Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Coupon-mad

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Coupon-mad last won the day on May 20

Coupon-mad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Coupon-mad

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. But the test doesn't ask those questions. Try it, pretend you are an OPS sized company. It then tells you tier 1 is correct if their turnover is under a certain amount.
  2. I'm not too familiar with the tiers, so excuse the question - but haven't they paid tier 1 due to annual turnover? I just did a test on the ICO website to see what a company has to pay and it doesn't seem to say anything about what sort of processing they do, it just asks about how many employees a company has and what turnover. Did they need to do more than that? Is it not about the fee tiers? I see APCOA, for example, is also tier 1. ParkingEye are tier 3.
  3. I agree, a trashier paper might have been brave enough to quote more from the judgment than Shakespeare references!
  4. It's very lightweight and disappointing but that's the press for you. Missed the main point. For a judgment that was so damning, they've only quoted the Shakespeare from it and the money she was awarded. And apparently I was too busy having children to get a education (LOL!). I guess they needed a bit of colour.
  5. Replying to brassnecked: He got a kicking thanks to lamilad on MSE, who did a repeat of the Southampton judgment at Skipton in Feb. Both were N244 applications to set aside strike outs for adding what CAG calls the Unicorn tax. I went to Soton (Nov 2019 v Britannia, and won v BW Legal's barrister) then lamilad went to Skipton (v Excel) and won v the barrister Jake Burgess sent, so that ALL parking cases in those areas remain struck out for adding £60. Jake Burgess' reaction to the Excel loss was: When you want something doing you do it yourself springs to mind. I will consider the Judgment carefully (as always) and see where we go with it. On a separate note, I am told BW Legal have appealed their case in Southampton? Are you aware of this or is it white noise? It was white noise. There was no appeal by BW Legal or Excel, so unicorn tax cases are doomed in Skipton and Southampton. Anyway sorry I digress, this thread is about OPS.
  6. Yes he got it! That was covered in the WS and at trial and going by reports on MSE, most Judges seem to get it now.
  7. Hi all, Glad to be here after all these years! I tried posting here briefly once, for a while, but then settled on MSE and pepipoo only. I was the lay rep in this case and Bank Fodder has been in touch, so I thought I'd come here. I was also the lay rep in the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby & anor, where DJ Grand refused to reinstate multiple Britannia cases where £60 was added. That transcript cost BW Legal £420ish then they didn't appeal but wouldn't share it (how selfish!) so I bought a copy for about £14 and it's now used by other Judges (Lewes, Skipton, Warwick, Luton, etc). I post as Coupon-mad on MSE and SchoolRunMum on pepipoo. Glad you all liked the judgment about OPS. We did! It was achieved by a posse of five middle aged women who rocked up to Lewes court, three in watching at the back, and me and Ms W sitting facing the aggressive rep from LPC Law (sent by QDR). On the day, I wasn't sure I'd done enough due to having a lease sprung on me, and the rep stealing the floor & talking over me. One thing the judgment missed was the fact the entrance signs have been twisted round to face the main CCTV camera for three years (check Google Street View, also I have half a dozen cases I've handled that prove it). The issue is, this place looks like a road, next to shops and thre is no appearance of a 'car park' if you are looking ahead and/or the sun shines on the white words on the road as you turn. So the twisted entrance sign means the CCTV operator can use the images, but drivers never even realise they are in a 'car park' let alone that it's managed by a BPA member. This was covered in court along with everything else. The lease was produced in court on the day, after I slapped an unredacted copy of the OPS-signed contract on the table, the rep did a retort along the lines ''I see your unredacted contract and I raise you this lease'' (not in those words, but it was played out like that!). DDJ Harvey was unwell and said straight away he'd defer his decision, but that he was allowing both the ambush documents because he wanted to get to the bottom of it. Lewes & Brighton Judges have dealt with a number of Eastage Wharf cases and where a defendant turns up, we've always seen OPS lose. I know someone who goes to watch. But sadly we knew that there have been cases where OPS won due to the D not appearing , and I've sat in a case myself as lay rep six months earlier where we won on POFA arguments and unclear signage and the Judge didn't want to hear my next point, exposing the OPS contract. He knew I had something to say about it because I'd listed my points at the start, but I had to bite my tongue that day. In his summing up, that Judge was taken in by it, said he was satisfied with it (the OPS signatures were covered). So I can say first hand, that document HAS misled at least one Judge and I know second-hand, of another. It's also won POPLA cases for OPS - I've seen 2 such cases. Couldn't wait to expose it this time. The landowner authority signed only by OPS, also claimed they had authority over 'the site'. The lease doesn't say that, it states P&D bays only.
×
×
  • Create New...