Sunday, 1 March 2015

JAS Parking - Fictitious pre-estimate of loss

In order to justify their charges JAS Parking have come up with a new concept; the fictitious pre-estimate of loss. Unlike a genuine pre-estimate of loss, where you are required to make some kind of accurate estimate, in the fictitious pre-estimate of loss you can make up what figures you like as long as you retro-fit them to the required target figure.

Here is an example of how it works. Here are JAS's pre-estimate of loss calculations for a POPLA appeal submitted circa July 2014.

The POPLA appeal was lost because 'IT system install' costs were not an allowable head of loss.

Here are JAS's new submissions circa January 2015.

You see how easy it is if you use the Fictitious pre-estimate of loss method? Simply remove any item which the POPLA assessors previously complained about, and artificially increase the other heads of costs by random amounts until the desired total (in this case £94) is reached.

Previously JAS parking have stated that it takes between 10-15 minutes for their attendants to issue a parking charge. This means their hourly wage at 15 minutes per ticket must be around 4 x £32.70 or £130.80. The Prankster expects a surge of applicants for the post of parking attendant at JAS parking tomorrow morning.

Previously JAS parking has stated it costs £3.50 to get DVLA details as they use a third party who adds £1 to the cost. The Prankster fails to see where the other £13.90 is incurred.

In the 2014 case JAS parking stated the cost of a POPLA appeal includes 2 hours of a senior manger's time and one hour of a director's time to check the appeal. The Prankster has seen their evidence pack and judging by the quality suspects that the 3 hours were spent playing tetris rather than checking the appeal. In any case, POPLA stated this was far too long to spend checking the appeal. In the 2015 case, JAS parking cannily removed the description while increasing the cost.

The Prankster suggests that JAS leaves the BPA and joins the IPC. In the IPC appeals process operator evidence is not made available to the motorist, leaving the operator free to lie as much as they like without fear of awkward questions being raised by The Prankster.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Parking attendants ? You're having a laugh. They get paid regardless.

  2. job centre for me in the morning ,

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. The managers get paid regardless as well. So no staff wages, NI or tax can be included.

    Perhaps they might want to include the cost of their Christmas party and annual staff outing while they are at it.

  5. I got a little lost after "processing costs...." (Line1)

  6. If you take your bank, utility company or a retailer through ADR do they claim a "loss" for a "customer" having the temerity to challenge a bill.

    If you tell a waiter he has overcharged you - can you expect a £94.00 claim.

    ADR is free to all so allowing such "losses" would show just what a sham this all is.

  7. JAS have even been known to fine judges who rule against them,

    "Please note we will defend ourselves vigourously and consider recoverying costs against any County Court action that may be issued against us."

    Apparently, they don't rite proper english like what we does.

  8. I'd say that the Parking Attendants and Appeals staff are part of the cost of doing business, not individually attributable to an individual case. If they issued no tickets, and there was never any trespass incurred, they would still need these people!

  9. Didn't think they wre allowed to use a 3rd party to obtain DVLA info.

    1. As long as they meet the strict DVLA requirements (ie pay £2.50) this is allowed

  10. JAS have yet to produce a document that even vaguely resembles a contract to operate either to POPLA or to motorists that raise an appeal.

    Their standard MO is to send a letter in their evidence pack (which they claim is their contract) that is so heavily redacted that not even the POPLA assessors can tell what it purports to be. From the examples posted on the forums all one can make out is that it is a letter from Staples (who are not actually the landowners for most of the JAS sites).

    So they have lost some POPLA cases on "no authority to operate" but have POPLA reported JAS to the BPA?

  11. Once again you have to ask yourself who actually suffered a loss due to a particular parking incident. Was it the landowner or the PPC?

  12. What a great firm JAS are to work for. Not only do they pay their parking attendants a very generous £130 an hour but it seems they also pay their TAX for them. How kind. But is it legal? Does HMRC know of this arrangement?