ANPR Ltd - Parking Charge Notice

MEM62

OK guys, how about this?




Your Reference xxxx ANPR PCN xxxx Vehicle Registration xxxx


This letter accompanies and relates to my appeal in respect of the above POPLA reference and contains the basis on which my appeal is made. These points are as follows;


1) ANPR are not the Landowner and I challenge the fact that they have contractual rights to issue parking charges on the landowner’s behalf.


2) The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


1) Contractual Rights


It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.


2) Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss


The case put forward by ANPR Ltd appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I submit that, as the charge can be discounted, it therefore must be concluded that this amount demanded cannot constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

It is my understanding that, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, costs related to said items may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.


In making this appeal I would also like the conduct of ANPR noted. In my opinion, their letter in response to my initial appeal contained a clear reference to the fact that to continue my appeal was unwise and could involve additional costs. It should also be noted that the POLA reference as I had clearly requested in the event that my appeal was not upheld.


Their second communication also contained references to additional costs. It also contained misleading information in that they state that my appeal to POLA should be made within 29 days of the date of their letter when you own guidance notes state that the time limit is 28 days. I note the for the record that their letter was dated December 12th but not received by me until December 19th.


A copy of both letters are included for your reference, neither of which makes it specifically clear that my appeal to ANPR has been rejected.



In my view the above actions are not only a deliberate attempt to discourage me from making a proper appeal in respect of this charge but are also designed to ensure that I fall foul of any time limits imposed on my appeal. Such practices are clearly in breach off BPA guidelines and in this respect I will be submitting a formal complaint to the BPA.





Sincerely yours,

Coupon-mad

There's a typo near the end where you have put ''POLA'' instead of POPLA.

And I would add in a paragraph about unclear signage which then forces Trev the Clamp to have to show pics and maps of the car park signs! He'll fail! I see you said in your OP:

''this limitation was not obvious to me at the time and there are no road markings in this particular area.''

So that's a basis for another paragraph about unclear signage and you can adapt the words we normally suggest for a 'no stopping zone' as in point #5 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63890223#Comment_63890223

...the conclusion then is that the driver entered into no contract with ANPR Ltd as the signs failed to communicate the restriction.

Redx

there are several saying POLA instead of POPLA and I did point this out earlier in the thread

I think you need to spend 5 minutes chanting and spelling POPLA like we all did at school until we get POLA out of your system ! lol

otherwise it seems as if the new suggestions will make it a good one unless there are any other typo`s ?

like this extra F

off BPA guidelines

MEM62

Thanks for your feedback guys. Typos corrected and information re signage added. The letter now reads as follows. I understand that POPLA like to communicate electronically so this will be sent off via email today.




Your Reference xxxx ANPR PCN xxxx Vehicle Registration xxxx


This letter accompanies and relates to my appeal in respect of the above POPLA reference and contains the basis on which my appeal is made. These points are as follows;


1) ANPR are not the Landowner and I challenge the fact that they have contractual rights to issue parking charges on the landowner’s behalf.


2) The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


3) The signage was unclear.


1) Contractual Rights


It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.


2) Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss


The case put forward by ANPR Ltd appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I submit that, as the charge can be discounted, it therefore must be concluded that this amount demanded cannot constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

It is my understanding that, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, costs related to said items may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.


3) Unclear Signage


The alleged contravention is "Waiting or parking in an area that is deemed No Stopping" There are no such road markings on the land in the area where the vehicle was parked. If the operator intend this apparent private road to be treated by drivers as an urban clearway then the signs, road markings and terms used must be compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading. These signs, if posted at all, are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be seen without stopping and therefore so not comply with the BPA code of practice. It is reasonable to expect the operator to prove that there can be no misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of the land in question by providing evidence of signage. I request proof that the operator made clear indication that there were restrictions on stopping on the roadway and that these restrictions can be clearly seen from a moving vehicle. I also request that the operator provide proof of the placement of road markings indicating "No Stopping".

I would draw the assessor's attention to the "No Stopping Zones" section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked: bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned and be of such size as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."


In making this appeal I would also like the conduct of ANPR noted. In my opinion, their letter in response to my initial appeal contained a clear reference to the fact that to continue my appeal was unwise and could involve additional costs. It should also be noted that the POPLA reference, which I had clearly requested in the event of my appeal not being upheld, was not provided.


Their second communication also contained references to additional costs. It also contained misleading information in that they state that my appeal to POPLA should be made within 29 days of the date of their letter when you own guidance notes state that the time limit is 28 days. I note the for the record that their letter was dated December 12th but not received by me until December 19th.


A copy of both letters are attached for your notice, neither of which clearly states that my appeal to ANPR has been rejected.


In my view the above actions are not only a deliberate attempt to discourage me from making a proper appeal in respect of this charge but are also designed to ensure that I fall foul of any time limits imposed on my appeal. This is a clear breach of BPA guidelines and in this respect I will be submitting a formal complaint to the BPA.


Sincerely yours,

Umkomaas

In making this appeal I would also like the conduct of ANPR noted. In my opinion, their letter in response to my initial appeal contained a clear reference to the fact that to continue my appeal was unwise and could involve additional costs. It should also be noted that the POPLA reference as I had clearly requested in the event that my appeal was not upheld.

I think there's something missing in this sentence - it's not clear what you are trying to say here.

MEM62

Revised!

Thanks

MEM62

So, I submitted my appeal to POPLA and had an email acknowledgement on Dec 24th stating that they would look at my case on or soon after Feb 11th. All good.


Now, as this is a company car, I took ownership of the situation at an early stage and have corresponded with ANPR from my home address. Today a notice was received at work from ANPR. It has OUTSTANDING PARKING NOTICE prominently written across the top and is constructed very much to look like an invoice. It has lines of charges on it - in bold is Parking Charge Notice £100 and in greyed our type it has various charge lines referring to legal fees and court costs etc. The document also contains such statements as "Your opportunity to pay the £100 is diminishing fast"


Although is clearly states Pending POPLA Outcome on it, it is deliberately designed to appear as a request for payment and, in my opinion, seeks to trick the recipient into parting with money before the appeal is concluded.

Redx

maybe be an idea for them to name the driver with address etc, stating that the driver and POPLA are already dealing with it and they are now absolved from any further correspondence due to POFA 2012 regulations

bod1467

I think that is VERY worthy of a complaint to the BPA - flagrant disregard of POFA, wherein no action or communication must be made whilst an appeal is being considered!

MEM62

bod1467 wrote: »

I think that is VERY worthy of a complaint to the BPA - flagrant disregard of POFA, wherein no action or communication must be made whilst an appeal is being considered!

Thanks, I think I'll do that and include the other occasions where ANPR have ignored the code of practice when dealing with this issue. I am sure I have seen the contact details on other threads.