Paid but still had a ticket

Coupon-mad

newcruiser wrote: »

In my appeal to pps I did say that I placed the ticket on the dashboard and that when I returned etc. But I did not admit to being the driver although it is obvious I was.

Going back to square one, that was the problem here. You would have won on 'no NTK' or 'flawed NTK' because PPS don't have a compliant NTK.

Oh well, at least you have raised the fact she's making duff decisions, as is another poster. The good thing is, remember this drivel is not binding on you.

Did that email not provide you with the process for making a further complaint and the fact there is an Independent Scrutiny Committee and how to complain to them? I would email Reeve back and point out they appear to have missed:

- the photo provided by PPS where the ticket was showing (can we see that one please?).

- the information as to how a further complaint can be made about mistakes made by POPLA, such as this one. Ask whether indeed an appellant can escalate a complaint to the Independent Scrutiny Committee or London Councils and (if so) ask why the reply didn't give you this information and contact details?

The Assessor found that there was no ticket displayed. The sentence ‘I find that the windscreen was not obscured so much as to make any displayed tickets not visible to a parking attendant’ does not mean that the Assessor accepted there was in fact a ticket, but instead found that had there been a ticket, it would have been visible. As no valid ticket was clearly visible, there was no ticket displayed.

Was this wrong? Show us the picture.

newcruiser

OK
Here is the photograph, I hope I have done it correctly

http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/hooite/media/img027_zps38226961.jpg.html?o=0

ampersand

nc - your pictures are clear.

Your ticket is in view. I can read 'Clearly display ticket on dashboard.' You did.

'Firmly attach ticket to dashboard with time and fee visible ' would be the instruction they see breached here, but it is not the applicable wording.

Await c-m's take on them.

EnigmaPart1

ampersand wrote: »

nc - your pictures are clear.

Your ticket is in view. I can read 'Clearly display ticket on dashboard.' You did.

'Firmly attach ticket to dashboard with time and fee visible ' would be the instruction they see breached here, but it is not the applicable wording.

Await c-m's take on them.

This is all pie in the sky and nothing is going to change now.

Move on

Coupon-mad

newcruiser wrote: »

OK
Here is the photograph, I hope I have done it correctly

http://s1284.photobucket.com/user/hooite/media/img027_zps38226961.jpg.html?o=0

Looks like it's the angle they took the photo at, makes it look like you can't read it. Yet if the Attendant leaned over the dash, it looks like it would be readable.

Anyway you could try escalating the complaint to POPLA further, as I said above, as it seems a poor show for Mr Greenslade to rush to respond (Hello Henry! my you did RUSH to respond to this one!) and yet he hasn't stated the complaints procedure. This is POPLA, they are part of London Councils, there must be one otherwise why is there a POPLA Scrutiny Committee?

Or like EnigmaPart 1 says, let it go (giving up this POPLA appeal as a bad job by a rookie Assessor) and just ignore the scammers now. Just send them a Notice of Cancellation and keep us informed if they try a small claim at all. Clearly there is no loss here, so defending a court claim would be in some ways easier if it happens, than this POPLA mistake was. You were unlucky you got Amy Riley - it's without doubt that any other Assessor would NOT have allowed the huge duplicated staff costs.

How much were the staff costs and how was it broken down - was it different from the other POPLA cases cited?

newcruiser

I thought I would write to POPLA hoping they would see common sense and justice

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your quick reply in response to my complaint.
Setting aside all the legal and technical jargon.
I paid £7 for a parking ticket for 24 hours, when I left the car just after 08.40 that morning the ticket WAS clearly visible, 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 because of motion of the car by wind or other factor. I attache photographs of the ticket and PPS photograph of my displayed ticket.

The other point I wish to raise is that just a couple of weeks earlier your assessor Christopher Monk allowed an appeal on the amount claimed by PPS.

Quote
Considering all the evidence before me, I note that the operator has provided additional submissions intended to clarify the meaning of their previous statements regarding their pre-estimate of loss. In these additional submissions 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.

It is ironic that if Mr Monk assessed my case I would not be writing to you now.

I understand that it is possible to take my complaint further, please could you advise me of the procedure.


This was the reply this morning


The Lead Adjudicator has considered your further enquiry and has asked me to reply as follows:


“Dear Mr xxx


I sent a detailed response addressing your several previous queries.

You cannot now seek to reopen the case on the facts.

Since you have quoted from it, I assume you have the full papers of the other case you refer to. If you look carefully, you will see that the submissions were not the same as in your case and therefore the decision would not have been different had another Assessor determined your appeal. Both operators and appellants sometimes think that another case is exactly the same as their own, when in fact no two cases are exactly the same and each turns to be determined discreetly.

I appreciate it is disappointing when an appeal is lost but POPLA determines sometimes as many as 800 appeals in a week. In each case it is possible that one party may be unhappy with the decision.

I am afraid that you have exhausted your appeal at POPLA but, as I am sure you are aware, the operator can only pursue the parking charge in the County Court.

Yours sincerely,

Henry Michael Greenslade
Lead Adjudicator”

Richard Reeve

EnigmaPart1

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

This is all pie in the sky and nothing is going to change now.

Move on

What did i say.............

bazster

Did he really say "discreetly"?

Coupon-mad

Yup, move on and we'll help if it goes to small claims. Unless you want to reply and say 'OK as I have exhausted my complaint with you, as it doesn't appear to be a matter for the Local Authorities Ombudsman, can I now refer a formal complaint to the POPLA Scrutiny Committee and if so how do I contact them? '

We are now telling people not to bother with IAS appeals in some instances, so a lost POPLA appeal puts you in a similar boat and back to the 'old advice = ignore the scammers. Mr Reeve has given you a big clue ' but, as I am sure you are aware, the operator can only pursue the parking charge in the County Court ' and hasn't tried to say you 'should pay' as he knows you won't!

Out of interest, was the 'Management checks' figure £71.65 in your case too? Or did you get the new version where they've chopped it a bit to £50+ ?

newcruiser

Hi Coupon-mad
I got my figures wrong it was 57.42
I think I will let things run. I will let you know what happens.