Paid but still had a ticket

Coupon-mad

No there have been factual errors, look at it. There are other points, she has made a procedural error. The OP could even simply argue she has failed to deal with two appeal points (failure to mitigate loss and failure to have a sign stating a person has to 'continuously' display therefore that's not part of the contract).

It is worth the OP complaining but will have to really push those points of error. And could throw in the other stuff such as Chris Monk striking out the £71.65 in the same week she accepted it.

Enigma I do recall you said in the lesnmandy case it wasn't worth complaining - and yet 6 months later the complaint worked & the case was won by lesnmandy after all.

EnigmaPart1

I am not arguing on the side of POPLA here at all, I disagree and i dont actually think they have made an error that will result in greenslade overturning

I cant see this being over turned, but give it a go.

Coupon-mad

Yep the OP may as well try, while he/she ignores the debt collector letters and lets us know if they get a Letter before Claim or court papers that we can help defend. No way should this OP pay because a rookie Assessor has screwed up!

ampersand

nc - you must persist with this, please. It is important that Amy Riley does not get up a head of steam and pass any further perverse judgments.
No, we are not in a Court of Law, but letting a stream of these non-senses gain credence as precedent set is unwise, unsound, unsafe.
It does not help this person in her work, for she is wrong and needs retraining.

nc - think of prevailing as 'newcruiser's bruiser for Popla Amy'.
#
2 immediate things shouted at me from that 'trying too hard' decision.

a]'In this case the ticket was not displayed and so the operator was unable to ascertain whether parking time had been purchased. The initial loss is therefore for the parking ticket as it was not clearly displayed'
[but it was displayed, inferred, and later, as accepted/stated here, #15:
'I have a photographs taken by PPS showing my ticket on the dashboard plus copies of my ticket'[sic]

Further, 'In this case the ticket was not displayed' means AR is accepting a ticket was purchased, before any sight of any pic evidence from anyone.
If she is accepting ppc ' NO ticket' allegation, she should have written 'In this case, NO ticket'/ or, 'no VALID ticket was displayed' and she would have amplified this with a sentence describing her sight of a ppc pic which she believes adequately proves this.
Appellant has included ppc's own evidence which contradicts this, pictorially, plus a copy of the purchased ticket.

Popla reason undone.

You MUST challenge Amy Riley on this.
Was this pic. not included to her, but only to you?
[I've known of 'selective', 'privileged' evidence submission in cases...'human error':whistle: so often the reason given, if it's discovered.]

Then b], to play with interpretation '“Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.”'
How could anyone display said ticket or permit, UNLESS by leaving the vehicle, given that someone must go to a P&D machine in order to obtain said ticket?
I am not juggling with words here merely to play at being vexatious appellant.
This is unclear, non-complaint signage[apart from its positioning].

6. The contravention as described did not occur
It is also a fact - proved by PPS' own photos - that this contravention 'no valid ticket was displayed' did not occur.
This phrase ' The photographs appear to show' is NOT the same as 'The photographs [STRIKE]appear to[/STRIKE] show', which is the standard of proof required.
!!!. Riley has fallen into her own heffalump trap.
!!!. Riley should have looked at the pic rcvd by new cruiser.
!!!. Riley should have compared this against the pic. used as evidence by ppc.
Are they the same?
!!!. Riley should have said to herself 'If appellant can see part of the purchased ticket in his image, why can't I? Why can't the ppc see it?'

!!!. Riley should then have challenged herself thus:
'I see that ticket in part; I see the copy of the ticket Paid and Displayed by nc. Is it likely, or not likely, on the balance of probabilities, that these are one and the same? If so...' etc.etc.

By failing to address the existence of a whole image and part image of the ticket being germane to both Claimant's and Appellant's assertion and rebuttal, !!!. Riley fails in her task as assessor.
#
There's a lot more, but those are 2 failures to my mind.
#
enigma - I read your 'move on' and 'no point' views, but what is more important is to lay trails as a matter of record, to which Greenslade et al must respond.
Any failure subsequently to completely and satisfactorily address EACH AND EVERY matter raised leaves a footprint, demonstrating defect of consideration.
#
Amy Riley, as Popla Assessor, is not fit for purpose on the strength of this judgment which must therefore be struck away and the Appeal reassessed.
#
Oh dear, I see that Assessor doesn't abbreviate happily on mse.

newcruiser

Thanks everyone for your help. I will start working on my letter today.

newcruiser

By the way I am a "he"

newcruiser

I have now set out my request for a review, should I address it for the attention of Mr Greenslade?
I welcome any comments and help.

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]I wish to complain about the decision to refuse my appeal, the assessor has made a number of mistakes which I will outline below. [/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]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. [/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Quote[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]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 the signage at the site in question states:[/FONT]


“[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Payment is required at all times as stated on the tariff.” { I did pay}[/FONT]
“[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.” [/FONT]{ I did not leave the car without the ticket displayed.}




[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Quote[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The appellant also submits that the amount required to park on the had been paid and [/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any loss.[/FONT]




[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]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.'' [/FONT]




[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]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." [/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Quote[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle [/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]parked at their site on 7 August 2014. The photographs appear to show that [/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]there is no valid ticket on display in the appellant’s vehicle, and that a parking charge notice was issued by the operator for this reason.[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]I therefore find that the operator has provided sufficient evidence showing [/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on its site without displaying a valid [/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ticket. [/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Did not the assessor receive the same photograph from PPS as me?, which shows a close up of my dashboard with the ticket displayed. [/FONT]




[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]I am sure you can agree that facts have been completely missed, misquoted and misunderstood, and that the case should be reviewed.[/FONT]

EnigmaPart1

Send it to rreeve@popla.org.uk

Titled "case to be looked at Lead adjudicator"

However what you have written i dont think will wash but please update us

ampersand

nc - I believe you must also include insistence on all pic. evidence being revealed on a 'compare and contrast' basis.

Apologies if you cannot deep read my points, but that's what I was getting at in #55.
#
You letter needs much more work yet - back this evening.

newcruiser

OK I will wait until later before I post

I have added another point on the advice of ampersand.
I will ensure that before I post it all type will be uniform.

I downloaded another office programe because of the difficulties I was having with copy and paste