JAS reply to POPLA- is this normal?

4consumerrights

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

Adams name really isnt adam

Go on then

text me his real name - if you know it

hardly surprising as DRP names are not real

EnigmaPart1

Its run by the director.

littlemissforgetful

4consumerrights wrote: »

Hi

I am sure that the letter was included as part of the evidence pack submitted by JAS .....

Please do a simple rebuttal - this is now proving imperative for all POPLA appeals.

Their contracts / witness statement supplied is usually next to worthless
with blanked out parts and omissions - and therefore simply rebut this that this fails to provide any authority to issue or pursue parking charges on this site.

The GPEOL statement for their alleged losses also needs a simple rebuttal. Unless they have changed it recently - they are including costs in dealing with the appeals processes and POPLA.


Do a simple forum search and you will find how to rebut this as PTAS has shared this and CM has included on several threads - though for other PPCs

PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE REBUTTAL IS TAILORED FOR YOUR PCN.

I'm really sorry, am making myself look even more clueless now!!!


I've tried searching popla and parking rebut and rebuttal in forums but not finding much....
any chance you could point me in the right direction??

EnigmaPart1

Right first thing first

Post up the Loss document they have sent you.

4consumerrights

^^^^

ditto that

littlemissforgetful

Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss

Parking Charge Notices Represent

The Parking Charge Notices that we issue represent a claim for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the ‘parking contract’ which is deemed to have been offered by our signage at the location, and accepted by the motorist in that he opted to remain. The breach of the stated Terms & Conditions has been proved by other evidence elsewhere in this submission. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park.

Background Information:

There is a long and detailed process put in place to enforce parking T&Cs at a parking site, which if were not undertaken would lead to a loss of control of the car park, where vehicles park without consideration to others and/or block access routes etc., a loss of revenue where drivers did not use the premises (store) or forgot to pay, or the failure to keep allocated bays for genuine customers or disabled parking bays available for those in the most need of it. If the vehicles using our car parks and parked their vehicles just for 10 minutes without using the store the associated company (store) would lose revenue in access of £100,000 pa which would not be sustainable to them as a company or an acceptable loss to our clients.

Burden of Proof

The Appellant has not offered any evidence as to why the parking charge notice exceeded the appropriate amount they have simply stated that in their opinion it does. We contend that the burden of proof lies with the motorist to lay out their reasons with supporting evidence as to why the charge is not appropriate. That being said we aim to set out our position in the remaining document as to why our parking charge notice can be determined as a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred by us due to the breach of the stated terms and conditions of the car park.

The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers to costs that we estimate, at the time of issuing the Parking Charge Notice, would be incurred in all cases.

• DVLA Fees / Processing Costs for this appeal cost is £13
• Expense of each appeal is for example Stationery includes postage and printing £2.50
• Parking Attendants and Appeals Department staff wages and salaries which includes Employers National Insurance and Tax (PCN recording and issuing) for each case 13.81
• Appeals Staff 1 hour (call handling / appeals writing) for each case is £7.00
• Office Management to handle and maintain up-to-date Data which includes evidence of photos and information of parking charge notice putting together, dealing with appeals via email or writing also dealing with POPLA appeals for each case cost us £24.50
• IT system up keep to make sure all the information comes up correct and secure for each case cost us £33.19
• Total Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss for this case. £94.00
  
  The genuine pre-estimation of loss detail summary below.
  
  • Wages and Salaries including Employers NI Contributions - This is for the time it takes an attendant on the ground who patrols the car parks, having once identified a contravention, to initially issue and record the Parking Charge Notice’s and document, photograph and make notes of the transgression. We currently employ 12 attendants. We estimate that on average an attendant spends 10 - 15 minutes recording and issuing a Parking Charge Notice. The back office staff who manually check the issue of a Parking Charge Notice, examine and answer an appeal, take telephone questions or queries with regards to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice and take phone payments for the Parking Charge Notice, we estimate that it takes between 45 mins for each appeals to reply depending on the nature of the appeal. Some appeal do take a week if appellant is not satisfied with the answer, it take additional time if these appeals are also being dealt with over the phone and are passed to Supervisor or Managers. If the appeals goes to the Supervisor or Manager, it includes the cost of managers to examine and quality control an appeal reply, the compiling of a POPLA evidence pack, the writing of an appeal reply and the submission of the same and the answering of any further evidence submissions. It is estimated that three hours of manager’s time (two hours senior managers, 1 hour director level) are taken to check and approve the response to each appeal and examine and compile the POPLA evidence pack for submission. We have 12 dedicated car parking attendants and 10 dedicated members of staff.
  
  • Professional Advice from the BPA - As from time to time we need to take advice and guidance from our appointed advisors to ensure an appeal is dealt with correctly. Which includes the British Parking Association and among others.
  • Print, Postage and Stationary costs – These are incurred for any responses to an appeal which often number in 2 and 3 replies and not just a single response.
  • DVLA Fees / Processing Costs - These are fixed costs to us at present at £3.50 per DVLA search via our appointed debt recovery/notice processing company.
  
  Therefore contrary to the assumption of many motorists financial losses to the company are directly incurred as soon as a contravention to the terms of parking as advertised is made and a Parking Charge Notice is issued. With regards to justifying the amount of the Parking Charge Notice the considerable costs of dealing with an individual appeal demonstrate that there is a large cost (and therefore loss) to us as a company and we are therefore justified in the amount of Parking Charge Notice to cover these not inconsiderable costs.
  
  Enforcement and the issue of Parking Charge Notice’s is recognised as asset protection and as the principal or lease holder of the site it is incumbent on us and part of our contractual responsibility to manage the facility to the best of our ability in order to either generate the maximum amount of revenue possible for the land owner or lease holder or agent or to keep our clients allocated parking clear of fly parkers and for the actual use of those who are entitled to park, be it an office allocated parking area, a retail park or a persons individual parking space or drive way.
  As previously alluded there are a number of costs incurred in the continuous enforcement process that are a necessity in making sure drivers adhere to the parking T&Cs advertised and the chasing up of any outstanding and unpaid Parking Charge Notice’s. These include but are not restricted to;
  Parking Charge Notice Amounts and the BPA Code of Practice
  
  At present we comply with the Codes of Practice of British Parking Association as to what the level of a Parking Charge Notice’s can be charged. We choose to charge a sum of £94.00, and offer a reduced amount of £56.40 if paid within 14 days, as this early payment keeps our costs very low.
  
  During October 2012 after significant pressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the BPA reduced the maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to £100. Despite the BPA being unable, due to prevailing legislation, to fix prices at this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by all stakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within the recommendations set out within Clause 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice.
  This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner or his agent of the site.
  
  Precedent in other cases
  
  Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, and have been tested at the Court of Appeal. A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012) and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007). Further evidence, that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008] and Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007]
  In the POPLA evidence pack we have provided clear evidence that by staying at the location, the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the parking contract including the charges for not complying with the advertised terms and conditions. There are a large number of signs at the parking location, both at the entrance and throughout the site which offers the parking contract to the motorist, and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking area on which the operator will rely, and on which the motorist has agreed to be bound by which will become payable if the terms and conditions of parking are not met.
  
  The Parking Contract
  
  We would contend that it is too late now to indicate that they are unhappy with the parking charge – this should have been done at the time of accepting the ‘parking contract’ - if the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location. The amount of our charge has been calculated in advance and is clearly set out on the notices and signage. As such it is accepted on parking and the driver cannot claim that there are any Trading Standards or Consumer Regulation breaches as they have accepted the conditions at the point of opting to park at the location. On accepting the parking conditions we argue that the complainant cannot now seek to effectively renegotiate them or to dismiss them in their entirety. The charge of £94.00 reduced to £56.40 is as advertised and within BPA guidelines.
  
  
  
  
  The POPLA ‘test case’
  
  A genuine pre estimation of loss is just that, a genuine attempt to estimate the costs (and therefore loss) incurred for each Parking Charge Notice issued given the significant costs incurred conducting an appeals process.
  The costs above for the parking charge, in this instance was established after consideration of the loss which we incur on the Parking Charge Notice issued and these headings above are as per Mr Henry Michael Greenslade’s, POPLA Adjudicator, ruling on 18 November 2013, Point 43, against Parking Eye Ltd as to what constitutes genuine pre-estimation of loss.
  
  We have reviewed the ‘test case’ conclusions written by the Lead Adjudicator and quote from Mr Greenslade’s determination of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimation of loss:
  
  “Each appeal will always turn of its own facts but both parties should be clear that a genuine pre-estimate of loss need not be a detailed estimate for each particular case. It is not the specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred or loss that might reasonably be incurred.
  However, it cannot include sums that are really the general business costs of the Operator’s car park services operation.”
  
  “DVLA and associated fees for obtaining keeper details: clerical costs there arising, including stationery and postage; legal and other professional advice; wages and salaries involved in that (which may be relatively substantial), together with national insurance and similar related sums; the fee lost by another vehicle not being able to park in the occupied space (where there is a fee); and even loss of revenue at the retail outlet for which the parking is provided, do if established, fall within a genuine pre-estimation of loss. This list is not exhaustive but strongly indicative of the kind of items that could amount to such a genuine pre-estimate”.
  
  Conclusion
  
  We consider the amount on the Parking Charge Notice as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a ‘penalty’ for a number of reasons.
  We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in dealing with an appeal to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified as detailed above.
  

EnigmaPart1

I love this bit.. Its such a blatant lie and our POPLA appeal statement rebuts this point and actually calls it a falsehood

IT system up keep to make sure all the information comes up correct and secure for each case cost us £33.19

Adam actually emailed POPLA/BPA saying "who are we" and that we had no right to interfere in his appeals.

I told him we looked forward to beating and that if he ever changed his GPEOL statement we would be down on him like a ton of bricks at POPLA.

He never replied......

4consumerrights

Indeed - nor can you speak to "Adam" on the phone either.

As far as I can see their loss statement has not altered.

Further to what EnigmaPart1 stated above ...

Please rebut each section of those costs :-)

bazster

I see that JEHANZAIB ARSHAD DARA (a.k.a. "Adam") is so chuffed with his business acumen he's set up a debt collection company too.

Iceweasel

bazster wrote: »

I see that JEHANZAIB ARSHAD DARA (a.k.a. "Adam") is so chuffed with his business acumen he's set up a debt collection company too.

A very enterprising chap he is too - but not very successful as far as I can make out according to the last set of accounts for JSA I could find.

Mr Jehanzaib Arshad Dara was born in February 1983 and the first directorship we have on file was in 2011 at J.A.S Parking Solutions Limited. His most recent directorship is with Dara Debt Recovery Limited where he hold the position of "Managing director". This company has been around since 17 Oct 2013 and lists its registered address as being in Suffolk. In total, Jehanzaib has held 2 directorships, all of which are current.

If Dara Debt Recovery doesn't get it's finger out the whole shebang is on it's way down the pan.

My heart bleeds for him: