking tickets. The operator has produced photographic evidence showing that signage at the site in question states:

“Payment is required at all times as stated on the tariff.” {they did}
“Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.” {they didn't leave it without the ticket displayed}

Consequently, I find that the operator has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the appellant. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions.

...

The operator has produced photographic evidence showing that signage at the site in question states:

“Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.” {they didn't leave it without the ticket displayed}

By leaving his vehicle in the parking site, the appellant is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking for the site in question, and one of the conditions is to display a valid ticket or permit for duration of the parking time.

And she's hidden this bit in the middle but absolutely has failed to consider the assertion that PPS did not mitigate any loss once they were advised the person had a ticket and had displayed it (i.e. to mitigate the losses at that point to avoid that stupid chunk of 'Sue Blacksmith time' of Management checks of a POPLA appeal):

The appellant also submits that the amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any loss

So her answer here is what? Look where she has hidden that point - I dragged it out of the middle of her decision wording - yet she has not covered it either. OP clearly says 'PPS failed to mitigate their loss' which is their duty in contract law, but she's ignored that.

Coupon-mad

Just to add - as well as the above points already made about poor Amy's missing the point on 'GPEOL' and 'continuously displayed' and 'not mitigating loss' - here's the info about the PPS cases won by an appellant last week, because they had Christopher Monk as their Assessor who understood the issues:

In October 2014 in a case involving PPS who also like to roll out new versions of 'GPEOL statements' to try to fool POPLA, the Assessor Christopher Monk disallowed any inclusion of duplicated staff time including imaginary and unnecessary checks by Management, saying: ''the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed.''

So why was the £71.65 meekly accepted in your case when other Assessors know it is wholly unjustified as a so-called GPEOL calculation?!

Also you can add this to your complaint:

Further, I contend that the calculation must fail as a GPEOL since it is not a PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. There is no possibility that the alleged costs of a POPLA appeal can have been in the reasonable contemplation of the Operator at the time of issuing PCNs at this site, because less than 2% of cases ever get to that stage. It is not even inherently likely that cases will go to POPLA so all PCNs cannot include FULL man-hours for ONE POPLA appeal! In the POPLA Annual Report 2014 it was shown that just 285 PPS cases were heard by POPLA in that full year, a figure which barely scratches the surface of all the tens of thousands of so-called 'PCNs' they issue yearly. Indeed, in that Report prepared by the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, he stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."


Finally, when you complain you will get a fob off reply, automatically, from POPLA - it will say that 'the Assessor's Decision is FINAL'. Be ready for that response and continue with escalating the complaint on the basis that this new Assessor has erred in more than one place in your appeal and this must be reviewed. So, don't just post back here saying you got a reply saying 'the Assessor's decision is final' - we know you will get that. We are saying escalate it after that and get them to agree to review it on the facts that were completely missed and misquoted and misunderstood.

EnigmaPart1

nigelbb wrote: »

Your advice is incorrect. Complaints to the Lead Adjudicator about perverse decisions have resulted in the cases being reopened & decided in the appellant's favour e.g. as in this case where it's quite clear that all the evidence hasn't been properly read

Sorry Nigel but i have to disagree with you here.

Amy has come to the conclusion that PPS GPEOL figures are OK (i am not saying they are)

Cases are re-opened when there has been procedural error, NOT when we dont like the fact an assessor has swallowed a GPEOL statement. she has simply made a decision on the evidence before her.

Its one thing complaining on here about assessors making the wrong decisions but its quite another proving there has been a procedural error.

The reason why I think this has been lost is because the OP did not rebut the evidence which she received. If she had she would have had a better chance of winning.

We can jump up and down as much as we like here,but the lesson that has to be applied going forward is that GPEOL statements should be rebutted in advance as it gives the user more time to do, yet i dont see people advising people to do it. All i see is " look the newbies thread". No one says "Agh Armtrac - You will need to attack their GPEOL loss statement". This is the case for all three forums.