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

Stroma

Just scan your letters in and say something like this

Dear DVLA/BPA

I have appealed as the Registered Keeper of xxxxxx to ANPR Ltd for an invoice sent to me. They have not furnished me with a popla code, so are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

Attached is all the correspondence sent and received, it's self explantaory.

Faithfully
RK


Or words to that effect

Lunaunicorn

I compained to both dvla and bpa.nothing back from dvla but had a response from bpa that they are 'investigating'. Today I get home to finds a letter from anpr sending me the popla code. I'm ready with my appeal can someone check this code for me please.

Thanks

Redx

go to the newbies sticky thread and click on the parking cowboys link and put the code in to check it, takes 2 minutes at most

looks like you are getting somewhere at long last

Stroma

Well done on that, can you place the wording here before you submit to popla please. You check the popla code on the parking cowboys website

Lunaunicorn

Great I have that site .i just remember someone saying get some one to check it.ill do it now!!

Redx

I believe the popla appeal wording is on a previous page of this thread, although it may want checking before being sent in now as some time has gone by

as for the code, you check it and it will tell you when the appeal date finishes etc, so you should have something like 28 days or maybe a tad less, but not 14 days blah blah instead

Lunaunicorn

Question what date do I put.it asked for the rejection letter date.however the first rejection letter they sent never had a code.do I put the date of the letter that has the actual code on it .

Redx

try it and see

Lunaunicorn

I as the registered keeper received an Windowscreen PCN from ANPR Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (‘early bird discount to £50 if paid within 14 days- and if appealed this discount is waived ) 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. The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of losses and is punitive
3. No authority to levy charges
4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
5. Signage
6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
7. Non compliance to supply POPLA code

1. No contract

There was no contract between the driver and ANPR 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 ANPR say the driver agreed to. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

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

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the following matters are relevant:

a. Punitive
The parking charge imposed 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. £100 charge is
punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and 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.’

b. Unfair
The £100 parking charge imposed 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
‘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.’

c. The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of losses
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“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.
If the parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable"

I require ANPR 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.

The £100 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 consume a lot) by ANPR Ltd. 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. 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 £100 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. ANPR 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 ANPR 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 ANPR Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the ANPR Ltd produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the ANPR 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 ANPR Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that ANPR 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 ANPR Ltd there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be ANPR 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 hidden 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. Non compliance to supply POPLA code.
I made a Formal Appeal to ANPR 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 wrote to ANPR requesting a code but was sent a final demand of £140 instead. I contacted the BPA regarding this on the xx/xx/2014. I finally received a POPLA code on the xx/xx/2014. 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

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Looks fine just remove section 7 it isnt relevant