POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

Fergie76

@Cyberbird

These companies are business and there main objective is to make as much money as possible. And they make a handsome sum each year. Now if there charges are GPEOL, how do they make a profit?

As others have said, normal business costs are not a recoverable as they would have these costs, even if no one broke the rules. If they allow staff costs, should they then be allowed to add rent costs, heating cost, electric cost etc?

Have a read of this - http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/contract/10375-playing-fair-with-penalty-clauses

cyberbird

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

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

No, I don't think anybody has referred to the point you quote. Please do explain why you think that particular point is wrong.

Umkomaas

@cyberbird - I find it a bit incongruous that you come over on this thread with assertive challenge and an apparent knowledge of some of the finer detail of private parking, in some contrast to the seeming uncertainty you display through the questions you raise in your own thread re an Aldi/PE PCN:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66828903#Comment_66828903

Something doesn't quite stack up.

cyberbird

Fergie76 wrote: »

As others have said, normal business costs are not a recoverable as they would have these costs, even if no one broke the rules. If they allow staff costs, should they then be allowed to add rent costs, heating cost, electric cost etc?

@Fergie, have a read of what costs the head adjudicator thinks are allowed in a pre-estimate of loss. Here's his decision.

I am not going to get into the minutiae of this debate. Unless there is binding precedent people are just spouting opinions. If anybody is still debating what can go in the PEOL then they miss the significance of nigelbb's post above.

To everybody else, I'm quite willing to be persuaded by either binding or persuasive precedent if you can point me to any relevant decisions.

cyberbird

Umkomaas wrote: »

@cyberbird - I find it a bit incongruous that you come over on this thread with assertive challenge and an apparent knowledge of some of the finer detail of private parking, in some contrast to the seeming uncertainty you display through the questions you raise in your own thread re an Aldi/PE PCN:

It's quite simple. Some things I know, some things I don't. Some things are opinion based on what I've learned. In debate I will, unlike others on here, refer to authority.

Like I say, I think people presume I am saying things that I am not. If something I say is wrong then feel free to demonstrate with common law examples. I don't have a huge ego and will acknowledge being wrong and store the added wisdom for later use.

Fergie76

cyberbird wrote: »

@Fergie, have a read of what costs the head adjudicator thinks are allowed in a pre-estimate of loss. Here's his decision.

I am not going to get into the minutiae of this debate. Unless there is binding precedent people are just spouting opinions. If anybody is still debating what can go in the PEOL then they miss the significance of nigelbb's post above.

To everybody else, I'm quite willing to be persuaded by either binding or persuasive precedent if you can point me to any relevant decisions.

Have you read the link I have given you? There is precedent there from a higher court.

It doesn't matter what the head adjudicator thinks, he holds no more power than me or you.

Ryan_Bryan

cyberbird wrote: »

No, I don't think anybody has referred to the point you quote. Please do explain why you think that particular point is wrong.

You stated that the loss of £1 led to the finding of £100 to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. You have been told numerous times that certain items are not justified, however many and varied attempts the PPCs try. If the claims were justified then how did I win my appeal against Premier Park. How do others win their appeals. How are these guys so amazingly successful.

http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/

It'as called GPEOL.

cyberbird

Fergie76 wrote: »

Have you read the link I have given you? There is precedent there from a higher court.

There's a general discussion relating to penalty clauses. I've come across quite a lot of the authorities being sited. Is there anything in particular that you are referring to?

It doesn't matter what the head adjudicator thinks, he holds no more power than me or you.

Well it's all about who's opinion is more of an authority. As you are probably aware, there is a hierarchy in the courts. County Courts and the Lower Tier Tribunals are at the bottom and have no binding authority. POPLA also has no binding authority but I would say, without demonstration of the contrary, the chief adjudicator's opinion is in my eyes of some relevance. For one, it may be that his opinions hold some sway with other adjudicators.

cyberbird

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

You stated that the loss of £1 led to the finding of £100 to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I'm not sure I did. I was pointing out the significant difference between the 2 cases being discussed by the adjudicator. You claimed that the adjudicator was pulled up on her earlier decision which is surely just speculation. If you read the adjudicators decisions she clearly thinks they are different circumstances.

If the claims were justified then how did I win my appeal against Premier Park. How do others win their appeals. How are these guys so amazingly successful.

http://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk/

It'as called GPEOL.

How can I say why your appeal was successful? It will depend on the circumstances of the case which I am unfamiliar with. I'd be interested in details of the decision given.

My opinion why appeals are successful, which is based on studying a sample (just a sample, so I could be wrong) of decisions as reported on this site, is that a lot of appeals are not even defended. When they are defended GPEOL is usually the quoted ground for allowing the appeal and the reason is usually that the dumb parking companies cannot even produce a calculation that adds up to the charge being sought. Other times they include charges which are clearly not allowed.

4consumerrights

Why are people still feeding the troll......