POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

trisontana

So if you can charge for the staff time used, does that mean that if nobody breaks the PPC's rules then those staff don't get paid? I think not. The staff get paid no matter how many tickets they have to deal with, so there are no extra "losses/costs" involved.

This point was neatly summed up by the judge in a "retail loss prevention" case where the store tried to claim £100 for the security guard to deal with an alleged shoplifter. The judge used the magic phrase "core duties". In other words, that guard would have been paid the same wage no matter what he was doing.

If the PPC does not want to suffer those day-to-day running costs, then they should not have set up the company in the first place.

bazster

Cyberbird, I'm not interested in your nitpicking. Do some research on contract law instead of wasting our time expecting us to explain it at Noddy-and-Big-Ears level.

cyberbird

bazster wrote: »

Cyberbird, I'm not interested in your nitpicking. Do some research on contract law instead of wasting our time expecting us to explain it at Noddy-and-Big-Ears level.

bazster, you don't have to reply to my posts but the fact that you do without pointing to authority on the matter e.g case law means it is only your theory.

The case that is the subject of this thread shows that at least one POPLA assessor disagrees with you. The chief POPLA assessor comments in the only case that POPLA have seen fit to publish:

"DVLA and associated fees for obtaining keeper details; clerical costs there arising, including stationery and postage; legal and other professional advice; wages and salaries of staff 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-estimate of loss. This list is not exhaustive but strongly indicative of the kind of items that could amount to such a genuine pre-estimate."

trisontana

That's just wrong. As I pointed out above, there are no addition staff "costs", as the employees are being paid anyway. They don't get paid extra when investigating a case.

EnigmaPart1

Seems we have a troll amongst us today.

Mike172

How did this decision come about? I gather that;

1. OP didnt submit a POPLA appeal with enough valid points on it
2. Amy at POPLA is a newbie and for some reason denied the appeal, but has now been told how to do her job so this wont happen again

Anyone able to give me a TLDR rundown of this? Lof of arguing about GPEOL...Id like to avoid a denied appeal if possible.

nigelbb

cyberbird wrote: »

"DVLA and associated fees for obtaining keeper details; clerical costs there arising, including stationery and postage; legal and other professional advice; wages and salaries of staff 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-estimate of loss. This list is not exhaustive but strongly indicative of the kind of items that could amount to such a genuine pre-estimate."

But as I point out in reply #41 any costs, fees etc could only comprise part of a GPEOL if these amounts were averaged over ALL PCNs & not just the particular ones that end up at POPLA which are a tiny fraction of all cases (less than 1%). According to the latest POPLA newsletter they receive over 600 appeals per week i.e. 30K per year whereas the numbers of private parking charge notices issued by the PPCs each year was at least 4 million
http://www.popla.org.uk/London%20Councils/POPLANewsletterOctober2014.pdf

cyberbird

nigelbb wrote: »

But as I point out in reply #41 any costs, fees etc could only comprise part of a GPEOL if these amounts were averaged over ALL PCNs & not just the particular ones that end up at POPLA which are a tiny fraction of all cases (less than 1%). According to the latest POPLA newsletter they receive over 600 appeals per week i.e. 30K per year whereas the numbers of private parking charge notices issued by the PPCs each year was at least 4 million
http://www.popla.org.uk/London%20Councils/POPLANewsletterOctober2014.pdf

@nigelbb

I tend to agree with the point you make - the pre-estimate of loss must be "likely" costs. See my earlier post in regard to this.

The point I make is that wages and salaries of staff are not excluded.

bod1467

cyberbird wrote: »

The point I make is that wages and salaries of staff are not excluded.

And it doesn't matter how many times you make that point, it is STILL wrong. These staff are ALREADY being paid, whether ANYONE makes an appeal or not.

Ryan_Bryan

cyberbird wrote: »

No, I don't think it's that she's changed her approach. In this case there is no initial loss demonstrated. In the thread case there is a loss of £1 which then allows all the other items to be included.

Can somebody clarify why the think the decision is bad. Is it that the POPLA appeal costs are not allowed to be included in the calcualtion?

I was going to point out that your argument was complete bollox but I think that others have made the point for me.