JAS Evidence received - late

da0092

Maybe not fighting true to the cause, but think I will cave and pay the fine as opposed to attempt taking this to court. Frustrating but certainly not for lack of effort... and at least I've wasted a decent amount of JAS time.

Would be very interesting to hear what others who have found themselves on the end of a rejection from Wright Hassall have done, but in the mean time a big thanks to everybody for their inputs and help with my appeal.

Coupon-mad

da0092 wrote: »

Maybe not fighting true to the cause, but think I will cave and pay the fine as opposed to attempt taking this to court. Frustrating but certainly not for lack of effort... and at least I've wasted a decent amount of JAS time.

Would be very interesting to hear what others who have found themselves on the end of a rejection from Wright Hassall have done, but in the mean time a big thanks to everybody for their inputs and help with my appeal.

What?????

Say that again, you want to PAY JAS?

Hold fire and listen. You do not pay just because WH have said what they said. JAS argued the charge was for loss/damages and in the Beavis case, the Supreme Court stated that PE could NOT have recovered a charge on that basis. That was in your 'comments' very clearly. WH have shown they do not give a stuff about what the Beavis case actually found.

You need to complain to ISPA and NOT PAY. Don't be a mug, JAS are not even a BPA member any more, not part of any ATA I believe so you would be mad to pay up.

da0092

Let me be very clear, I most definitely do not want to pay JAS a single penny.

Based on what you've said, I will hold off paying and will complain to the ISPA. However, if it turns out that the only way to contest this further will be to go through court, then I'm afraid I will bow out. Yes it's giving in when I'd much prefer to stand ground for the sake of others in similar positions, but it's getting close to the turning point in terms of time vs reward for me now. I have neither the knowledge of this area - or time available to learn - that would allow me to contest this in a more confident and coherent way. I'm moving to America for 6 months at the start of July and the last thing I want to be doing whilst out there is spend hours writing statements and providing evidence on a subject I know very little about, and will get very little reward from even if successful.

If circumstances were different then I'm sure I'd be more willing to dig my heels into the turf and continue to fight this. Thanks again for the input of those who have given me advice, I hope others have found it useful too.

System

As a side note, JAS always had problems with their dates. Have you checked if they met the 56 days limit in POFA. If not add that in too.

Did you do this?

Herzlos

Regarding court, you can pay up to the moment proceedings start, and even if found against you it won't cost you much more. I'd be inclined to let them start action (it's not that likely), and only pay if they actually turn up on the day. If you're out of the country, you can let the court know about that too.

da0092 wrote: »

I received an email from POPLA today, containing a letter from Wright Hassall informing me that my appeal has been rejected.

Can't really see what reasonable steps I can take from here, and so advice would be appreciated. By reasonable, I don't intend to take this to the supreme court of appeal.

Have others heard back from Wright Hassall and if so, what has the outcome been?



************************************************** *******

Dear Sir/Madam

Car Park Operator J.A.S. Parking Solutions Ltd also t/as J.A.S. Parking

Solutions

Appellant xxx xxxx
Appeal Verification Code (“the Appeal”) xxxxxxxxxx
Parking Charge Reference Number xxxxxxx
Wright Hassall Reference POPLA Appeal Outcome: Rejected

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.

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.

Reasons for dismissing the Appeal

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Car Park Operator has failed to prove that the Appellant left the site, in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park. We are receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator in respect of this, namely a signed and dated witness statement confirming that the Appellant was seen parking their vehicle and leaving the site. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

To the Appellant

To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.

To the Car Park Operator

As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.

This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

Yours faithfully

WRIGHT HASSALL LLP

An actual court would disagree with every single one of their points, as would real POPLA.

I'd be complaining to WH, BPA and the DVLA about this, because it's blatant nonsense. I'd be inclined to complain to the SRA as well just to highlight how bent these guys are, even if they aren't technically acting as solicitors in this instance.

da0092

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Did you do this?

I did check yes, it was received at my home address around 30 days after the ticket was found on my windscreen.

da0092

Thanks for the feedback. Hands are very tied right now, but based on what has been said I will definitely hold off paying the fine and will look into avenues of complaint when time is on my hands.

Still not keen on taking this to court due to time + lack of knowledge, however if it appears that it's simpler than I'm currently imagining, then I could be swayed.

Umkomaas

Well, here's their record of court cases. Don't forget in order to recover a parking charge of £100 they'd need to spend a lot of time preparing court papers, employ a solicitor to represent them and travel to a court nearest to you (not them). Not unsubstantial costs of around £300 - 'do the math' (as you'll be saying once you get to the good old US of A!).

Some PPCs do pursue unviable cost cases to send a message to other motorist not to ignore them (pour encourager les autres), but as JAS are no longer AOS members and can't access DVLA data there won't be any 'les autres'.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/JAS_Parking_Solutions.html

Do you really think you will be their first court case?

da0092

Interesting... this is starting to look quite enticing! Could even be fun!

hoohoo

JAS outsource their court cases to MIL Collections. MIL have NEVER WON A SINGLE CONTESTED PARKING CASE (as reported to these forums). So you would have to fail spectacularly to lose to MIL. I'm sure the Prankster would be interested if MIL did start sniffing around.