Premier Parking Solutions POPLA Appeal

Ryan_Bryan

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kdbb00ljzvxpuf/parkingappeal.pdf?dl=0

Their GPEOL claims are all over the shop. They state that it is not for the appellant to decide if the car park may be full or not. Therefore that means they claim their GPEOL is based on the possibility that the car park may become full. Total nonsense. Remind POPLA that it is for the PPC to PROVE their GPEOL. Not for you to disprove it.

Umkomaas

Wow, what a lot of work - to guarantee, with the 'right' POPLA appeal from the OP, they have undoubtedly already 'lost'.

Seems they need to read this: the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns!

http://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/costs/diminishing-returns/

c1223

Surely there is also a breach of data protection by utilising a 3rd party to gather details from the DVLA?

c1223

From POPLA:

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.

What are the implications of this? What do I need to do, if anything?

salmosalaris

You need to put an explanation of why the CoA judgment does not relate to your case because yours was a paid car park ( para 44 ,45 ) and rebut any fairytale gpeol statement PPS produce

nigelbb

Presumably PE having refused to co-operate with POPLA for a year or more are now planning to submit an evidence pack for all those thousands of cases that POPLA stayed pending the CoA verdict.

As the CoA verdict is being appealed to the Supreme Court then in all fairness POPLA should adjourn their deliberations until the verdict of the Supreme Court is delivered.

salmosalaris

Indeed once the appeal is formalised

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

As the CoA verdict is being appealed to the Supreme Court then in all fairness POPLA should adjourn their deliberations until the verdict of the Supreme Court is delivered.

To be consistent with the approach it took over the CoA appeal PoPLA should now carry on adjudicating and upholding "not a GPEOL" appeals. This is what they did right up until the actual hearing date was set for the CoA appeal, and only then did they kow-tow to PE and suspend their cases.

So do I think they'll be consistent? Nope, not a chance.

salmosalaris

Although they now have a higher court judgment which HHJ Moloney's was not so they may adopt a different stance

c1223

Thanks for the replies. I sent a rebuttal on 24th March against the evidence pack that PPS had submitted to POPLA. I haven't heard anything since then.

So all that's really needed at this stage is a quick email to POPLA saying that the judgement is not applicable to my case because it was a paid car park, as per paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judgement?