JAS Evidence received - late

da0092

Good morning,

Following all the steps outlined in the stickies, and with help from some users to polish my POPLA appeal letter (thanks RedX), i submitted an appeal to POPLA against JAS Parking Solutions on 2nd March, using all the recommended points.

I then recieved my confirmation from POPLA which stated that the scheduled date of hearing was 8th April, and that any evidence would be sent to me.

This date passed, and I had heard nothing, so earlier in the week I called POPLA to check what the situation was and they told me it was ongoing.

Then, today (17th April), I received an evidence pack from JAS Parking Solutions in the post. The evidence pack contains:

- Standard cover letter
- A printed email copy of the submission of their evidence pack dated 5th March
- Various photos of the offence
- Letter from Staples which states that JAS are allowed to act on behalf of Staples on the site in question, however it specifically states that they are NOT the landowner.
- Some rubbish about a cobbled together GPEOL.

Could I please have some advice on how to approach this. It is clear that JAS have delayed sending me this evidence, and have posted it after the scheduled hearing that so that I am unable to respond to it.

Links to any threads on how to respond would be much appreciated, I would search the forum but I feel time is against me due to their dirty tricks!

Thanks in advance.

ManxRed

If Staples aren't the landowner then they have no legal standing, and hence any third party contractor such as JAS jave no legal standing either.

For the GPEOL, no salaries, no NI, no costs of dealing with an appeal. Ask yourself this. Would the charge as detailed have been incurred if you hadn't parked there at all? If the answer's yes, then it's not a loss.

Similarly, in calculating costs of putting together an appeal as part of the £100 (or whatever charge), does EVERYONE appeal? If someone simply pays them without appealing then why do they need to bear the costs of an appeal, and why has their charge also been £100?

da0092

UPDATE:
I have called POPLA again and explained the situation. They have taken my details and a Supervisor is going to call me back in due course. I would still like to prepare a letter refuting their evidence pack so help still appreciated!

Redx

there was no need to open yet another thread, all you had to do was add to this other one below (dont open any more new threads , its confusing and shows a lack of continuity)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5186684

I suggest you pm crabman and ask him to merge them

as for those dates, they are not set in stone and so its not necessarily a problem that its a week past that date before this evidence appeared from JAS, but you did right to complain to popla and to hopefully ask for an extension so you can send in a rebuttal, so a good idea so far

now you need to send in to popla a rebuttal of this evidence pack, so the stuff that manxred said, plus anything else

use the forum search to find JAS REBUTTAL or REBUTTAL or similar search words and find and adapt previous popla rebuttals listed on here to suit this JAS pack

it is what it is, they sent in their pack and you have the right to rebut it, so this could go on like ping pong although I expect it will cease once your rebuttal goes in

da0092

Thanks ManxRed and RedX, will follow all your points (and get the threads merged).

Redx

check this for rebuttal wordings

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5163827

The_Deep

this could go on like ping pong ...

Indeed, try to keep the ball in play as long as possible as it costs them money.

da0092

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am emailing regarding appeal code xxx xxx xxxx. I submitted by appeal to yourselves (POPLA) against JAS Parking Solutions Ltd (the operator) on 2nd March 2015, receiving confirmation of my appeal on 3rd March. The confirmation stated that the scheduled hearing date for my case was the 8th April, and that any evidence submitted by the operator would be sent to me.

After the 8th April, I had received no evidence from the operator. On Thursday 16th April I phoned yourselves (POPLA) to enquire about the situation, and to ask why I had received no evidence from the operator. I was informed that the case was still ongoing, and that no action was required from me. Today (17th April), I then received an evidence pack through the post from JAS Parking Solutions Ltd. This evidence pack contained some documents that I would like to respond to, but first I would like to draw your attention to the timing of these events.

As part of their evidence pack, JAS Parking Solutions Ltd have submitted a copy of the email sent to yourselves (POPLA) containing their appeal. This email was dated 6th March 2015. As mentioned, I did not receive any evidence from the operator until it arrived by post this morning, on Friday 17th April. This means that a period of 51 days has elapsed between my own evidence being submitted to yourselves, and the evidence of the operator being received by myself. Therefore, it is clear to me that the operator has intentionally waited until after the scheduled hearing date to send any evidence to myself, in an attempt to prevent me from responding to any of their evidence.

I now wish to respond to some of the evidence as submitted by JAS Parking Solutions Ltd. The summary of my response is as follows:

1. No contract from the landowner has been submitted, and the inclusion of a letter from the tenant forms no contract.
2. The pre-estimate of loss breakdown includes several items with are not losses, but are infact business costs, resulting in a gross over-inflation of the estimate, rendering it an unrecoverable penalty
3. No evidence has been submitted proving that the driver of the vehicle left the sight.
4. Photographic evidence submitted by operator shows that ‘contract’ should be void.


Details:

1. Lack of contract from landowner

What is admitted in the evidence is that Staples is not the landowner. There is no copy of the contract from landowner to tenant to illustrate that even Staples has the authority to use JAS to issue tickets. Furthermore, the letter from Staples misses key information such as the date it is valid until.

To summarise: JAS has not even begun to demonstrate that it has standing to issue tickets at the site from where the ticket was issued. This is in clear violation of section 7 of the BPA code of practice. As I submitted in my appeal, a statement like “we would assume that JAS Parking Solutions would seek legal action” does not convey the authority to do so. The BPA requires that “[the Operator has] the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary”. This transfer of authority is entirely missing from the contract, even if were not so redacted as to be useless as evidence.


2. Pre-estimate of loss

This calculation is the latest in an ever shifting set of combinations, attempting to reach the magical figure of the parking charge claimed. Yet JAS has still not managed to come up with a valid set of calculations of demonstrable losses: merely attempted to claim a set of fixed business costs as losses. Numerous POPLA decisions have cited this false accounting as reason enough to grant an appeal, and it does not seem that this Operator has taken any action to improve the presentation of their true estimate of losses. As stated in my original appeal, adding “in this case” to a set of fixed business costs does not transform them into genuine estimates of loss.

DVLA and Processing Costs: The DVLA KADOE system charges £2.50 per query (at the last time of checking). JAS state their loss as being £17.40, which leaves £14.90 unaccounted for in their estimate. I would also state that since some people pay tickets without waiting for the Notice to Keeper, it cannot be a cost realised in each ticket issuance.

Stationary fees (postage/printing): The operator has chosen to submit their evidence to the appellant by post. If the operator had sent their evidence to the appellant in the same manner as it was sent to yourselves (POPLA), then no postage or printing costs need have been incurred. Therefore, this was an avoidable cost and cannot form part of the loss estimate.

Parking Attendants Salaries: This is a fixed business cost. I cannot be made to believe that writing parking tickets is not somehow an expected duty of a parking attendant.

Appeals Staff Salaries: Again, a fixed business cost. BPA membership requires an Operator to have an appeals process. As such, it cannot be a loss generated by any parking contravention. Again, is JAS really maintaining that appeals staff are significantly diverted from their normal duties by processing appeals? What, then, are their normal duties, if not appeal handling?


3. Evidence of leaving site

As part of their evidence, JAS Parking Solutions has stated: “The driver was seen leaving the car park, this is a breach of the car parks terms and conditions. Please see attached witness statement”. However there is no such witness statement included in the evidence pack sent to the appellant (myself). Therefore, it is entirely unclear that that there was a contravention. There is no named witness or continuous video feed to act as any sort of corroboration for the allegation of breach of terms and conditions.

Furthermore, had there been a parking warden present to witness the driver leaving the site in question, then that warden would have had a duty of care to mitigate any purported losses by simply informing the driver at the time. By failing to do so, JAS have effectively admitted that they have failed to mitigate any potential loss.


4. Photographic evidence

The operator has submitted pictures of the car which is registered to me, in a car park with spaces to the left and right of it. All this would demonstrate is that the car was in the car park and that there was still parking availability, meaning the retailer (and thus its agent) could not possibly suffer loss by denial of parking resources.

Furthermore, the evidence shows that as the carpark is approached Houlton St, there is clear visible signage stating ‘Car Park’. It is not until a driver has turned into the site that the signage put in place by JAS Parking Solutions Ltd is visible and legible, meaning that drivers are in breach of the supposed ‘contract’ claimed by JAS before even being aware of it, which makes it nonsensical and therefore unenforceable, and should be void.


I ask that these rebuttals are included in the Assessors deliberation.

Regards,
xxx

ManxRed

Add to number 3 that had there been a warden present to witness the driver leave site then that warden would have had a duty of care to mitigate any purported losses by simply informing the driver at the time. JAS have effectively admitted that they have failed to mitigate any loss.

The rest of it looks great.

abps

Hi All,
I have had a good read of peoples experiences with these cowboys and I am ready to fight my PCN.
I parked on private land next to the Metrolink station in Manchester. There is a sign which reads 'free parking for Metrolink customers' Of which I was one. I have lept my ticket for the Metrolink. What you can obviously see, is that if the vehicle is left out of Metrolink running times, Care-Parking slap the PCN on you!
So, I have read the processes involved for the challenge but I wanted a little advice.
I have visited the Care-parking website, where there are 4 photos of my vehicle. They have literally taken the car and nothing else. The photographs could have been taken anywhere and there are no Metrolonk signs or anything to suggest it was on their land.

So before I kick the process of appeal off - should I challenge them to at first prove my vehicle was on their land? I've no doubt they will be able to do this but if they cant, surely it flops at the first hurdle? 4 Photos of my car is all they have on the site.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
Ant.

bod1467

@abps - Please stop hijacking other people's threads - start your own. You will NOT get assistance in any hijacked thread.