Free the 4000

pappa_golf

yotmon wrote: »

But the article mentions PBA owing Popla £200,000. If PBA have already paid the £27.00 fee for 4,000 appeals, then that equals £108,000. So there is a large discrepancy in the sums involved. Can't see the London councils agreeing to help out until the deficit is cleared.

yup , should be interesting for the Parasitic Bungling Authority

Parkrage

The RK in the case I am fighting rec'd that email from Troy yesterday.

"Given that in many cases, the reason given by London Councils POPLA for adjournment (i.e. Beavis) was totally wrong, why should this alternative service provider consider these cases only in relation to the issue for which they were adjourned?"

Our case did indeed raise other issues than was addressed by Beavis.Wondered whether anyone has formulated a suitable response that I could use as a template to respond to Mr Troy, in which all the necessary points are addressed.

Coupon-mad

I know of cases with an incorrect site contract, an incorrect site on a witness statement from the wrong party, unlit signage in the dark and no landowner authority at all (this last one very common).

I also think from the Spring there was at least one case I know of, with no evidence pack from a PPC sent at all.

All stayed and old POPLA ignored requests to unstick them.

Grandad123

I smell a rat. It wouldn't surprise me if we all get an 'Equitas' type response soon after Christmas.


Obviously Troy boy has no idea of the contents of the wad of appeals he is holding. So he is in no position to judge who to allocate them to.


There will probably be a fire in the storeroom, and all the evidence gets magically destroyed or lost.


Oh well I will give it to Friday, to see if I get any response, before I prod the dormant hedgehog. I can't believe the BPA can deny us our right of appeal much longer. It must be very nearly illegal.

salmosalaris

No template responses . It's then easy for PT to send a template reply .
I suggest every appellant who receives this e mail , sends their full appeal to PT , omitting the paragraph on gpeol, and asking him to dig out the reasoning of why these other appeal points were rejected . Prior to adjournment an appellant would have received this , so why not now ?

patrick.t@britishparking.co.uk
Cc in steve.c@britishparking.co.uk


But all is not lost . Let's see what cobblers this BPA appointed independent review panel comes up with in paid parking sites with regards to gpeol/unfair terms , eg how a £1 underpayment warrants a £100 penalty charge , with reference to the Beavis case

Parkrage

But why even omit the para about GPEOL, Salmosaris? I thought this was still relevant in paid for' car parks?

salmosalaris

Because it is presumably still to be adjudicated on that point .
Apparently all other points have been . The words of Jim Royle spring to mind

Grandad123

The problem is that my appeal, like many others, has not even been looked at.

The statement that the appeals are just waiting for the Beavis judgment is totally false.

I had an email from POPLA the week that they folded saying my appeal had not been looked at. Somebody is telling porkies.

pappa_golf

yup London counsils "said" they had adjudicated all the claims apart from the GPEOL aspect , and as such they were paid for doing them , awaiting the outcome of bevis and the ability to simply do a bulk email to people saying pass/fail , but in the meantime a new company has moved in and is not happy about doing all the work without being paid .

soton_25

So let's all agree - this is a $$ game for BPA, London Councils, Ombudsman Service. They will thrash it out and make what they believe will be the right path forward on a cost and customer service basis. However we will know that the customer service aspect will be cursory.

The pinch is that any cases that have slam dunk winning points (outside of the old GPEOL defence) are the thorn in their side. They won't care however that these cases don't stand a chance in a court of law. They only care how to get the money at minimum effort. A bit of collateral damage with the correctness and niceity of a judgement along the way will not move them overly (yet).

We continue to lobby and make the pinch more and more obvious.