Another POPLA rejection of GPEOL argument

4consumerrights

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 really interested to know why you appear to be cherry picking a couple of rogue assessments which have been made by POPLA assessors... especially as the latest one did not send an evidence pack.

You seem to think that cases are not always won..... and yet if your post is to be believed regarding your PCN you are not even at POPLA stage.
You claim to have researched the site for weeks and yet your ability to grasp GPEOL still has not evidenced...

Plus on one thread you claim that GPEOL is NOT even now a requirement for the BPA COP - so question is you must have inside knowledge as this is not shown on the BPA website which has the current COP.

Your posts when describing loss statements flit from GPEOL ( used on the forums) and PEOL - which is the favoured term of the parking comapnies.

4consumerrights

cyberbird wrote: »

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.

People have checked your other posts....and once again you are contradicting yourself.....

So question is with advocating paying up the reduced offer as "according to you not all appeals win" then which parking company do you work for?

People on the forums get all the help they need from the regulars to assist them with their appeals and for those who want to save time and money or are struggling then there is the alternative paid for service offered.


Tell you what as you are obviously doubting you will win your parking eye pcn - perhaps you should just pay it ...

Umkomaas

I detected a degree of juxtaposition - as outlined in my post #54.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5097549

Nothing I've read subsequently has changed my mind.

cyberbird

4consumerrights wrote: »

I am really interested to know why you appear to be cherry picking a couple of rogue assessments which have been made by POPLA assessors... especially as the latest one did not send an evidence pack.

See post #11. Also I am wondering whether this is the start of a trend. I know it's too early to predict this but we have no losses on GPEOL, then we have the Amy Riley decision. Then when i search "Amy Riley" on google i find another decision. Then you also have the sample case by the Chief Assessor which would seem to imply that he believes the criteria for a GPEOL can be achieved wheras most people on here, myself included, disagree.

your ability to grasp GPEOL still has not evidenced...

Got to disagree with you there.

Plus on one thread you claim that GPEOL is NOT even now a requirement for the BPA COP - so question is you must have inside knowledge as this is not shown on the BPA website which has the current COP.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Please point out my post.

Your posts when describing loss statements flit from GPEOL ( used on the forums) and PEOL - which is the favoured term of the parking comapnies.

Believe what you want. If you think I am connected somehow to a PPC and misleading people here then report me to a moderator and I will do my best to demonstrate to them that I'm not.

cyberbird

Umkomaas wrote: »

I detected a degree of juxtaposition - as outlined in my post #54.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5097549

Nothing I've read subsequently has changed my mind.

Would you care to elaborate? My patience is wearing a little thin with this speculation and I'm tempted to just ignore these allegations, however if there's something that's not too onerous that I can do to allay your concerns then let me know.

4consumerrights

cyberbird wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate? My patience is wearing a little thin with this speculation and I'm tempted to just ignore these allegations, however if there's something that's not too onerous that I can do to allay your concerns then let me know.

Incredible your patience is running thin ....

You hijacked a thread that Umkomaas referred to to cause your own discussion - when this should have been done on either a separate thread your own purported pcn thread.

As you stated this is an open forum and posters are free to voice opinions. You have been offered free advice but keep nit picking and than twist things.

Your opinion changes with the wind and as do your edited posts..

Ryan_Bryan

Cyberbird. You are a Troll. Your constant nitpicking on the GPEOL subject is laughably transparent. I know it's costing PPC's a lot of hard-scammed money but there's no way around it. Come back another day and try a different guise. Don't bother with the tinfoil hat though.

rps2

I doubt the attached letter. It has pocket-fold not a letter-fold.

BenefitMaster

I submit that Cyberbird is an employee of a PPC. One I have met in court, and who is rehearsing the same arguments as were presented in court, despite the fact that the case in question was won on Standing, not GPEOL.

No - not Bournemouth...