PLEASE HELP - POPLA appeal rejected - Minster Baywatch

Quentin

Highly unlikely a claim will turn up in August.

You can expect to go through the debt collectors phase first. Normally months of ignoring

A lbcca gives you at least 30 days to pay before they then go to the expense of issuing a claim.

A claim will include court fees for issuing the claim. If you end up losing at a hearing you would have to pay for the hearing fee too

System

Azure6 wrote: »

Hi,

I am going to wait it out till county court letters and then take it from there with all your help (thank you).

Questions:
1) I know in Newbie #2 it says even if you fail at county court you just pay the amount within 30 days - does this mean no additional court fees will be added by Minster Baywatch?

No, it means that you'll not have a CCJ registered against you. They can apply to have their costs added which can include not only the court fees but their legal fees too.

Umkomaas

Notice to keeper is not liable with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

Gobbledygook, but what exactly did you argue (and why) on PoFA?

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

Eminently predictable once you pulled that old relic (GPEOL) out of the hat.

If you're up for a cage-rattling of POPLA, write to John Gallagher (Lead POPLA Adjdicator) and ask on what authority they have dispensation to re-interpret the Supreme Court's Judgment (the highest Court in the land) on where the line falls on what is the limit of an 'unconscionable' charge.

As far as you are concerned, £85 is £85 - as determined by the ultimate Court in the UK. Who are POPLA Assessors to utilise a flex in favour of the PPC - rather than the motorist?

Put him under pressure on this. Needs sorting!

Azure6

Thank you - Ill do this right away

Azure6

This for POFA

Under the Practice Direction the NTK did not have the following sections:
- a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
- if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated; and
- details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.
-list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
-refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction

Main 2 arguments for my case were no GPEOL and unclear sigange - both of which were rejected

KeithP

Tarambor wrote: »

No, it means that you'll not have a CCJ registered against you. They can apply to have their costs added which can include not only the court fees but their legal fees too.

Can you please expand on 'their legal fees'?

Are you aware that costs are severely restricted in the Small Claims Court?

Coupon-mad

Azure6 wrote: »

Main 2 arguments for my case were no GPEOL and unclear sigange - both of which were rejected

I'm not surprised, no GPEOL went out with the Ark...

Azure6

I notice no GPEOL is where POPLA appeals have been won the most - does this mean we should not use GPEOL now? (I did mention amount being punitive too)
Thank you

Azure6

Are we talking in the regions another £100-£200 being added on top?
Thank you

Umkomaas

Azure6 wrote: »

I notice no GPEOL is where POPLA appeals have been won the most - does this mean we should not use GPEOL now? (I did mention amount being punitive too)
Thank you

You won't spot many dated after November 2015 - the month The Supreme Court kicked GPEOL into the long night in the PE v Barry Beavis case.

While in a legal context it's not utterly dead and buried, the very mention of it in a current POPLA appeal sees the assessor, like a Pavlovian dog, reach for the 'Beavis button' on their computer and out shoots a rejection and the template crud that the '£85 charge is in the region of £100'.

Well, £100 is actually 17.65% higher than £85, and I for one don't think that 17.65% difference is 'in the region of' anything.

Appalling bias displayed by POPLA in so shamelessly misinterpreting The Supreme Court Judgment in favour of the parking companies and obviously so weighted against the consumer. This is no impartial Ombudsman service!