Help please - have i made a mistake?

KeithP

Standupforyourself wrote: »

Appreciate the comments about POPLA complaint but how does this help in court?

I would've thought the answer to that is obvious.

If you can get PoPLA to uphold your appeal, there will not even be a court case.

Standupforyourself

KeithP wrote: »

I would've thought the answer to that is obvious.

If you can get PoPLA to uphold your appeal, there will not even be a court case.

sorry i didnt think they changed their minds?

Standupforyourself

Edna_Basher wrote: »

If you have a close look at the letter you will see that PP Legal is a trading style of PP Management Services Limited (Company Number 11453590).

If you dig further on the Companies House website you will find that PP Management Services Limited and Premier Park Limited have the same directors and common shareholders.

Essentially, PP Legal is just Premier Park in disguise. The company was only formed last July, presumably as a means for Premier Park to trick people into believing that their outstanding parking charge had been referred to a third party for debt recovery / legal action.

that is some top detective work! The cowboys.

Edna_Basher

Standupforyourself wrote: »

That is some top detective work!

Not much detective work was involved really. We have already crossed swords with PP Legal, including receiving a letter from PP Legal that was signed by someone claiming to be the Deputy Head of Legal Department, Premier Park Ltd. This rather gave the game away - what a numpty!

Castle

Edna_Basher wrote: »

If you dig further on the Companies House website you will find that PP Management Services Limited and Premier Park Limited have the same directors and common shareholders.

Although strangely they have different dates of birth; June 68 & November 86 on Premier Park Ltd and May 72 & April 83 on PP Management Services Ltd.
I'm guessing accuracy isn't their strong point!

Coupon-mad

Standupforyourself wrote: »

Originally Posted by KeithP
I would've thought the answer to that is obvious.

If you can get PoPLA to uphold your appeal, there will not even be a court case.

sorry i didnt think they changed their minds?

OMG it's not about changing their minds.

It's about them ERRING and having to put that right, as evidence was overlooked.

The POPLA decision ignored the winning point because the Assessor didn't seem to understand what 'relevant land' meant. Too hard, so he ignored that bit...

ONE EMAIL puts that error right.

You'd rather go through court than get POPLA to revisit the case?

You need to point out to POPLA that the Assessor put this in his summary at the start:

The appellant says that the area is not relevant land and is Council owned. The appellant says that the land in question is owned by Ilfracombe Town Centre as confirmed in writing by REDACTED who is an asset manager at the Ilfracombe Town Council. The appellant has provided a link to the website for Ropery Car Park. The appellant has mentioned The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 paragraphs 1 and 3 in relation to relevant land.

THEN COMPLETELY FAILED TO ADDRESS THAT WINNING POINT.

Don't start by 'asking why':

Dear Sir
I am writing in reference to my POPLA appeal (ref XXXX), carried out by assessor X X, which was wrongly rejected on 14th January 2019.

[STRIKE]I would specifically like to ask why[/STRIKE] This is a formal complaint about failure by POPLA to consider evidence. A significant failure of the assessment process occurred and POPLA need to address this now, urgently, and revisit the case.

The Assessor erred and failed to address the evidence regarding my point about Ropery Road Car Park not being relevant land. This was in the Assessor's summary of my case, so the Assessor saw it, but failed to address the point, as if he didn't understand the fact that there is no keeper liability in law, on Council owned land.

The Assessor was not entitled to conclude that the POFA had been complied with, in a case where I had shown evidence (supported by the operator's landowner agreement!) that the POFA was not in play, and there could be no 'keeper liability' at all in law.

There was no grey are here, the Assessor failed and POPLA failed.

[STRIKE]was not addressed or rebutted? Did the assessor misinterpret the point I was trying to make?[/STRIKE]

And give POPLA the full link to the LGO report about this case:

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman case (reference number: 17 004 169) in its case against Kent County Council

Say that you know POPLA is run by the Ombudsman scheme so why does the LGO know more about the law about parking on private land than POPLA does?

Standupforyourself

thanks Coupon but i actually sent my initial draft last week as felt there was no time to lose. My bad.

Will let you know what (if any) response i get.

Standupforyourself

had an initial response saying my complaint will be looked at within next 21 days. Will follow up after i hear their formal response.

Coupon-mad

Standupforyourself wrote: »

had an initial response saying my complaint will be looked at within next 21 days. Will follow up after i hear their formal response.

If you didn't mention & attach the LGO complaint, reply with it and the words I gave you and ask for this email & attachment to be added to your complaint, as POPLA are clearly erring and out of line with other Ombudsman services who appear to understand 'relevant land' better than Assessors for POPLA, which is unacceptable.

DO NOT just wait and see.

They won't review your complaint time & again - you get ONE chance at review. Have you fielded everything we suggested? Add it now, in reply to POPLA, if not.

Standupforyourself

yes i quoted the findings of the LGO report and quoted the reference number in my response. However, i did not use your words as i already submitted my email with the draft i showed you all earlier in the thread. Do you think i should follow it up?