Anrp ltd parking appeal rejected lost right to early bird discount advice please!

Hot_Bring

Yep, post both but remove any identifying information.

Redx

yes, do it in notepad, then copy and paste it from notepad onto here, removing any personal info like name , address , reg number , reference numbers etc - ie: NO PERSONAL INFO , just the draft appeal

Lunaunicorn

First Appeal: You issued the driver of my vehicle with a Parking Charge on xxxx but I believe it was unfairly issued and will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

• The Driver was not parked on the land in question
The driver received a ticket for supposedly breaking your parking restrictions yet the driver parked the car for less than 15 minutes on what was honestly believed to be a side street so conscientiously not to park dangerously or illegally on double yellow lines. The Driver did not maliciously or deliberately park/trespass on private land but on what was believed to be a side road.

• There was insufficient signage
The ‘car park’ in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are at immediate entry of the ‘car park’. There was also no sign at the entrance to make it clear drivers are now entering a car park or in fact any differentiation in the road surface so appears to be a normal public road. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Upon returning to the car and discovering the Charge the sign visible was on a tree much further ahead for which you would only see if walking towards the pub for which there was no reason to do so.

• The fee is disproportionate
According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In this case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner.

The Notice to Driver which was issued claimed that the car was parked on land owned by a pub. The car was parked on the corner of the ‘entrance to car park’ and at the furthest distance from the pub, not blocking any entrances or prohibiting any patrons using the facilities. Thus not denying the land owner a loss in earning to the amount of £100 in a period of less than 15 minutes (The car was in fact parked for less than 5 minutes at the time the Charge was issued).- As you state your CCTV footage will be able to verify this explanation.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Yours faithfully,

Lunaunicorn

I as the registered keeper received an PCN invoice from ANRP Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (‘early bird discount to £50 if paid within 14 days- and if appealed this discount offer has expired) for the alleged contravention of Parking on land while not in the premises.The issue date on the invoice is xxx.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 No contract
2 Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge
3 No authority to levy charges
4 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
5. Signage
6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
7. ANPR Accuracy
8. Business Rates
9. Non compliance to supply POPLA code

1. No contract

There was no contract between the driver and ANRP Ltd. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this were the case, the driver may be liable to damages. Given that no ‘damage’ was done to the car park and that the car park was not completely full when the driver parked or when the driver left, there was in fact no loss at all. The driver has never received a complete version of the terms and conditions of that contract to which ANRP say the driver agreed to. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge
Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the following matters are relevant: 3(a). Punitive
The parking charge you are imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £100 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. This would also apply to any mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order.
3(b). Unfair
The £100 parking charge you 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 regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in 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.’ 3(c). Unreasonable
The £100 parking charge you 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.’
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require ANRP Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (of which there is none as this is a free car park but also you would have to drink a lot of alcohol) by ANRP Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay or drink that much in the time period the car was parked. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. . The car was parked on the corner of the ‘entrance to car park’ and at the furthest distance from the pub, not blocking any entrances or prohibiting any patrons using the facilities. Thus not denying the land owner a loss in earning to the amount of £100 in a period of less than 15 minutes. Neither can ANRP Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £50 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. ANRP Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles ANRP Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the ANRP Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the ANRP Ltd produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the ANRP Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between ANRP Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that ANRP Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to ANRP Ltd there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be ANRP Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Signage
The ‘car park’ in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are at immediate entry of the ‘car park’. There was also no sign at the entrance to make it clear drivers are now entering a car park or in fact any differentiation in the road surface so appears to be a normal public road. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Upon returning to the car and discovering the Charge the sign visible was on a tree much further ahead for which you would only see if walking towards the pub for which there was no reason to do so. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. ANPR Accuracy
ANRP Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require ANRP Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because no CCTV image has been produce evidence in response to these points.

8. Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by ANRP Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ANRP Ltd. I do not believe that ANRP Ltd has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put ANRP Ltd to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at The Premier Club car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

8. Non compliance to supply POPLA code.
I made a Formal Appeal to ANRP Ltd within appropriate time frames which they decided to decline and did not make any comment on my points raised which I specifically requested them to do so. I enclose a copy of this.I also enclose a copy of their reply in which they did not supply a POPLA code and advised me to retract my appeal. I understand that operators must be careful to ensure that the wording of any rejection does not, even inadvertently, appear to suggest that the charge might increase by making an appeal to POPLA. Operators must, on every occasion, include the verification code in their rejection of representations. The recipient of the rejection should not have to ask for it. Failure by an operator to provide a verification code in their rejection letter is a breach of the Code of Practice, sanctionable by the BPA.


Yours faithfully

Hot_Bring

I've skim read your POPLA appeal. Point 2 should really be :

2. The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of losses

and then explain this in the bullet point. Your current point 2 is far too long and complicated. A concise point on GPEOL will kill the charge dead.

Remove point 8 about business rates - totally irrelevant to a POPLA appeal. Business rates and not paying the correct amount is a tool in the armoury of those of us that battle the PPCs - it's not an appeal point.

Your numbering is slightly wrong as well.

Redx

I always thought this company was ANPR , not ANRP , if so then plenty of mistakes in there ( I do it all the time !! )

seen it all the way through this thread but havent commented until now due to the fact this document is a POPLA appeal and needs to be 100% accurate

Lunaunicorn

AGGHH Yep thanks for that!! so glad you caught it! I was being Dyslexic (which I am) but i think its just me getting it wrong too!
Ill make the amendment to point 2 and re draft that bit on here. Is everything else ok?

Redx

edit the previous post (your draft appeal) with all amendments so far and then wait for somebody better than me to give it the ok or not

I suffer from very mild dyslexia too I think, as I always spell certain words wrong and have to edit my posts a lot, fact of life I suppose, but as its extremely relevant in a popla appeal (to newly qualified solicitors or legal eagles) I apologise for having to mention it but better now than never

I am being concerned here, not clever (just for info) , thanks

4consumerrights

Read this thread - can't believe how long it is up to this stage - you may even beat Stonker's at this rate.

The CAB do not give out good advice regarding PCNs - they advised a friend to pay - I advised not to and the appeal. (Another succcessful off forum POPLA appeal - OP did not want to give details though for thread). Also some CAB boards have direct links to directors/solicitors involved with PPCs.

Have you got your POPLA code yet?

Tbh if you haven't got it - and ANPR view this thread and the appeal - they may dig their heels in even further and not supply the code.

You seem to have done two appeals.

Do confirm that you have the code first - as this is the first hurdle.

Redx

I believe post #54 was the initial appeal to be sent to the PPC (or already has been sent to the PPC)

the one in post #55 is the draft popla appeal if we assume rejection + popla code by the PPC

I do not believe the OP has a popla code yet, but may be wrong on this ?