JAS Evidence received - late

Redx

please start a new thread using the blue NEW THREAD button near the green banner at the top of the forum

hijacking other members threads is not allowed and your case has nothing to do with this one

people will help you when you have started your own thread, not before

thanks

da0092

The above letter rebutting their evidence pack has been submitted to POPLA, after which I was cc'ed into an email from JAS stating that the evidence was sent to me by post on the same day as it was submitted to POPLA, and they resent it as soon as they were made aware of me not receiving it.

How convenient.

Regardless, the rest of the points are still entirely valid and hopefully will see them off. I will update (IN THIS THREAD ;]) once I hear any more.

Thanks all

Redx

excellent, nothing makes me happier than seeing those sc@msters lose each and every appeal and costing them £30 into the bargain

they tried to sc@m one of my friends once and failed due to me helping fight back, so I personally look for JAS threads on here and am always happy every time I have cost them more money due to their intransigence and greed

please let us know the outcome (I am sure it will be a win for you)

da0092

Update:

I have received the expected letter from POPLA, stating that my case was adjourned pending the outcome of the Beavis appeal. The letter from POPLA states:

"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."

So the emphasis is on JAS to provide evidence that the outcome of that case is relevant to the Beavis case. Some questions:

1. Has anybody in a similar situation already received any correspondence from the operator they are challenging (or via POPLA) in an attempt to relate the Beavis case to your own?

2. If the operator has submitted representations to show how the cases are linked, should we send a rebuttal of their points? Any examples of these so far?

3. With the appeal fund being reached and the case therefore going to another appeal, will operators still be allowed to cite this case?

Thanks in advance.

stator

Request that the case be suspended pending the outcome of the Supreme Court Appeal.

da0092

Thanks stator,

Would others agree that would be a good course of action?
Are any others on the forum in a similar situation and if so, what action have you taken?

bod1467

I disagree. This is JAS we're talking about. Just let POPLA go ahead. In the VERY unlikely event you lose at POPLA, you STILL don't need to pay ... JAS would have to take you to court, something they have no history of doing as far as I am aware.

da0092

Hello all,

It's been almost a year since I last posted on here about my case vs POPLA. Following the outcome of ParkingEye vs Beavis, I have now received a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors inviting me to send additional evidence relating to my case, since (according to the letter) GPEOL can no longer be used as a valid argument. As can be read above from my original appeal letter, my other points (omitting GPEOL) in the initial appeal were:

1. No contract from the landowner has been submitted, and the inclusion of a letter from the tenant forms no contract.

2. No evidence has been submitted proving that the driver of the vehicle left the sight.

3. Photographic evidence submitted by operator shows that ‘contract’ should be void.

Have others had similar letters from Wright Hassall, or similar solicitors, and if so have they replied using similar points? If anybody could guide me to any posts relating to this, or give me advice on how to respond to give me the best chance of winning, that would be massively appreciated - evidence needs to be sent tomorrow!

Thanks again.

Redx

looks like you have not been reading other threads or keeping up with this weeks news

please read the links I collated in this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5336635

Ralph-y

hi , .......

yes it has kicked off .......

please read through some links by Redx

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445498

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5273210

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445683

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5205259

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445843

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5446138

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5446096

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5167958

so if anybody else is in doubt of what happened to their old POPLA case that was put on hold pending the Beavis case, its now with WH

pranksters blog linked below

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

Ralph:cool: