Jas Parking Solutions Excuse of a contract

EnigmaPart1

Had this is today thought id share their contract (if you can call it and their loss document)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gvvjwolum2aycsz/Genuine%20Pre%20estimate%20of%20loss.docx?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9hyjcbqqvr3nhge/Staples%20contract%20to%20be%20sent%20to%20POPLA%202.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4luo85y23i1js9h/Staples%20contract%20to%20be%20sent%20to%20POPLA.pdf?dl=0

Ive seen more useful drowned rats than what JAS comes up with.

Dear POPLA,

Please see all evidence attached to this case,

The appellant was issued a parking charge notice on the grounds of a 1+6 a 1 = is unauthorised and a 6 = is did not use the car park providers premises at all, at the time the parking charge notice was issued, these codes were correct. The attendant does not know whether or not the person who breached the car park terms and conditions is going to return and then use the store.

The Luton site in question has 10 bright yellow sign boards throughout the car park, the appellant has not denied they left the car park having not used the store but have simply submitted an internet based copy and paste appeal format.

The appellant was given a 13 minute grace period to return to the car park before the parking charge notice was issued.

Please find attached our contract with the land owners agent; Please note that all names addresses and site names have been removed as this information is confidential.

Please consider all evidence carefully.

Adam
Appeals Department
J.A.S Parking Solutions

bazster

Staples seem to be as clueless as Dara/Adam.

"...we would assume that JAS Parking Solutions would seek legal action..."

Not exactly a grant of authority so to do is it?

Guys_Dad

Staples have just confirmed they are not the landowner on page 2. So how does the PPC have the landowner's permission and, of course, no sites identified.

Isn't it appropriate that the song that contains the words "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right" is not only applicable here, but by Stealers Wheels!

trisontana

So are they saying that if the parking attendants and office staff are not actually dealing wih a parking incident they don't get paid . Once again a PPC confusing day-to-day costs and expenses with actual "losses" caused by a particular parking incident.

If they didn't want to incur those running costs, then they should not have set up the company in the first place.

BlackSpangle

I see that they also seem to be factoring in POPLA costs into their generalised staffing calculations. Since, by the BPA's own calculations, POPLA is used in around 1.1% of cases, its costs cannot be factored into a general pre-estimate of loss.

I think some pre-warning text might be needed in the case of my POPLA appeal.

BlackSpangle

By the way, can anyone remember the appropriate rubric for inclusion when a PPC tries to include the POPLA costs inside its putative GPEOL?

I know there was a POPLA assessor's decision which stated that it's a no-no, but my search-fu is weak tonight.

Coupon-mad

BlackSpangle wrote: »

By the way, can anyone remember the appropriate rubric for inclusion when a PPC tries to include the POPLA costs inside its putative GPEOL?

I know there was a POPLA assessor's decision which stated that it's a no-no, but my search-fu is weak tonight.

Not sure an Assessor has ever confirmed this as such - they've certainly said that the costs of debt collection can't be included, and nor can Management checks/quality control. I tend to look in the POPLA Annual Report 2014, right at the end, to find how many cases went to POPLA in that year for that firm. Then say (for example) 'Napier only had 95 cases considered at POPLA in the year xx/xx so this merely scratches the surface of the tens of thousands of PCNs issued across the board by that Operator (whether appealed or not). So it cannot have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parking attendant when issuing a PCN for £xx, that POPLA was even remotely likely to follow. Therefore this cost cannot be included in a GPEOL unless it is on a minimal pro-rata basis (e.g. if only 2 in 100 PCNs involve POPLA then only 2% of the staff time might be factored into the calculation, and no Management checks or layers of staff time duplicated)'.