Free the 4000

1505grandad

PP posted 27/12:-


British Parking Association deny proper appeals process for 4,000 stayed cases despite ISPA concerns

Coupon-mad

And let's not forget the very clear email from old POPLA in April to all people with stayed cases where PE had asked for an adjournment.

It specifically stated your case 'HAS NOT YET BEEN CONSIDERED IN ANY WAY' and also promised that both parties would be allowed to make reps AND comment on the other's reps, after the Beavis decision:



''The operator in your case has applied for an adjournment, pending a decision of the Court of Appeal which they say has relevance to your own appeal. The case is ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).

The Lead Adjudicator has already granted a similar application in a small number of cases. Your appeal was not due for determination when the application was made and has not yet been considered in any way. Your case will be adjourned for 28 days.

If either party want a further adjournment after 28 days then the matter will be considered further. The operator should still submit evidence in the usual way at this stage.

It is likely that there will be widespread publicity when the Court of Appeal decision is known. However, in any event, should either party wish to make further representations following that decision, they will be able to do so and the other party will have the opportunity to comment on them.

Your appeal will now be considered on or soon after 21 May 2015 .

Yours sincerely
POPLA Administrative Team''


From post #11 here, showing that standard email from POPLA:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?62985-PCN-Parking-Eye-Appeal-denied-Now-POPLA-Appeal-or-pay


Plenty of people got that same email in April, I remember it from lots of cases which were stayed at the time.

4consumerrights

Parking Prankster blogspot highlights the problem facing BPA regarding this issue.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/british-parking-association-deny-proper.html

IMHO If the BPA had any sense they would simply allow the appeals as this would save both their members and the cost of another tender application. Lets not forget they have a duty in mitigation...

If they were really clever they could spin this off as a goodwill gesture and both the PPCs and the BPA could come out of this looking better... not to mention the anxiety the motorists have over them for a stayed appeal.

I have sufficient evidence that appeals were not considered on every aspect.

beamerguy

4consumerrights wrote: »

Parking Prankster blogspot highlights the problem facing BPA regarding this issue.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/british-parking-association-deny-proper.html

IMHO If the BPA had any sense they would simply allow the appeals as this would save both their members and the cost of another tender application. Lets not forget they have a duty in mitigation...

If they were really clever they could spin this off as a goodwill gesture and both the PPCs and the BPA could come out of this looking better... not to mention the anxiety the motorists have over them for a stayed appeal.

I have sufficient evidence that appeals were not considered on every aspect.

But the BPA don't have any sense, it's a complete farce.
There is no goodwill left in this disgusting industry and PPC's will never come up smelling of roses will they.

If you have sufficient evidence as above, it must be your duty to duly inform the authorities, even as a whistleblower ?

4consumerrights

beamerguy wrote: »

If you have sufficient evidence as above, it must be your duty to duly inform the authorities, even as a whistleblower ?

Priceless... !!!!

Just why would I be a whistleblower? !!!

beamerguy

4consumerrights wrote: »

Priceless... !!!!

Just why would I be a whistleblower? !!!

Priceless yes, you said

"I have sufficient evidence that appeals were not considered on every aspect"

Care to share it with all the motorists involved ??

The_Deep

I see a head of steam being built up against PPCs, just as the situation wrt clamping exploded. they were given a chance to put their house in order, and failed, many went to the wall.


However, no clampers rose to the prominence as has done PE, and it they have their wings clipped by new legislation, forced on the Government by public outcry, it will be the end of car park management as we know it.


I know of no other country in Europe where the Law is so used by parking companies for such self-enrichment.


Regulation will come, perhaps not next year, but soon, of that I am certain.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

I see a head of steam being built up against PPCs, just as the situation wrt clamping exploded. they were given a chance to put their house in order, and failed, many went to the wall.


However, no clampers rose to the prominence as has done PE, and it they have their wings clipped by new legislation, forced on the Government by public outcry, it will be the end of car park management as we know it.


I know of no other country in Europe where the Law is so used by parking companies for such self-enrichment.


Regulation will come, perhaps not next year, but soon, of that I am certain.

Hiya Deep,

My MP, the one on the other side of town to you, tells me it's early in the New Year, not the middle or end.

Target = PE

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

In the meantime Supermarkets are losing because those who use PE, were probably sold a pup.

We must all feel sorry for the staff of PE who probably don't realise the damage and harm they are doing to people. SHAMEFUL
Human or not human, that is the question

beamerguy

4consumerrights wrote: »

What has that got to do with being a "whistleblower and a duty to duly inform the authorities"?

Your implied statement being that I am somehow an employee from within the system ..

Your knowledge in every aspect of private parking matters is sadly lacking as seen on the postings you make.

You said it, not me

"I have sufficient evidence that appeals were not considered on every aspect"

SO, WILL YOU TELL THE PEOPLE ABOUT THIS ??

and you say

"Your implied statement being that I am somehow an employee from within the system .."

BUT you state yourself

"My signature is my own business.... however for the record I am involved in an appeals service whose name I cannot possibly mention as this often offends those with a grudge or ulterior motive"

Finally, the wrong infomation that you say I give, has actually got many parking tickets cancelled .... happy to help anyone get the same result

4consumerrights

beamerguy wrote: »

You said it, not me

"I have sufficient evidence that appeals were not considered on every aspect"

SO, WILL YOU TELL THE PEOPLE ABOUT THIS ??

and you say

"Your implied statement being that I am somehow an employee from within the system .."

BUT you state yourself

"My signature is my own business.... however for the record I am involved in an appeals service whose name I cannot possibly mention as this often offends those with a grudge or ulterior motive"

Finally, the wrong infomation that you say I give, has actually got many parking tickets cancelled .... happy to help anyone get the same result

Yes my signature reveals I am involved in an 'APPEALS SERVICE' so again why would I be a whistleblower ?

Unfortunately, I don't take orders from you nor am I answerable to you :-)