Free the 4000

Coupon-mad

No-one has forgotten.

I'm currently backtracking on some of my old cases from the Spring in readiness to show how the case differs from Beavis, including issues about signage and no authority which can be written within that narrow scope, if we have to.

What I mean is, if the BPA only let the 4000 argue ''a la Beavis'' (a scandal if so), then the 4000 will have to bring in your other appeal points within the scope covered by that judgment. So start reading it and picking out the stuff about signage and the stuff about the landowner commercial justification, if you haven't already!

Grandad123

Will do. I am primed like coiled spring, keener than a warden hiding behind a pillar.


I may have a bit of a problem though as my PPC has since gone over to the dark side (IPC) and that may complicate things

HO87

Grandad123 wrote: »

Will do. I am primed like coiled spring, keener than a warden hiding behind a pillar.


I may have a bit of a problem though as my PPC has since gone over to the dark side (IPC) and that may complicate things

Nope. Shouldn't be a problem. They are stuck with POPLA as they were BPA members (presumably) at the time your PCN was issued. The fact that they have since switched to the IPC is neither here nor there in your case.

For simplicity sake why don't we just call them Old POPLA and New POPLA.

Redx

to grandad

not really as they have to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, so if they were BPA members then they have to abide by the popla decision, IPC membership only gives them scope for tickets issued AFTER they transferred

as for the name POPLA, old popla , new popla , its still POPLA no matter who runs it (like the new cadburys creme egg is still a creme egg, despite the changes and even if they moved it to a new factory)

it changed from LONDON COUNCILS , when you appealed, to the OMBUDSMAN service , but its still popla, even if its no longer the same people

yes its confusing , but think of it as old popla for your case, new popla for new cases, and the BPA will have to decide what they are doing about those 4000 outstanding cases, thats the important part , even if they give them to the new POPLA to decide

stop looking for problems that arent there, deal with the outstanding problem only

soton_25

Hey CM, if we are only allowed to argue a la Beavis I shall be the first on the barricades! I have a non compliant NTK guaranteed (dates, Sec 8 & 9) winner on mine.

Grandad123

Sorry Red but all this waiting around is doing my head in.


I'd better get a life and worry about something else.:rudolf:

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one has forgotten.

I'm currently backtracking on some of my old cases from the Spring in readiness to show how the case differs from Beavis, including issues about signage and no authority which can be written within that narrow scope, if we have to.

What I mean is, if the BPA only let the 4000 argue ''a la Beavis'' (a scandal if so), then the 4000 will have to bring in your other appeal points within the scope covered by that judgment.

If any PPC had sent in their initial POPLA submission, claiming GPEOL with the usual made-up numbers, then surely they can't suddenly decide it's not GPEOL, but a legitimate charge according to Beavis. They would have to continue to justify their numbers are actual losses.

Or am I being naive?

Herzlos

That's presumably why PE got them stayed *before* sending any evidence in.

Even if they did change their tune and it got past POPLA, I doubt they'd want to bring them into a court.

soton_25

Bumpity bump... nothing doing at my end. No correspondence no nothing. Long may it continue

salmosalaris

The private parking industry sinks to a new low


8 December 2015

Dear ......
Parking Eye vs Beavis Supreme Court case
You will no doubt be aware of the above case which was delivered on 4 November.
You may know that a number of cases considered by POPLA were adjourned as a result of Mr Beavis appealing from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
During this period the service provider for POPLA changed from London Councils to The Ombudsman Service. This has complicated how these cases might now be resolved and has led to a delay in finding an efficient way to have the cases heard.
The BPA has agreed that the safest and fairest way to proceed is to appoint an independent service provider to act as it if were POPLA and to determine these cases only in relation to the issue for which they were adjourned, mainly around the matter of proportionality of the charge. The service provider – once appointed – will consider each case on its merits, apply the law as it now applies following the Supreme Court case. Appellants and operators should then receive a decision in the normal way.
I wanted to let you know as you had made contact regarding the issue, so that you are aware both of the delay in processing these cases and of the expedient way in which we are now intending to deal with this matter.
We are appointing a service provider quickly and hope to have them in place early in the New Year.
We would like to thank you for your patience. The coincidence of the court case and the change in the POPLA service provider created a unique set of circumstances which are unlikely ever to be repeated. I look forward to a satisfactory conclusion to this particular chapter for all concerned so we can move on quickly.
Yours Sincerely

Patrick Troy
Chief Executive