Parking Eye - Snowden Mountain Railway

salmosalaris

As a lawful charge for breach can be in excess of gpeol it matters not a jot whether the PPC claimed it is a measure of their losses or not , the charge is still enforceable , that is the entire point of Beavis .

The_Slithy_Tove

salmosalaris wrote: »

As a lawful charge for breach can be in excess of gpeol it matters not a jot whether the PPC claimed it is a measure of their losses or not , the charge is still enforceable , that is the entire point of Beavis .

Not if they claim it IS GPEOL, which PE have done here and elsewhere, even giving one of their fictitious breakdowns of how they concocted the sum. In Beavis, they didn't claim the charge did equate to their losses, and the judges decided that was OK. But if they are saying the charge does amount to their losses, then they must justify that statement. They cannot have it both ways (although they always try).

salmosalaris

So the PPC insists that it is a gpeol. Even if the court disagrees that it is ,if it also decides that there was a legitimate interest enforcing the charge it would still be enforceable .
Post Beavis gpeol is utterly irrelevant IMO.

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Not if they claim it IS GPEOL, which PE have done here and elsewhere, even giving one of their fictitious breakdowns of how they concocted the sum. In Beavis, they didn't claim the charge did equate to their losses, and the judges decided that was OK. But if they are saying the charge does amount to their losses, then they must justify that statement. They cannot have it both ways (although they always try).

I agree with that. Bet the number of such GPEOL based claims from the PPCs will drop when they twig. They already seem to have from a couple of years ago when they were being spanked at POPLA on GPEOL

LJJ

"Copy the style of the other ones on the forum ystereday where other rebuttals were not read. POPLA seems to be accepting rebuttals by emails and saying hey were added to the file but then the Assessor does not access them at all, does read those words and evidence"

Coupon Mad - can you add a link for the "other ones" on the forum where their rebuttals were not read, I am having trouble finding them, thanks muchly

Coupon-mad

Search this forum board for 'POPLA rebuttal' as keywords, that's how I would look for them.

Best if you do it, then you will see how the forum searches work if you haven't already. That's all I would do.

LJJ

So I emailed the POPLA "Lead Adjudicator" complaining that not all of my rebuttal information had been read, highlighting the difference between paid and free car parks and the misquote of the PoFA section - requested a review and received this reply, no surprise!

"In responce to the below email,
Having reviewed your complaint, I have reviewed your case and have come to the conclusion the correct decision was sent by Anthony Davidson.
The operator had complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 under paragraph 9 and the ruling made by the Supreme Court can apply to any car parked that is privately owned.
As such, the decision is finaly and therefore will not be reopening the case.
If you wish to take this further you may like to contact the Citizen's Advice Bureau on 03454 04 05 06
Your Sincerely
Samuel Connop
POPLA Assessor"

That's an interesting bit " the ruling made by the SC can apply to any car parked that is privately owned" (the car or the land??)

salmosalaris

LJJ wrote: »

That's an interesting bit " the ruling made by the SC can apply to any car parked that is privately owned" (the car or the land??)

"Can " apply to an attempted charge in a private car park is a long way from "does apply" to every such charge .
Doesn't appear to have come from the lead adjudicator ( if there actually is one )

LJJ

I don think there is a lead adjudicator, it has just been passed to a colleague by the look of it. Just sit back and wait for the court papers or debt collector letters then eh?

The_Slithy_Tove

New POPLA is becoming as bad as IAS. So now we have no genuinely sensible, unbiassed, rational ADR for parking. Just like the old days.