UKPC and DMG property

neil.net

I was told by POPLA that the PPC would send the evidence to me, not that I would have to ask for it from them. However, that was in relation to the initial appeal so I'm not sure if the same applies to re-submissions of evidence, it would be unfair if it didn't.


On the dates, it looks like POPLA have reset the clock.

morfio

I think I might send them an email asking about the march one then?!

neil.net

POPLA told me that if it's not received to let them know.

morfio

Ok, have sent two emails following up, will let you know when i get a response thanks for the advice.

morfio

Just in case people are wondering I am still waiting for my POPLA responses.

Appeal one is almost a month late
Appeal two is meant to be reheard tomorrow but I still have not had evidence from UKPC - and POPLA know this.....

So..... I wonder if my appeals will be heard after Thurs ( the Beavis results etc).

Will let you all know what and when I get any response

morfio

So I have had a reply from Popla - my appeal was meant to be heard 27th March 2015, they hadnt told be that it had been adjourned pending the case, does anyone have any advice?

Here is the response :

Before your appeal was determined, it was adjourned pending a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).

As you will be aware, the decision of the Court of Appeal has now been handed down. A copy of the judgment is available on the POPLA website.

As previously stated would happen, the Lead Adjudicator has directed that the case will be adjourned for a further 21 days. The case will therefore not be listed before 21 days in order to allow both parties to make any representations in light of the Court of Appeal decision. It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Since a larger than usual number of appeals will therefore now fall to be considered on or after the same day, there may inevitably be some delay before your case is decided.

neil.net

Your may also want to point out to POPLA that

It will come as no surprise to read that the burden of proving that a clause is a penalty clause, not representing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, lies upon the person who seeks to escape liability under it (Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 WLR 1428, 1446, per Diplock LJ).

from their original response is plagiarised

This sound interpretation of the law has also been endorsed by both Professor Richard Hooley of Cambridge University and Allen and Overy LLP (2008).

It's not endorsed, they have merely copied and amended (amendment in underlined above) from some seminar notes prepared by Prof. Hooley for seminars he delivered for Allen & Overy LLP (large international law firm).

If you follow this link http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoseminars.com%2Ffiles%2Fseminar_24%2FPenalty_Clauses.doc&ei=eVU6VeLvBpHvat3KgZAG&usg=AFQjCNFgaYevB4FV2AXANKc03H0eTwYY-g&bvm=bv.91665533,bs.1,d.ZWU
it will ask you to open a file, which is a Word document of the notes. On the front page it says “These are only lecture notes. They do not contain definitive advice. They should not even be used as the basis for giving definitive advice without checking the primary sources." The part they have copied is on page 2 just before paragraph 4.

morfio

Thanks @Neil.net I will include that, I dont know what else I can argue on, as I would like to out forward as many as possible.

Does anyone have any further advice? I know this will probably be one of the first cases since Beavis, but any further chances of at least putting up a fight will be appreciated.

Thanks

neil.net

The thing to remember with Beavis is that the decision of the original Judge was (right or wrong) based on some very specific commercial points that don't apply on private residential land. The PPCs will no doubt latch all of there tentacles to the Beavis case and attach it with slime to all of their appeals evidence.