MET Parking at McDonalds

Big_Ells

Thanks for the advice Edna, I have emailed BPA stating that the appeal needs to be properly reviewed and not just based on PE v B
Got a delivery and read receipt.

Big_Ells

Got a reply:

Dear Mr XXXX,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please be advised unfortunately we are unable to overrule a decision made by POPLA to hold your case for the GPEOL issue.

POPLA will be in touch once a new hearing date has been scheduled and a decision made.

Kind regards,
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team

Edna_Basher

Utter tosh from the BPA.

Big_Ells wrote: »

Please be advised unfortunately we are unable to overrule a decision made by POPLA to hold your case for the GPEOL issue.

The BPA have already been made aware that many of the appeals adjourned by "Old" POPLA were not solely dependent upon the outcome of the Beavis case.

Big_Ells wrote: »

POPLA will be in touch once a new hearing date has been scheduled and a decision made.

In Patrick Troy's letter of 8th December 2015, he advised appellants that the BPA were proposing to appoint an independent service provider to act as if it were POPLA. Have the BPA now changed their mind and are now planning on using POPLA after all?

Coupon-mad

I think the Prankster was referring certain cases (with clear other grounds such as no landowner authority or very obvious NTK flaws, etc.) to the POPLA Scrutiny Committee as proof that these adjourned cases were not assessed by any actual Assessor.

Edna Basher, have you sent your cases to the POPLA Scrutiny Committee as examples?

Edna_Basher

Thanks C-M.

That's a very good point - I'll send an e-mail to Nicola Mullany, ISPA Chair (nicola.mullany@ispa.co.uk) to provide her with details of our 4 cases in POPLA limbo.

Perhaps Big Ells, you could do the same in respect of your case?

Big_Ells

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Thanks C-M.

That's a very good point - I'll send an e-mail to Nicola Mullany, ISPA Chair (nicola.mullany@ispa.co.uk) to provide her with details of our 4 cases in POPLA limbo.

Perhaps Big Ells, you could do the same in respect of your case?

Can do, whatever helps, is there anything I should put specifically?

Edna_Basher

Thanks Big Ells

The BPA want to fast track all of the 4,000 outstanding "Old" POPLA cases through a low cost process. They claim that POPLA had already substantially reviewed these cases and had dismissed all appeal points other than one final point (i.e. that of GPEOL / Commercial Justification) and that these cases had all then adjourned pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Beavis case.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against Beavis, if the BPA were to press ahead with this process, it's possible that most, if not all of the outstanding appeals could be disallowed.

The ISPA (i.e. the body that oversees the POPLA appeals process) are currently gathering evidence to support their suspicion that many of the outstanding cases from the "Old" POPLA days may not have been properly considered before being adjourned. They have expressed concerns to the BPA that the outstanding cases should be reviewed in full, otherwise justice may not be seen to have been done.

On Post #29 of your thread, ColliesCarer highlighted a number of points to include in your POPLA appeal including:

• No standing or authority to levy charges and pursue through the courts in their own right
• Notice to Hirer not compliant with POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and therefore no hirer liability
• Unclear non compliant signage therefore no contract with driver

If you included any of these points in your appeal, then POPLA should have had good reason to allow your appeal (the non-compliant Notice to Hirer was a definite winning point). If this were the case, the fact that your appeal was adjourned rather than being allowed would indicate that POPLA had not properly reviewed your appeal. This is the sort of evidence that the ISPA is looking for.

I've provided the ISPA with our evidence today (thanks for the prompt C-M).

Umkomaas

A development with 'new' POPLA blogged by the Prankster relating to new cases being stayed on the back of Beavis too, while 'new' POPLA get their heads around the judgment.

Something I suspected as being one of the reasons for the delay in getting any decisions out of 'new' POPLA, other than those being upheld on 'technicalities' (like PPC withdrawal, or key evidence not submitted by the PPC).

Perhaps it's a good sign that they are taking their time to absorb the ramifications of Beavis (as well as understanding the other appeal I ssues now emerging from forum assistance, forced by a general abandonment of GPEOL as a previous sure fire winner). But not so good for a new tranche of motorists also having to wait for a longer than expected point of decision.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk

Big_Ells

Almost a year later and I received a letter from Wright Hassall LLP

Obviously I have no more evidence. Should I respond with anything? Any advice on how I should proceed?

I get the impression they are only going to take GPEOL into consideration and MET are going to come back with a pack all about how they can do this because of Beavis.

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.

Coupon-mad

Same as the other cases like this, loads on here. Search 'Wright Hassall POPLA' or 'WH POPLA'. There is one discussed within the past hour!