What happens to the court cases

Nodding_Donkey

That were stayed pending Beavis?

Do they automatically lose now or can they still get heard on other grounds?

enfield_freddy

a lot had other aspects to them as well a a relationship to the bevis thing , and as such all those other appeal points have to be looked at.


the problem is that London councils were doing them , but are no longer the POPLa supplier , but they got paid for them , the ombudsman services are now the acting POPLa supplier , and wont do them unless they get paid


so its upto the BPA to reclaim the money from London counsils , and pay the ombudsman services , however as London counsils had started to work on the cases , and the law (or possible changev in law) stopped them completing , who is going to pay them for the time they spent opening /checking/reading and writing to the people involved




it going to be fun this one!


read a post called "free the 4000 "

Umkomaas

Freddy - the question is about stayed court cases, not stayed POPLA ones.

In answer to ND - if I recall correctly in a number of the cases I read - the Judge required the claimant to contact the court post-Beavis if they wished the case to be reopened.

The majority were, no surprise, those of PE. I guess we wait and see how things materialise, but the defendant would now seem to have a bit of a hurdle to jump over! and now an even greater reason for engaging PPCs early than ignoring and letting things get to a court stage.

enfield_freddy

sorry , I read that as "stayed" or on hold by popla

Umkomaas

enfield_freddy wrote: »

sorry , I read that as "stayed" or on hold by popla

I read it that way at first, but then checked the thread title.

enfield_freddy

so the OP now has answers for either scenario:rotfl:

Nodding_Donkey

Cheers guys

pustit

From what date is this new ruling effective ?
Can it be back-dated to "parking events" which occured as long as 6 years ago ?

salmosalaris

Yes but only against the driver pre Oct 2012

The_Deep

Is it still not open to the appellant to claim that the charge is a penalty, especially where the PPC has no interest in the land, (hospital, own space, etc.), where there is no commercial justification, (hospital, university, own space), and where it is a free car park with no means of purchasing extra time?

Castle

The_Deep wrote: »

Is it still not open to the appellant to claim that the charge is a penalty, especially where the PPC has no interest in the land, (hospital, own space, etc.), where there is no commercial justification, (hospital, university, own space), and where it is a free car park with no means of purchasing extra time?

Yes; for instance own space may just simply be a Trespass claim for Tort rather than under contract. Most Hospitals I would have thought would be pay and display as they don't generally have limited parking hours, (or free parking); which would make it a GPEOL.