JAS reply to POPLA- is this normal?

littlemissforgetful

Somehow when its copied in its changed the presentation of my letter as well as changing numbered points to bullets so it prob looks less clear than my actual version.

littlemissforgetful

hello?? I know this is no one's idea of a fun Saturday but has anyone had a chance to look at my rebuttal? Thank you x

Ryan_Bryan

The bit about the times of the photographs may be superfluous and be washed over by the assessor. The GPEOL response however is pretty good and all being equal ought to win you the case. As has been mentioned it is for JAS to prove it is a genuine pre-estimate. As with all the PPCs they have failed miserably. It would be interesting to see how many people are employed in the JAS office. If the Christmas party can't be held in a phone box I'd be surprised.

Ryan_Bryan

Just a stupid thought. You say that the response had the line.

'As you can see from the correspondence the appellant has stated that they left the car park to go elsewhere, this is a breach of the car park terms and conditions.'

Is this an exact quote? If so then Staples is NOT the car park. This can be taken to read that anyone parking there cannot leave the car park without breaking the terms and conditions.

Do not add this to your response BTW.

littlemissforgetful

Ok, shall I leave points 1 and 2 out then?


Yes its an exact quote, unfortunately I communicated directly with JAS admitting it was me who lef the staples car park, before I had looked here :-(


That is their terms and conditions, you cannot leave the car park to go elsewhere, I went to the bank before I shopped in Staples! I won't add this as you say, what do you mean its not the car park then?

littlemissforgetful

haha to the phone box bit- I wonder how many Christmas cards JAS receive with seasonal joy too!

bod1467

It actually depends on the exact wording of the sign, but if it says leaving the car park is a breach of terms then going in to Staples (never mind going to the bank) means you leave the car park. (It may talk about leaving the site, but then that's an ambiguous definition in itself).

But for you to get a ticket for leaving the site then an operative must have seen you do this. If so then the company have not mitigated their losses by simply ticketing you - the operative should have advised you that leaving the site would lead to a ticket. The fact they didn't means the company have not acted in good faith.

As you can see, these PPCs are simply scum and scammers - they don't work on the basis of recovering losses, they simply wish to extort money from easy pickings; their whole business model is based on a lie.

littlemissforgetful

Yeah absolutely, I agree.


I see your point about the ambiguous signs/rules. I did ask them why they had not spoken to me and they replied it is not their job to manage people, just the car park. They also ticked that I was a man!!! The graduated bob and pink handbag you'd think would give it away lol. Do you think I should take those first few points out then??

littlemissforgetful

Sorry everyone for more questions...


1) Should I send my rebuttal as a reply to the email from POPLA or to their website?


2) Any answers as to whether I should include the first few points of my rebuttal?


Thanks again x

hoohoo

1) Email popla with your popla code in the subject line

2) I would remove point 2 and change the first point to

The copy of the parking ticket in the evidence pack includes a stub not included on the original stuck to the car windscreen. The box for ‘Driver’ is ticked ‘male’. However, the driver was female. As the ticket issuer has obviously watched the wrong person there is no proof the terms and conditions were broken.