Another POPLA rejection of GPEOL argument

cyberbird

Not sure if this POPLA rejection been posted on here before.

The assessor is Aurela Querimi.

She claims the GPEOL statement appears to be justified on the balance of probabilities.

Coupon-mad

Looks like the OP wasn't sent an evidence pack so he can complain and then rebut, which is good.

This decision:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=31667




Is utter codswallop, shows no initial loss and flies in the face of this one which was also CP Plus:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91553

''Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

As the appellant has at no point admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, in order for the appellant to be liable for the charge the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. In these circumstances, these provisions are found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act. The operator must produce evidence that this has occurred regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. As the notice to keeper issued by the operator appears not to comply with sub-paragraph 2(b) as it does not “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.” The fact that some or all of this information may be able to be implied by a reader familiar with the legal context of parking does not mean that the notice to keeper is compliant. As the notice to keeper is not valid, I cannot find that the charge notice is enforceable against the appellant. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the appellant’s substantive case.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.''


Astonishing that two such different things can come from POPLA after all this time, from two non-newbie Assessors.

4consumerrights

cyberbird wrote: »

Not sure if this POPLA rejection been posted on here before.

The assessor is Aurela Querimi.

She claims the GPEOL statement appears to be justified on the balance of probabilities.

@ Cyberbird - trolling again I see.

I do not believe for one minute you are a genuine poster who is seeking help for a parking ticket - there are simply too many anomalies in your posts

cyberbird

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is utter codswallop

Nonetheless it is another decision where the GPEOL argument has not worked.

Here's a case by the same assessor where the argument does win!

I'd be interested to know what the assessor considered different about the claims.

I do not believe for one minute you are a genuine poster who is seeking help for a parking ticket - there are simply too many anomalies in your posts

You are right I'm seeking help in regard to my own situation and also trying to educate myself and make sure others reading these threads see the true situation. There seem to be some people who only want to believe that cases are always won.

Surely you don't think that some people are only allowed to ask questions about parking tickets on here whilst other privileged people can answer them. I'm afraid that's not how public discussion works.

EnigmaPart1

cyberbird wrote: »

Nonetheless it is another decision where the GPEOL argument has not worked.

Here's a case by the same assessor where the argument does win!

I'd be interested to know what the assessor considered different about the claims.



You are right I'm seeking help in regard to my own situation and also trying to educate myself and make sure others reading these threads see the true situation. There seem to be some people who only want to believe that cases are always won.

Surely you don't think that some people are only allowed to ask questions about parking tickets on here whilst other privileged people can answer them. I'm afraid that's not how public discussion works.

I am sorry but you couldn't educate a dead cat

I know for a fact that all my cases are won, but then I deal with parking companies 24/7, but then you most likely know that.

***I dont lose***

4consumerrights

@Cyberbird -you appear to have a little difficulty in reading my post wherein I stated I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A GENUINE POSTER....

nicechap

4consumerrights wrote: »

@ Cyberbird - trolling again I see.

I do not believe for one minute you are a genuine poster who is seeking help for a parking ticket - there are simply too many anomalies in your posts

Its certainly strange that out of all the hundreds and hundreds of pepipoo threads winning at POPLA the perculicious one has picked up on this particular pepipoo thread to broadcast here, even stranger that they omitted to point out the underhand practice of the PPC in not supplying a copy of their evidence to the appellant, thus denying them the opportunity to rebutt and destroy their GPEOL claim. It'll be an easy win for pepipoo if the appellant follows the advice to complain to POPLA's lead assessor.

cyberbird

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

I am sorry but you couldn't educate a dead cat

I know for a fact that all my cases are won, but then I deal with parking companies 24/7, but then you most likely know that.

***I dont lose***

I'm sorry but could you explain how my post relates to you or your success rate?

EnigmaPart1

cyberbird wrote: »

I'm sorry but could you explain how my post relates to you or your success rate?

You are right I'm seeking help in regard to my own situation and also trying to educate myself and make sure others reading these threads see the true situation. There seem to be some people who only want to believe that cases are always won.

They are or for me sister!

cyberbird

nicechap wrote: »

even stranger that they omitted to point out the underhand practice of the PPC in not supplying a copy of their evidence to the appellant, thus denying them the opportunity to rebutt and destroy their GPEOL claim.

Is the failure to rebut a common reason for appeals to be denied?

During the short time I have spent looking through decisions I have definitely seen cases where the mere claim by the appellant that the charge is not a GPEOL is enough that the assessor puts the burden of proof on the PPC. The assessor then looks at the calculation of pre-estimate of loss and then allows the appeal.

cyberbird

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

They are or for me sister!

I was referring to all cases, not yours.

I am aware that most appeals succeed and if you can be bothered to check my other posts you will see this.

Do you not think it important though that somebody coming to this forum deciding whether to simply pay the reduced charge or spend a significant amount of time and effort making an appeal knows that they are not 100% sure of success? That's the impression I got when i read the newbie's thread.