Paid but still had a ticket

newcruiser

I am hoping to send my letter later today, has anyone any other advice before I do so?

ampersand

Please post up your full tweaked draft for comment, nc and wait through the day.
Don't worry if it appears as #58. I will re-format and re-post it if you do so in next hour or 2[have to be out then].

This is an important document for you and for us dealing with this nffp new assessor, so we need to see exactly what you propose sending. The whole thing - content, grammar, spelling, punctuation - they'll all be chewed over.

newcruiser

[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]To reiterate the main points-:[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]1. The ticket was paid for and clearly displayed on the dashboard before I left the car, therefore PPS[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]did not mitigate a loss.[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]2.The signage does not say that the ticket should be continuously displayed.[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]3. The assessor states “In this case the ticket was not displayed....” . The ticket was displayed and the PPS photograph will substantiate this.[/FONT]


[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]4. In an earlier case in the GPEOL statement one of your own assessors refused the £71.65 for the management costs. There can not be one rule for one complainant and another rule for another.[/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]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif][/FONT]

newcruiser

I do not know why the type is such a mess, I reformated it before I copied it.

Thank you for your help

EnigmaPart1

Sorry but i will repeat myself but non of what you have put there indicates procedural error.

ampersand

nc - I'l be back later. On first blush, I'd lift the decibel level considerably, albeit with deadly courtesy.

You have not forensically taken AR apart where she errs, point by point. This must be done.

In the meantime, can your witness sign a statement[you prep, it] confirming displayed tkt? - bolt-on minor point though this would be.

Must go now. Just re-read c-m's '50, esp ' 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.

newcruiser

Yes my witness will sign a statement.

EnigmaPart1

newcruiser wrote: »

Yes my witness will sign a statement.

Err thats not relevant.

EnigmaPart1

ampersand wrote: »

nc - I'l be back later. On first blush, I'd lift the decibel level considerably, albeit with deadly courtesy.

You have not forensically taken AR apart where she errs, point by point. This must be done.

In the meantime, can your witness sign a statement[you prep, it] confirming displayed tkt? - bolt-on minor point though this would be.

Must go now. Just re-read c-m's '50, esp ' 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.

I really dont think you are getting this whole POPLA procedural error issue(lack of)

ampersand

enigma - I see you posting a great deal, usually one-liners max., usually with no constructive or corrective input.

What does this say? ' bolt-on minor point though this would be.'

It would be good if you could mock up a draft for nc to work on and others to critique.
#
nc - I will try and put in a few hours on this tonight, but can't now.
'Forensic analysis' means just that. I think you should take each AR para., then fillet it phrase by phrase, showing where she is wrong and why, with confirming quotes, be they Regs, previous decisions, etc.

In addition, in this Fens village putah probs are notorious: &'s has already crashed and gone once today without warning.