Napier parking,Willen lakes

bod1467

What you thus have is proof it wasn't sent - they have no proof of delivery. (A certificate of posting is only valid if it was sent with the correct postage having been paid, as bazster said in post #21).

The_Deep

From what I have read of M de Savary, he seems a very sensible man, and I am sure that he will now realise that the game is over for him.

Lloyd12

@husheechee

FYI - just checked the papers contained within the unpaid delivery, and that particular batch of 'evidence' contained the following:

- Covering letter informing the keeper that Nappyer are rejecting the soft appeal
- Included in the covering letter is the POPLA code
- Pictures of the parking event (taken by the operator's parking minion)
- Pictures of the signs
- Transcript copy of a case they won vs Matt Lander (Lander's case is an extreme one where he went a bit gung-ho with his approach, didn't use POPLA and ended up annoying the judge at court with his attitude - they put this case in as standard to scare you with their court victory)

So this batch of paperwork is where you would have seen your POPLA code had you paid the postage fee - horrendous practice that they send the POPLA code with their only unpaid correspondence. Everything else they sent arrived pre-paid.

husheechee

exactly BOD1467 I didn't give it a thought that I may have proof of "un-posting"! even then the P.O counter staff would be in for a rollicking if they let things like underpaid postage slip through as they are normally as tough to get anything past them.Very similar to a doctors receptionist!
Savary's name should then read Mr de UNSavary methinks.
Ive not enclosed a copy of my initial appeal as I think they should already have this as I applied the correct postage! even then they still had ample time to respond according to the CoP in a responsible manner.
Loyd 12,what was the eventual outcome for you?..
Regards
H

husheechee

Just off to obtain proof of posting for all of them...ive given them 14 days to respond

Lloyd12

Won at POPLA on NGPEOL - the case was PCN for not displaying permit at private resident's car park and they didn't justify the £95 properly. The details are on the sticky POPLA decisions, posted this morning.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

From what I have read of M de Savary, he seems a very sensible man, and I am sure that he will now realise that the game is over for him.

You have no idea.

The_Deep

Lloyd12 wrote: »

Won at POPLA on NGPEOL - the case was PCN for not displaying permit at private resident's car park and they didn't justify the £95 properly. The details are on the sticky POPLA decisions, posted this morning.

When will these companies get the message that, by failing to display a permit in one's space, one is causing no loss to anyone, and that in most cases they have no contract with you anyway

Perhaps Mr B is right and Mr de Savary is not so smart as I thought.

Lloyd12

All I can tell you about him is that he gets involved right at ground level with the POPLA appeals - they sent a screenshot of their internal document tracking system and James de S is listed as the uploader of the documents.

He also wrote his own defence of GPEOL (four sides of drivel) as part of N**ier's evidence pack, but fortunately POPLA saw sense and realised his justification of GPEOL was peppered with flaws :rotfl:

As I said to coupon-mad, the sweetest element of the victory was to beat poor old Jamie de Sav. :beer:

husheechee

Good for you Lloyd12.All victories are sweet,can you post or better still PM me his 4 pages of drivel? I'm sure it would make interesting reading or is it posted elsewhere