1st Appeal Rejected

bazster

Complaint to BPA and DVLA then, operating without a landowner contract. And to Trading Standards.

Although Trev could probably decapitate the entire BPA board and stick their heads on spikes at the city gates and still not get kicked out of the AOS.

Morning1

Ha Ha esmerobbo it certainly did.

bod1467

bazster wrote: »

Although Trev could probably decapitate the entire BPA board and stick their heads on spikes at the city gates and still not get kicked out of the AOS.

If he did, would we notice any difference?

Morning1

Just received a final demand for an inflated £140 and the threat that they will hand over the debt to a collection agency if not paid in 7 days.
Don't they have to wait until an appeal is completed before going to the next stage?
With claiming to have a contract they don't have, not sending POPLA code and now this, this should be easy.

esmerobbo

You will have to forgive them, most companies have employees that are a sandwich or two short of a picnic, Trev's mob haven't even got the basket!

Stroma

And they won't have the bread off you to make any sandwiches lol

Umkomaas

Pity the ANPR-in-a-box didn't take off, especially as Trev's website said that it could identify illegal immigrants, shoplifters and terrorists.

I expect some other country will steal the idea now, just like so many British inventions in the past, and, once again, we'll lose out.

A national disaster!

Hot_Bring

Umkomaas wrote: »

Pity the ANPR-in-a-box didn't take off, especially as Trev's website said that it could identify illegal immigrants, shoplifters and terrorists.

I expect some other country will steal the idea now, just like so many British inventions in the past, and, once again, we'll lose out.

A national disaster!

Or make us the laughing stock. A bit like that bloke that was jailed for making bomb detector boxes and selling them to many armies. Problem being they didn't ..... well detect bombs ! Hang on a minute that wasn't Trev was it ?

Morning1

I have done a draft appeal to POPLA and would appreciate being told what to change to make it stronger. Thanks in advance.

I as the registered keeper received Notice To Keeper 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.The issue date on the invoice is xxxxxx.

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. Unlawful Penalty Charge


1. No contract

There was no contract between the driver and ANPR Ltd. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs and had not entered 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 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 Residents Permit Holders car park which the vehicle has permit number xxxxxxx) by ANPR Ltd. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a car park requiring a Residents Permit there can have been no loss arising from this incident. The car was parked on land outside the entrance to the car park, not blocking any entrances or prohibiting any permit holders utilising the car park. Thus not denying the land owner a loss in earning to the amount of £100. 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. 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. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a Residents Permit Holders 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.


Yours faithfully

Umkomaas

Have a look at this thread, and in particular post #80, which is the POPLA appeal against an ANPR Ltd PCN. This appeal was upheld and reported here today by the thread's OP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4900691

You might want to assess your own against a proven winner.

Just as a matter of presentation (even though the winning appeal didn't have it in this order) I would open the appeal with point #1 being no GPEOL; it saves the assessor having to look any further before they press their 'computer says yes' button.