Here I go again...

andylong42

I've just checked and it says on or soon after the 14th May

bod1467

Given today is over a week later it might be pertinent to email POPLA immediately and advise them that you have only just received PE's evidence pack, so any hearing must be delayed by at least 7 days (from today) to give you the opportunity to review and rebut.

Umkomaas

And when you come to doing your rebuttals, here are a couple of examples to give you some starting points. The first one is extremely comprehensive.

Please note they both pre-date Beavis, so any GPEOL rebuttal shouldn't be copied verbatim, especially as you're dealing with ParkingEye and you can be sure they'll be milking the Beavis case to the max. But you must point out in rebutting any Beavis reference that this is likely to go to the Supreme Court under appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

andylong42

So I've just got back off holiday to find this email waiting from me. Do I now have to cough up and be done with it or is it more bluster from Wright Hassall?


24/05/16

Private and Confidential

Dear

Car Park Operator: ParkingEye Ltd
Appellant:
Appeal Verification Code ("the Appealant")
Parking Charge Notice Number:
Wright Hassall Reference: POPLA


We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

POPLA received a number of appeals that related to the PCN not being a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (“GPEOL”). Your appeal had been initially marked as a GPEOL appeal and was therefore placed on hold. You should have received a letter confirming this from the BPA at the time.

The reason your appeal was placed on hold was due to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis, which was being heard in the Supreme Court. This case addressed the requirements of a GPEOL. Judgment was handed down on 4 November 2015 and confirmed that a PCN is a necessity in order to ensure proper use of a car park, and also to ensure that there is a commercial justification for the car park operator to manage the car park.

For completeness, we are not instructed to act on behalf of either party. Given the length of time that has passed since the Appeal was lodged, we have been asked to contact you to give you the opportunity to provide further evidence in relation to the Appeal. We will then forward this evidence to the Car Park Operator so that they may provide their comments. We will then be able to make a decision on the Appeal.

You must send this evidence within 7 days from the date of this letter. If evidence is not provided we will have no option but to assess the Appeal based on the evidence we have before us. You can send your evidence by email to popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk or by post to POPLA c/o Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF. The email address is monitored for the purposes of receiving evidence only. We are not able to respond to any other correspondence from you nor are we able to provide any information to you over the telephone.

Redx

its not bluster

as they correctly pointed out , they are being employed by the BPA to deal with about 4000 appeals that the old popla put on hold pending the Beavis case outcome

we have named them WHOPLA in this case (wright hassell popla , shortened)

as stated, they gave you a week to add any further points or rebuttals, but it seems that the email was in may and its now august, but you should issue any rebuttals you see fit, before they rule on their final decision

andylong42

My original case was based on the standard GPOEL. Is there anything I can go back with now or should I just cough up?

Redx

the Beavis case blew not a gpeol out of the water

you should await the final decision by WHOPLA , assuming you dont use other rebuttal points like poor signage , no contract etc

ps:- just read your POPLA appeal on page 1 and it also had other points AS WELL AS not a gpeol so your statement above is incorrect

so you would submit any rebuttals based on those other legal points

as for the location

ps: Crown Point is a crossroads at the centre of Denton (M34) and there is no car park at Crown Point anyway, nor is there a Crown Point in Ashton Under Lyne either , this event was likely to have occurred on the retail park known as Crown Point North about half a mile from Crown Point Denton , which has a 4 hour parking time limit and I have posted about this retail park many times before

I doubt this has anything to do with Ashton Under Lyne either

so if the paperwork says Crown Point - Ashton , its incorrect , as its Crown Point North Retail Park , Denton

Crownpoint North Retail Park is a retail park situated in the Denton area of Greater Manchester, It has a single-storey car park with 800 free parking spaces. Wikipedia

Address: Worthington Way, Denton, Manchester M34 3JP

Coupon-mad

andylong42 wrote: »

My original case was based on the standard GPOEL. Is there anything I can go back with now or should I just cough up?

It is not the end of the line. Losing at court would be the end of the line and you haven't even lost this yet.

If this is lost the decision is not binding - but would be more likely to result in a small claim now, as this PPC is litigious. You said it was Parking Eye at Crown Point, Ashton. So as your thread is very old, can you remind us what happened when you complained to the Retail Managers and the landowner there about this diabolical harassment and court threats aimed at paying customers?

And your POPLA appeal was NOT just about GPEOL. It included points about signage and about no landowner authority. You said in April 2015 ''have just received Parking Eye's evidence through the post this week.'' Did it prove landowner authority? If not, (no contract no witness statement?) then very obviously, THAT is what you tell WH and you tell them that they cannot now remind or help PE in any way about missing evidence and say you will complain to ISPA if WH acting as POPLA, suddenly reject the case saying they have conveniently received some extra evidence that you have not.

Be assertive in your reply, reminding them they MUST act 'as if they were POPLA' which allows PE to comment about the Beavis case BUT does not include letting any parking firm add in extra/other evidence not shown 18 months ago nor giving them a nod.

Show us first the email you draft. Consider also how rubbish the signage was and how the evidence looked about that too, compared to the signage in the Beavis case. Read these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445602

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5465245

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/wright-hassall-begin-to-hear-stayed.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105869

http://ispa.co.uk/userfiles/files/ISPA%20Statement%20regarding%20the%20appointment%20of%20Wright%20Hassall.pdf


HTH - email a response anyway even if the seven days is past. Check your junk emails for a decision email if this was really in May.