Advice on invoice from ANPR ltd

hoohoo

Don't forget to complain to the BPA too. They can suspend the operator for this kind of thing.

Current sanction points:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/AOS-Sanctions

Compaint web page
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Feedback-on-a-BPA-member

VoucherMan

I passed on Coupon-mad's and hoohoo's comment & links and she's sent me this. Any suggestions or recommendations for improvements will obviously be welcomed.



I did complain to the BPA, DVLA and someone else. I have written an appeal (below) basically copied one of those you gave me word for word but changed to my details. I'm not very good at this type of thing so feel free to correct any thing that is silly or doesn't make sense.

Dear Sir/Madam

On *** **** 2013 I parked without a valid permit on an empty car park at **************** for a period of around 15 minutes. As it was a Sunday and ******* ********* does not trade on a Sunday, I wrongly assumed that parking was permitted that day, and that a permit wouldn’t be required.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. No contract was knowingly entered and no losses have been demonstrated.
I did not see any contractual information on the signs as it was in small print and un noticeable to me whilst I was driving onto the car park. I had no idea that I was entering into a contract. With this in mind I am at most guilty of civil trespass and if so I may be liable to damage. Given that no ‘Damage’ was done and that the car park was virtually empty, meaning should the Market Hall be open or a Sunday market be trading, no customers, staff or traders would have had to turn away (losing business) due to me being parked there for the short period of time. Therefore there was no loss at all.
In my challenge I clearly asked for precise details of the calculation used to establish the sum pursued in this case, which they refused to address in their rejection. I argue that the parking charge does not reflect the operators loss, and so not enforceable. Allowing me to pay 50% less within the first 14 days backs this argument up. It would actually cost them £50 if I were to accept their “early bird” discount if the damages did actually amount to £100.

2.Punitive/Unfair/Unreasonable charge
Please see the following statement from the department for transport:

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

The £100 charge is punitive and therefore void or unenforceable.
The charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.
The £100 charge they are imposing is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular , Schedule 2 of those regulations which gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e):

‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.’

Furthermore, regulation 5(1) says:
‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be redeemed as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance to the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract , to the detriment of the consumer.’

And 5(2), which states:

‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’

The £100 charge ANPR are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

As Accrington Market Hall ceases to trade on a Sunday and there were many other parking spaces available on the car park at the time of the incident, a £100 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.

3.Withholding contract to operate

In my appeal to ANPR I asked them to provide written proof that as a third party agent they have contractual consent from the land owner to raise legal proceedings on their behalf.

BPA code of practice section:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent) before you can start operating on the land in
question. The authorisation must give you the authority
to carry out all the aspects of the management and
enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In
particular, it must say that the landowner requires you
to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have
the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges,
through the courts if necessary.

As I asked for this evidence in my appeal letter the operator should at the very least address it by producing such evidence. They chose to completely ignore my request and as they have provided no such proof the burden of proof now lies with them.

4.Incorrect/Misleading appeal information.

In BPA Code of practice Section 22.12

If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This
includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal.

Please see attached rejection letter and note that not only did they not send me the template ‘notice of appeal’ form but they clearly hid the POPLA code and didn’t explain what it was. Instead of telling me how to make an appeal they told me to write to them (not yourselves) using the unexplained code. This is known to have happened in other cases and they are obviously hoping their POPLA code will “time out” by delaying the real appeal.

In conclusion I would like you to uphold this appeal based on the points I have raised above. Also please consider the difficulties I have had in constructing this appeal due to the complete lack of information regarding making an appeal from ANPR Ltd, the deliberate misleading information I did receive from them causing a delay and the requested information being withheld.

I look forward to your outcome.

bazster

See below. All the pleading and mitigation at the beginning of your draft is pointless and actually weakens your case. And don't say that you didn't know you entered a contract: you can't unknowingly enter a contract! If you didn't know about it, there was no contract! One other point you could add if you wanted is that you expect them to prove that their ANPR equipment was properly maintained and operating as per the BPA Code of Practise.


Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. No contract was entered and no losses have been demonstrated.
The driver did not see any contractual information on the signs as it was in small print and un-readable as he was driving onto the car park, therefore no contract was formed.

There was no loss at all to ANPR Ltd. or the landowner. In my challenge I clearly asked for precise details of the calculation used to establish the sum pursued in this case, which they refused to address in their rejection. I argue that the parking charge does not reflect the operators loss, and so not enforceable. Allowing me to pay 50% less within the first 14 days backs this argument up. It would actually cost them £50 if I were to accept their “early bird” discount if the damages did actually amount to £100.

2.Punitive/Unfair/Unreasonable charge
Please see the following statement from the department for transport:

Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

The £100 charge is punitive and therefore void or unenforceable.
The charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.
The £100 charge they are imposing is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular , Schedule 2 of those regulations which gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e):

‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.’

Furthermore, regulation 5(1) says:
‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be redeemed as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance to the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract , to the detriment of the consumer.’

And 5(2), which states:

‘A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’

The £100 charge ANPR are imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

As Accrington Market Hall ceases to trade on a Sunday and there were many other parking spaces available on the car park at the time of the incident, a £100 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.

3.Withholding contract to operate

In my appeal to ANPR I asked them to provide written proof that as a third party agent they have contractual consent from the land owner to raise legal proceedings on their behalf.

BPA code of practice section:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent) before you can start operating on the land in
question. The authorisation must give you the authority
to carry out all the aspects of the management and
enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In
particular, it must say that the landowner requires you
to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have
the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges,
through the courts if necessary.

As I asked for this evidence in my appeal letter the operator should at the very least address it by producing such evidence. They chose to completely ignore my request and as they have provided no such proof the burden of proof now lies with them.

4.Incorrect/Misleading appeal information.

In BPA Code of practice Section 22.12

If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This
includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal.

Please see attached rejection letter and note that not only did they not send me the template ‘notice of appeal’ form but they clearly hid the POPLA code and didn’t explain what it was. Instead of telling me how to make an appeal they told me to write to them (not yourselves) using the unexplained code. This is known to have happened in other cases and they are obviously hoping their POPLA code will “time out” by delaying the real appeal.

In conclusion I would like you to uphold this appeal based on the points I have raised above. Also please consider the difficulties I have had in constructing this appeal due to the complete lack of information regarding making an appeal from ANPR Ltd, the deliberate misleading information I did receive from them causing a delay and the requested information being withheld.

I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Umkomaas

Did ANPR also suggest that any appeal you might put forward was doomed? If so, put that in.

Did they also offer to write the POPLA appeal for you? If so, put that in.

I agree with bazster that the mitigation stuff should be totally avoided, otherwise it can start to make it look as if you are admitting some degree of 'guilt'.

Coupon-mad

Just remembered I did write a POPLA appeal for someone on pepipoo, who also had an ANPR Ltd fake PCN and was told by N Martin to write to him so he could 'appeal on her behalf':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80005



HTH - either version will do the job.

VoucherMan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Just remembered I did write a POPLA appeal for someone on pepipoo, who also had an ANPR Ltd fake PCN and was told by N Martin to write to him so he could 'appeal on her behalf':

Looks like both received similar letters. I wonder if the one on pepipoo also had the comment 'from time to time a boo-boo like yours will happen'

I wonder if it should read 'every time a boo-boo will happen'

Coupon-mad

He really is a joke isn't he? Typical clamper mentality.

VoucherMan

Another letter received (click on letter for larger image if required)

As she's already sent off her appeal she's just filed this in the 'amusing stuff to read when I'm bored' drawer.

Did mention a couple of points to me though -

The letter states she has 29 days (thought it was 28?) from the date of this letter, not the one sent out with the original 'hidden' POPLA code.

There's still no sign of the POPLA code despite asking for it when she wrote to them (Okay she has the code but had it not been for the help on here she'd be unaware of it) so how how could she fill out the form 'which has to be filled out correctly' if they won't give her the information she needs?

Stroma

They still using this garbage as intimidation. Saying they will go to the small claims without your presence is utter rubbish, and very misleading! I would add this to any appeal to popla and make a complaint to trading standards, dvla and bpa on this

Coupon-mad

There is a lot not to like about that letter. Send it to the BPA and DVLA with a complaint about the whole process and lies told by this N Martin.