Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • LauraSt
    • By LauraSt 22nd Sep 16, 4:05 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 16Thanks
    LauraSt
    LIDL Athena parking charge
    • #1
    • 22nd Sep 16, 4:05 PM
    LIDL Athena parking charge 22nd Sep 16 at 4:05 PM
    I'd be grateful for some feedback on an appeal letter to Athena ANPR Ltd please.

    I've previously had a successful POPLA appeal reagrding Parkingeye but realise that Athena are outside POPLA.

    I'm appealing this on behalf of my son, the registered keeper. He's in the armed forces and out of the country at the moment. I opened his mail and discovered this. he left on exercise the day after this alleged overstay, and won't be back for 10 weeks.
    I have only realised today that I should also be appealing directly to LIDL, so I will do that right away.

    This is my draft letter (hopefully I have removed all reference to Parkingeye)
    Thanks for any input



    Dear Athena ANPR LTD

    I am the representative of the registered keeper who is out of the country currently and I am appealing against the above charge. I contend that there is no liability on the following grounds and request that they are all considered.
    1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay

    2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
    3. ANPR Compliance and accuracy

    4. Keeper Liability Requirements and POFA

    5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
    6. No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltc and the driver
    7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

    I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.

    1. Athena ANPR Ltd has not allowed reasonable Grace periods to enter and leave the car park and has supplied no evidence of actual parking overstay
    The IPC Code of Practice requires operators allow drivers grace periods to enter and leave a site, with a minimum time of 10 minutes to leave after the parking contract has ended and an additional grace period of “a sufficient amount of time” should be allowed so the driver can find a space to park and read the relevant signs.
    The cameras operate at the perimeter and an alleged contract cannot begin until the driver has had the opportunity to read and accept the conditions on offer.
    . 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
    Add this to the required minimum recommended grace period of 10 minutes upon leaving a car park then 21.25 minutes is not in breach of an alleged contract.
    The Notice from Athena ANPR Ltd states “actual duration of stay: 1:51.25 ”
It includes photographs which show arrival and departure times. The photograph does not show what the traffic situation was on entry to the car park or within the car park or at the exit, or how long the driver had to queue to find a parking bay or to leave the car park. It does not show that the car was physically parked in a parking bay for longer than the allotted time, allowing time for accepting the contract
    I require Athena ANPR Ltd. to supply full analysis of their calculations and the specific data used to determine this in our case.
    As Athena ANPR Ltd. have failed to allow for grace periods this appeal should be upheld.

    2. The signage is not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
    The signage is misleading and confusing.

    The signage refers to terms and conditions but does not state where these are. The print is so small it cannot be deemed readable before parking, and is so small as to be barely legible after parking.
    Signs are positioned at a height of 7+ feet that renders them unreadable under normal circumstances.

    Signage within the car park states two different time periods.
    One says 90 minutes stay and another up to 2 hours Parking refunded for customers paying £10.00 or more. A customer could easily confuse these signs and fall prey to parking charges.

    3. ANPR compliance and accuracy
Signage does not conform to the IPC Code of Practice nor the ICO which requires signs to be clearly visible and readable; they do not give clear information about the organisation operating the system or who to contact about the scheme. It is not transparent from the signage what ANPR means. Drivers are not told what ANPR stands for, and the wording “camera controlled car park” does not indicate how ANPR systems are being used within the car park. It cannot be assumed that all those who drive are familiar with abbreviation.
    Nowhere at the entrance or on any other sign does it state that the permissible stay begins when the driver’s VRN is recorded at an arbitrary point prior to parking, a point at which the motorist is completely unaware.
    Signage does not tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of ICO registration. Drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
    Simple entry and exit photographs purported to be from the stated car park do not prove unquestionably that the vehicle actually entered and left it, parked within its boundaries, and remained parked within it for the alleged time.
    There was consequently no lawful contract to breach and even if there was it was not breached, the stay did not exceed that permitted.
    I request that Athena ANPR Ltd present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at LIDL Taunton Castle Street car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.
    It is vital Athena ANPR Ltd produce evidence in response to these points and explain their systems differ (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the operator in PE V Fox-Jones 8th Nov 2013. The case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence the operator produced was "fundamentally flawed" as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    4. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act 2012
    Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates the mandatory information which must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the NTK has not complied with the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4.
    The Notice has no 'date sent by post' nor a 'date given' which renders it non- compliant with Schedule 4. It has what the operator describes as a ‘issue date’ which is neither of the two dates the Act requires.
    The Act stipulates that the parking company must provide the registered keeper with the period the car was parked. The photographs showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park is not valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence of the parking period.
    Failure to comply with statutory requirements prevents the operator from relying on the provisions of POFA to invoke Keeper Liability. As the operator has no evidence as to the identity of the driver I am requesting that this appeal be upheld.
    The IPC Code requires the same information
    5.1 (b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
    5. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
    I do not believe Athena ANPR Ltd. has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices, or take court action in their own name to recover them. I demand that the operator discloses a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they do. A witness statement saying that the contract exists is not an acceptable form of proof, nor is a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner. Failure to do so must result in this appeal being upheld.
    6. Unfair/ No valid contract formed between Athena ANPR Ltd. and the driver
    If a contract begins at the point of entry to the site, the driver has not been afforded the chance to read the terms and conditions before entering into a contract, nor can they read said terms at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle if the terms appear to be already applicable because they have already entered the site, which they must do in order to be able to read the terms.
    A charge for an alleged breach (denied) of contract cannot be served on a driver when the terms of the contract are uncertain and unclear.
    The NTK images show entry and exit times but not a period parked as per POFA
    (2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
    Athena ANPR Ltd is applying a contract in different parameters, contravening POFA. The terms are unclear to drivers and therefore this is an Unfair Contract.
    The legal basis of your parking charge is not clear (i.e. is it breach, trespass or a contractual fee?).
    The registered keeper cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
    (i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
    (ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
    (iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking.


    7. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
    I require Athena ANPR Ltd to provide a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. In its parking charge notice, Athena ANPR Ltd has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £90 loss the landowner may have incurred while the car was parked in its property. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Athena ANPR Ltd has suffered as a result of the car being parked at this car park, is required and should add up to £90. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry out their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.
    Taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice be cancelled immediatey.
    Yours faithfully




Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Sep 16, 5:24 PM
    • 38,229 Posts
    • 49,698 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 22nd Sep 16, 5:24 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Sep 16, 5:24 PM
    I have only realised today that I should also be appealing directly to LIDL, so I will do that right away.
    It's not an appeal it's a complaint to the CEO of Lidl. That person is no longer Ronny Gottsclich but you can still use his email address which will be picked up by Customer Services staff. Search the forum for 'Ronny Lidl' to find examples and threads all about it.

    There is no point sending that appeal to Athena. Not only is it an old out of date POPLA-style appeal (so not right for the case) but you can't argue 'no GPEOL' (point #7) any more. The rest will get you nowhere fast - so make the complaint (NOT appeal) to Lidl.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • LauraSt
    • By LauraSt 22nd Sep 16, 6:18 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LauraSt
    • #3
    • 22nd Sep 16, 6:18 PM
    • #3
    • 22nd Sep 16, 6:18 PM
    Thanks Coupon-mad
    Is there a particular reason why there is no point sending appeal to Athena?
    The letter says they accept appeals. Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question.

    I will complain to Lidl. Thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Sep 16, 7:24 PM
    • 38,229 Posts
    • 49,698 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 22nd Sep 16, 7:24 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Sep 16, 7:24 PM
    Because they are in the IPC:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/independent-parking-committee-kangaroo.html

    Wins by consumers are as rare as hen's teeth and although we had one reported on the forum today it was the first win reported this month at IAS! Also as we know Lidl WILL cancel it, why waste your time on 'going through the motions':

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

    See why it is 99% certainly futile to appeal to the IAS?! No need. Just get Lidl to handle it, complain.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

118Posts Today

1,422Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • If you know you're bust you must declare it asap. So no firm ever says "yes we plan to go insolvent". So you never? https://t.co/w8aIKOqHzq

  • Some people misreading... it's NOT the rumours of insolvency of the Monarchy! Its Monarch airlines (again tho I've no idea of its validity)

  • Also re #monarchinsolvency rumours it's important to state Monarch are firmly denying it... https://t.co/N27MENRjY9

  • Follow Martin