re DMG (UKPC) POPLA

morfio

Fab, will draft up a complaint and post it in the next few days, and will submit final popla appeal.

Thanks for everyones help and support.

morfio

Hi guys so I need a bit more help as you know UKPC are using the Beavis result an argument now. I am not sure what else to argue with this UKPC popla appeal - I am mentioned Neils points about the law notes used in UKPC's defence.

And I know you mentioned the lease so my question is:
1)The lease comments on right to enjoyment and doesnt mention HAVING to display permit or even mentioning the permit use at all. How do I argue this?
2) Most the cases I see winning are failure from the operator to provide proof to issue charges. They have done this in my case. IS there anything I can do further?


I am a little twitchy as I feel UKPC may have all corners covered in this case - the ticket fell off the dashboard on to the seat - they didnt provide photos of the seat.

I have so far argued the usual sings, unjust costs etc.

Any help muchly appreciated as I just discovered the return of appeal date is tomorrow.

Many Thanks

ColliesCarer

morfio wrote: »

Hi guys so I need a bit more help as you know UKPC are using the Beavis result an argument now. I am not sure what else to argue with this UKPC popla appeal - I am mentioned Neils points about the law notes used in UKPC's defence.

And I know you mentioned the lease so my question is:
1)The lease comments on right to enjoyment and doesnt mention HAVING to display permit or even mentioning the permit use at all. How do I argue this?
2) Most the cases I see winning are failure from the operator to provide proof to issue charges. They have done this in my case. IS there anything I can do further?


I am a little twitchy as I feel UKPC may have all corners covered in this case - the ticket fell off the dashboard on to the seat - they didnt provide photos of the seat.

I have so far argued the usual sings, unjust costs etc.

Any help muchly appreciated as I just discovered the return of appeal date is tomorrow.

Many Thanks

Bit confused by your post - by appeal date do you mean assessment date?
You mention in your first post having received an evidence pack from UKPC.
Could you clarify - Have you yet to submit your POPLA appeal?

morfio

Sorry, the rebuttal response - I submitted an appeal - it was held over till Beavis result and now the hearing for this case will be tomorrow or as near to it as POPLA can manage I believe

ColliesCarer

morfio wrote: »

Hi guys so I need a bit more help as you know UKPC are using the Beavis result an argument now. I am not sure what else to argue with this UKPC popla appeal - I am mentioned Neils points about the law notes used in UKPC's defence.

And I know you mentioned the lease so my question is:
1)The lease comments on right to enjoyment and doesnt mention HAVING to display permit or even mentioning the permit use at all. How do I argue this?
2) Most the cases I see winning are failure from the operator to provide proof to issue charges. They have done this in my case. IS there anything I can do further?


I am a little twitchy as I feel UKPC may have all corners covered in this case - the ticket fell off the dashboard on to the seat - they didnt provide photos of the seat.

I have so far argued the usual sings, unjust costs etc.

Any help muchly appreciated as I just discovered the return of appeal date is tomorrow.

Many Thanks:)

Re: Beavis - distinguish your case from the Commercial enterprise as advised
Raise the fact that this case will be going to the supreme court.

Re: the lease - have you read the whole of Neil.net's own thread regarding UKPC particularly from about #30 onwards - some useful advice from others more familiar with this type of own space ticket there and Neil.net's wording in his POPLA on this point may also be relevant to you

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5146123

Re: their evidence of right to issue charges - still challenge it. Being granted authority to issue charges does not mean they have been given the full assignment of title from the landowner that would be needed to pursue charges in their own name through the courts

morfio

Thanks Have now submitted a very long response - including the lease/beavis appeal/ right to charge.

I really appreciate the help!
Who knew tickets from November would still be a thorn it the paw this far into 2015

Thanks again, and sorry if I have been a bit of a pain

Northlakes

UKPC making claims of commercial justification as per Beavis is nonsense.
PE paid for the right to issue PCN's to motorists who breached the T&C's. The landowner appeared to have worked in concert with PE in reducing the period of parking from 3 to 2 hours in order to generate more revenues for PE and themselves.
The legality of this type of arrangement could be open to question and is still up for appeal at the Supreme Court.
You could challenge UKPC in your rebuttal by a statement such as:

'I contest the claim by UKPC of any similarity to the Beavis case and put them to strict proof that this parking management contract does not contain the same financial arrangements as was demonstrated in the ParkingEye/ Savills-BA Pension Scheme contract.'

The_Deep

Beavis overstayed in a busy retail car park where PE pay the landowner a rent of about £2,000+ a month. They therefore have a considerable interest in the land. The problem is that this car park wold be abused by commuters and people not using the retail facilities if there was no control. There was no facility to buy extra time, and the COA said that PE are commercially justified in doing so.

You on the other hand have paid though your rent for sole use of your space, and can stay as long as you like. A permit helps the PPC to know who should be there and who should not, and, unless your AST says otherwise, is a courtesy only.

Beavis and PPCs milking tenants parking in their own spaces are poles apart. All you need say in your appeal is there is no similarity.

Northlakes

The_Deep wrote: »

Beavis overstayed in a busy retail car park where PE pay the landowner a rent of about £2,000+ a month. They therefore have a considerable interest in the land.

Beavis and PPCs milking tenants parking in their own spaces are poles apart. All you need say in your appeal is there is no similarity.

I think the problem following the Beavis case at the CofA is that every PPC will now claim commercial justification for every situation. This is such a case where there are no similarities but unless the financial transaction is highlighted, POPLA (or the following appeal body) will or maybe unaware of the very different contract models.
The cite of the contract may be a crunch factor in future POLA appeals in order that blanket commercial justification claims cannot be justified.

morfio

Hi Everyone,

Just so you know I am still waiting on Popla, these cases have been apparently held until the further Beavis appeal.

Does anyone know a) when this will be and/or b) how long it can take /be over my head for.

I also recall seeing somewhere a peice about Popla possibly ceasing on August. Is this the case and what happens then?

Thanks so much