Parking Eye - Snowden Mountain Railway

catfunt

And still no mention of the missing "evidence" of the permission to levy parking charges which POPLA got, and you didn't, so didn't get the chance to rebut if it was just a witness statement and not the full unredacted contract.
Even if you did, it appears that they would not have read it anyway.

I wonder what the IPSA would make of this?

This will probably go to Small Claims, I expect. Didnt PE lose a Snowdon case with strong mitigating circumstances (an injury) in the past?

salmosalaris

Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148:
“But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in
consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms .....


Should payment have been made the vehicle was welcome to park as it did without further obligation so the simple inadvertent underpayment has immediately generated a much larger charge as a result . Still smells like a penalty to me however Beavis is manipulated to make out it is not, unless the need to deter or punish non payment is a legitimate interest .
Not even the need for PE to make an income can be used here as a legitimate interest as the car park ( unlike in the free scenario in Beavis ) already charges handsomely. But PE reply , the parking tariff is not paid to us , oh hold on .... answers on a postcard

Umkomaas

Having reviewed your complaint, I have reviewed your case and have come to the conclusion the correct decision was sent by Anthony Davidson.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-davidson-0971b843

Not much of a legal background here! Are they drafting in ancillary staff to plough through their Beavis backlog?

@OP - was the Samuel Connop (Connor?) letter copied and pasted by you here, or did you re-type it into the post?

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-davidson-0971b843

Not much of a legal background here! Are they drafting in ancillary staff to plough through their Beavis backlog?

@OP - was the Samuel Connop (Connor?) letter copied and pasted by you here, or did you re-type it into the post?

If it is a cut & paste rather than a re-type then Samuel Connop can't spell response.

Umkomaas

I think for consumer confidence the qualifications and background of each POPLA Assessor should be made public.

A 'Product Development Officer' with a previous role as a PPI 'persuader' doesn't fill me with great confidence about how much understanding there is of the issues afoot in the world of private parking.

Role consisted of inbound contact from customers wanting to cancel Payment Protection Cover (PPC) on Credit Card accounts, the role was to inform and retain the PPC from those customers.

LJJ

Not much of a legal background here! Are they drafting in ancillary staff to plough through their Beavis backlog?

@OP - was the Samuel Connop (Connor?) letter copied and pasted by you here, or did you re-type it into the post?

I copied and pasted straight from the email Umkomaas- I thought Connop was a strange surname, Must have been in a hurry, spelt responce, & finaly wrong too!!

Umkomaas

LJJ wrote: »

I copied and pasted straight from the email Umkomaas- I thought Connop was a strange surname, Must have been in a hurry, spelt responce, & finaly wrong too!!

In that case, it's a very amateur and grammatically poor response to a serious complaint.

Confidence takes a further dip.