CPC by Athena ANPR Ltd

almep13

Hi Everyone,

based on immense valuable information on this forum, I have put my Popla appeal together.

I have tweaked it a little to adjust it to my case. However, it's based on these three links below (http:// is removed in order to be able to post it).

• forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4983769&highlight=athena+appeal - post #1 by wood182 on 31 May 2014;
• forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4974041&highlight=athena - post #1 by Ignatius1 on 18 May 2014; and
• forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5036132&highlight=athena+appeal - post #1 by Italiaa on 10 August 2014.

**START**

POPLA Code:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Athena ANPR
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:



Dear Sir/Madam,


As the keeper of the above vehicle I received a parking �invoice�impersonating a parking ticket from AthenaANPR, issued on dd/mm/year, requiringpayment of a charge of �90 for an alleged parking contravention.

I would like to appeal this notice on the followinggrounds:

1) Lack ofstanding/authority from landowner

2) Chargenot a genuine pre-estimate of loss

3) Lack ofsignage - no contract with driver

4) Athena's notice to keeper is non-compliant withProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

5) Operator�s further breach of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice

6) ANPR camera accuracy


1) Lack of standing/authority fromlandowner

Athena has no title in this land and no British ParkingAssociations (BPA) compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge andenforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA Code of Practice (CoP) paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of therequired contract wording. I put Athena to strict proof of thecontract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Athenahave no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment ofrights to pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in the courts in their own namenor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own thiscar park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has beensupplied showing that Athena are entitled to pursue thesecharges in their own right.

I requested that Athena provide me a full copy of thecontemporaneous, signed and dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner butthis request was ignored. I say that any contract is not compliant with therequirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them tocharge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention inthis car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for theOperator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these donot show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenuesharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by anon-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 ofthe BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have aspecifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement'with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargeis dismissed.

2) Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate ofloss

Athena ANPR Ltd cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parkingcharge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach inorder to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directlycaused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss ofrevenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initialloss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred byissuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by thedriver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs andtax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possiblyflow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would havebeen in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, andwould have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breachedany terms at all.

Further to this I have not received any breakdown of costs and cannot believethat an overstay in a car park of less than an hour could possibly equate to aloss of �90. I submit that this amount is actually an illegal fine masqueradingas a charge.

The charge is not 'commercially justified'. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson hasstated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - theirlatest attempt to get around POPLA and likely to be broadly similar to anyeffort made by their sister firm, Excel - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commerciallyjustified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, includingthose presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot becommercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter theother party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc vBank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine BesFilmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors[2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck downas a penalty, �if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commerciallyjustifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter theother party from breach�.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory,beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position theywould have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courtshave been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as thisundermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courtshave reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes agenuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situationsan accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remainsthat a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather thanpunitive.''

Athena are merely agents at best, with a bare contractor'slicence to put up signage and 'issue tickets'. Of course money changing handswill affect any calculations of so-called 'loss' and is one of several reasonswhy I will require the landowner contract in full (unredacted) as per point #1 above.

If this charge was a contractually agreed fee the sign would been worded tooffer various durations of parking at various costs. In addition a paymentmechanism would have been provided on-site and a VAT invoice supplied. This isnot the case here.

This is a free (for 90 minutes) car park and there is no mechanism to pay foradditional parking. The signage indicates that parking for over 90 minutesattracts a �90 charge and, as no limits are specified, this could equally applyfor an additional 10 minutes, 10 weeks or indeed 10 years!

No VAT invoice has been provided and I have no evidence that this businessoperation on this car park has been registered for business rates.

Despite what the sign attempts to say, it is not an offer to park for a fee andit is clear that the true and predominant purpose of the alleged 'parkingoperation' at _Lidl xxx_____ is to deter breach and, in the absence of evidencethat this charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, it is an unrecoverablequantity.

It would normally be for the owner to claim for loss which is nothing as thereare no fees for using this car park and there was no damage or obstructioncaused (nor is any being alleged). It is unfair to attempt to make a party payexcessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract'.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal isupheld and the charge is dismissed.

3) Lack of signage - no contract with driver

The BPA�s Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does sounder a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission thiswill usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver�s use of your landwill be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be madeaware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to findout what your terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms andconditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containingthe specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given thechance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.

There was no contract between the driver and Athena ANPR.The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when enteringthe car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract orrestrictions applied. The signage is inadequate in that it is not sufficientlyprominent � no signage at the entrance of the car park, a fact which isevidenced in the pictures attached.

This is anon-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted uponlegitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equalbargaining power. Therefore all terms are required to be so prominent and therisk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must havebeen seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted suchonerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not �drawn tohis attention in the most explicit way� (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe LaneParking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): �The customer is bound by thoseterms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, butnot otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as anoffer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in athousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it wouldneed to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or somethingequally startling.�

As a consequencethe requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds,consideration flowing from both parties, agreement, and certainty of terms werenot satisfied. Even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, thenit is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations1999.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal isupheld and the charge is dismissed.

4) Athena's notice to keeper is non-compliantwith Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

The Operator has failed to comply with constituting Keeper Liability. In orderto establish Keeper Liability the Operator needs to comply with the strictrequirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the"Act"). The Operator has failed to comply with those requirements asdetailed below, and thus as the Registered Keeper I challenge that the Operatorhas established Keeper Liability. The Operator thus cannot claim this chargeagainst myself as the Registered Keeper.

The "Civil Parking Charge Notice" is presumably a Notice to Keeperand thus needs to comply with the requirements of para.9 sch.4 of the Act.

It fails to comply with the following requirements:
para.9(2)(b): inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parkingcharges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parkingcharges have not been paid in full;

The NTK advises that "the driver of the vehicle is responsible forpayment" however it does not state that the parking charges have not beenpaid in full. Thus the NTK fails to comply with para.9(2)(b) sch.4 of the Act.

para.9(2)(d): specify the total amount of those parking charges that areunpaid, as at a time which is�(i) specified in the notice; and (ii) no laterthan the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent bypost or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for servicefor the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

The NTK does not specify the time at which the parking charges are unpaid andthus does not comply with para.9(2)(d)(i) sch.4 of the Act.

para.9(2)(e): state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driverand a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper�(i) topay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of thevehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current addressfor service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The NTK does not specify the creditor in any way shape or form. Furthermore,the NTK also does not state that the creditor does not know both the name ofthe driver and a current address for service for the driver. Finally, the NTKdoes not "invite the keeper [to pay or to identify the driver]";instead it states that the keeper "is responsible" for payment oradvising of the name and address of the driver. It thus fails on three pointsto comply with para.9(2)(e) sch.4 of the Act.

para.9(2)(f): warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginningwith the day after that on which the notice is given�(i) the amount of theunpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full,and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a currentaddress for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicableconditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeperso much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The NTK does not state that the creditor (whoever this may be) only has theright to recover the charges from the Keeper "if all applicable conditionsunder this schedule are met". It is obvious that this requirement wasincluded to protect the Registered Keeper from Operator's claims of KeeperLiability without advising them that strict requirements need to be met. Byomitting this condition the Operator has failed to comply with the requirementof para.9(2)(f) sch.4 of the Act.

On this basis, it is clear that the NTK has failed to comply with a myriad ofstatutory requirements and the Operator will thus be unable to claim KeeperLiability for this charge.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal isupheld and the charge is dismissed.

5) Operator�s further breach of the BPA�s Codeof Practice

Appendix E of theBPA�s Code of Practice illustrates by way of a flowchart the correct sequenceor procedure of movements or actions that should be undertaken for recovery ofunpaid parking charge notices and appeals from the very initial pursuit of thekeeper to whatever the outcome may be. One of the processes following the�Appeal rejected� decision on the flowchart is described as �Driver/keeper canuse POPLA Appeal process within 28 DAYS�. Note how the text �28 DAYS� isemboldened in the BPA�s Code of Practice.

Athena ANPR, in itsrejection of appeal letter issued to the keeper on xx/xx/2014 does not state atall what this period is. This non-compliance is a clear breach of the BPA�sCode of Practice.

I therefore respectfully request that my appealis upheld and the charge is dismissed.

6) ANPR cameraaccuracy

Athena ANPR are obliged to ensure that their ANPR equipmentis maintained in good working order as described in paragraph 21.3 of theBritish Parking Association�s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I require Athena ANPR Ltd to present records as to the dates andtimes of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated& synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generallymaintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two imagespurporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

While the footageprovided by Athena in its invoice shows clearly the Vehicle Registration Number(VRN) of my car entering the car park in question, the same cannot be said onthe footage when it claims that my car exited the car park. The VRN is notvisible in the body of my car on the second picture (exiting the car park) thatAthena ANPR Ltd claims and it does not identify that it is my car apart fromthe detached extract showing my VRN. Athena ANPR Ltd did not even consider thispoint in its rejection of my challenge to Athena.

It is vital that AthenaANPR produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA howtheir system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was whollyresponsible for the court loss by the operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge concluded that the evidencefrom the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of thecamera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operatorcould not rebut the point.

I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collectingCCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that theydemonstrate adherence.

I thereforerespectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargeis dismissed.

This concludes my appeal,I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the chargebe dismissed if Athena ANPR fail to address andprovide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.



Yours Sincerely,
**END**

I would appreciate your valuable opinions in general and in particular to point 5 (para.2 - regarding period of appeal) and point 6 (para.3 - regarding picture of my car exiting the car park).

Have a lovely week everyone.

Almep13

Dee140157

Obviously some copy and paste issues, and quite a few occasions when two words fail to have a gap between them. So some proof readin required.

A good GPEOL which will win it. I wouldn't worry about paragraph 5. POPLA appeals are not won on breach of code of practice -it's only a code, not a legally biding document. I personally didn't follow every point of your NTK, but it looks good!

So take out point 5 , proof read carefully on original document and then looks good to go.

I like the car exit photo comment.

almep13

Dee140157,

thank you for your comments. The space issue is not present in my word doc, it's only when pasted into the post that they seem to disappear.

The section reg NTK is mainly copy and paste.

I'll keep an eye reg spelling and spaces.

in its rejection letter Athena referred to me as the driver, when it's clear from the pictures on NTK that it's not me, as the driver is a different gender from the owner (myself). Any point to raise on this one?

Almep13

Dee140157

It will win as it stands with the change.

almep13

Thank you Dee140157

almep13

Hi Everyone,

My appeal is listed for hearing in just over a week. However, I have yet to receive any documentation from Athena. Do I have to chase for it? I tried to chekc any info through POPLA, but the only available option is if I want to add any further evidence to my appeal.

Grateful for any comments.

Almep13

EnigmaPart1

no its because they wont be challenging it

almep13

Hi EnigmaPart1,

I spoke to early . Athena just sent their evidence to POPLA and myself this morning.

Almep13

prosnap

My money's still on you to win easily

almep13

Hi Everyone,

this is the documentation that Athena sent this morning. Apologies in advance for the length of text and the format on this, but I am struggling to load them as pictures, hence I have saved their pdf as text file and pasted it here.

I note though that I submitted pictures of the entrance to the car park to POPLA. However, there is no sign in that car park as suggested by picture "sign 1" (I know I cannot add pictures at present) in the evidence by Athena.

What's more, Athena claims that I have not mentioned that the signs were not prominent enough, which it was clearly stated on my point C.

Do I have to attend the hearing? I read one of the ruling where the Adjudicator did not give much weight to the arguments, because these were only fragments rather than the whole, explained cases quoted in the appeal.

Any suggestion from your experience and trained eye would be appreciated.

"Section B: Case Summary and Conditions
Popla Appeal: xxxxxx
Registered Keeper: xxxxxx
1. This appeal relates to the Lidl supermarket car park in:
141 Falcon Lane, Clapham, London, SW11 2PE
2. Parking at this site is charged for at a rate of £90 for all periods exceeding 90 minutes.
3. According to our records a vehicle with the registration XXXXXXX used this car park for a period
of 2 hours, 26 minutes and 6 seconds, thereby entering the charging period.
4. There are signs which clearly display these conditions as shown in Section F Images, plans etc.
5. The sequence of events is as follows:
• XXXXXXX Entered Car Park 30/07/14 17:26:11
• XXXXXXX Exited Car Park 30/07/14 19:52:17
• Parking Charged at £90 following: 01:30:00
• Duration of Stay: 02:26:06
• Application to DVLA for registered keeper details: 31/07/14
• DVLA Response to us: 01/08/14
• Parking Charge Notice 0 001 641 779 Issued to Registered Keeper: 01/08/14
6. The Appellant appealed to us, (Section E) and following our rejection of this appeal, to POPLA. In doing so;
• The Appellant has not denied being the registered keeper.
• The Appellant has not denied being the driver at the time in question, although this has not been admitted either.
• The Appellant has not denied the length of stay.
• The Appellant has not claimed to be unaware of any signage illustrating the contractual terms of usage of this private land.
• The Appellant has made no claims as to the visibility of the signage on this site.
• The Appellant has however made a number of legal points which we dispute.
The Appellant does not claim to have not understood the clearly signed rules which apply on this private land
7. There are very many signs positioned throughout this site and we try to make our signs as visible as possible. The terms and conditions signage measure out at 80cm x 60cm, whilst our Entrance Signage exceeds the standards of Appendix B Entrance Signs of the BPA Code of Practice and measures at 60cm x 45cm.
8. Parking restrictions apply 24 hours per day and this is clearly stipulated on the 10 signs around the
car park. These signs refer to all areas of the car park and we have attached a plan showing their location.
9. The Appellant had a full 90 minutes to read and consider the parking terms displayed on the 10 signs that are prominently displayed throughout the site, giving notice to an area of 73 parking spaces, which gives a ratio onsite of roughly 1 sign to every 7 spaces. There are very clear entrance signs in place, directly in the view of the driver as they drive onto the site. It is impossible to enter or exit the car park without seeing the signage in place. The Appellant had a full 90 minutes to decide whether to stay in the car park and continue to use it during the charging period or whether to leave it before the charging period began and not incur a charge. The Appellant had
every opportunity to make a reasoned and carefully considered decision whether to leave this private property, avoid the clearly signed charge and to park elsewhere, thereby preventing the issuing of the charges arising in the first place.
10. Our signage at this site complies fully with the BPA code. There is standard, compliant signage at the entrance which clearly indicates that parking controls are in place. It is then the responsibility of the Appellant to check the notification signage, which explains the rules in full.
11. Athena ANPR Ltd have a contract with Lidl UK Gmbh (who are the owner of the land in question), which authorises us to issue parking charges, to enforce those charges and to pursue any nonpayment of those charges. This arrangement is specifically allowed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Our contract is commercially confidential but we have attached a letter (Section G Other Evidence) from Lidl UK Gmbh to confirm it is in place and that we are authorised to issue parking charges.
12. We maintain that the Appellant entered into a contract with Athena ANPR Ltd by virtue of the very clearly displayed car park signage and consequently is liable for the parking charge. Our contract with the landowner allows us to act as their agent. The landowner is offering the option to park on their private land, subject to a charge of £90 for parking periods which exceed 90 minutes and they employ us to collect those charges.
13. Athena ANPR are not seeking damages as a result of breach of contract. We are in fact seeking to enforce that contract. We are seeking payment of a charge which the Appellant incurred as a result of parking a vehicle on this private land, which is clearly signed and in which they had 90 minutes to leave before the charging period commenced, but which the Appellant then chose not to do. We believe that the Appellant has in fact created this situation, at the very least by acting without reasonable due care.
14. We also maintain that the charge is not excessive, particularly when the Appellant could have paid
the clearly signed discounted rate of £45 for early payment, or could have made representations to us at any point outlining any mitigating circumstances in their favour, which we would have sympathetically and reasonably considered.
Regardless, an offer was clearly made of parking for a period of longer than 90 minutes which would incur the charge we issued. The Appellant parked a vehicle in the car park, thereby
agreeing to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs, which include the specific wording: “Anyone entering with or using a vehicle and remaining in this car park hereby agrees in full the terms and conditions of use and is contractually agreeing to abide by them and to pay the
charges as described below”. This included the condition that parking for longer than 90 minutes incurred an agreed charge of £90.
15. Information as to who the creditor is can be clearly found on the reverse of the Parking Charge Notice and the appellant has also entered into communication/correspondence with the creditor.
The appellant freely admits that the “operator requires a payment to Athena ANPR”. To suggest that this is or was not clear, would intimate that the appellant was merely looking at another option to avoid the payment of the charge.
16. Our systems are networked and are checked internally as regards of general operations, accuracy and image quality daily. Each individual event is also verified by two separate members of staff prior to any charges being raised. There were no issues as regards this event. The ANPR system that we use is rated to the BOF2 standard and is also in use with many UK Police forces. Our systems are also subject to normal planned and reactive maintenance inspections and our equipment is maintained to BS EN ISO 9001:2008 (Monitoring and measurement of processes 8.2.3 and Monitoring and measurement of product 8.2.4) – please see attached our most recent ISO 9001 Certificate of Registration (Section G – Other evidence).
17. We have attached a copy of our fully compliant ICO Registration for the sake of completeness although this has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of this event. (Section G – Other evidence).
18. Finally if the Appellant was not the driver then because they have not confirmed who the driver was within 28 of the service of Notice to Keeper, under schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 they must be responsible for payment.

To summarise:
• We are enforcing agreed charges rather than seeking a breach of contract.
• We have identified ourselves as the creditor in all correspondence to and from the appellant.
• Our contract allows us to act as an agent of the landowner and we have provided evidence to that effect.
• The Appellant has not disputed any of the facts of this case concerning the actual circumstances of being on this private land for longer than the allowed time, as per our paragraph 6 above.
• We have exceeded the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice in ensuring that our equipment is in working order and have provided evidence of our data entry register
with the Information Commissioners Office.


30/07/14
xxxxxxx
01/08/14
£90.00
Lidl Clapham
141 Falcon Lane, Clapham
London SW11 2PE
CIVIL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE
NOTICE TO KEEPER
Vehicle Registration No.
Incident Date
Parking Charge Notice No.
Issue Date
Parking Charge
PARKING INCIDENT AND LOCATION
Exceeded Free Parking Duration at:
01:30:00
VEHICLE ENTERING SITE AND REGISTRATION No. VEHICLE EXITING SITE AND REGISTRATION No.
Entered Car Park
30/07/14 17:26:11
Exited Car Park
30/07/14 19:52:17
02:26:06
Allowed Duration of Stay
Actual Duration of Stay
BLACK VOLKSWAGEN GOLF FSI SE
PARKING CHARGE AMOUNT DUE £90.00
PARKING CHARGE DISCOUNT £45.00
This parking charge is discounted to £45.00 if paid within 14 days of the date issued:01/08/14
ACT TODAY CALL 0330 223 1888
Quoting Parking Charge Notice Number xxxxxx

xxxxxx
30/07/2014
xxxxxxx
01/08/14
£45.00
VEHICLE REGISTRATION No.
INCIDENT DATE
PARKING CHARGE NOTICE No.
PARKING CHARGE ISSUE DATE
REDUCED PARKING CHARGE
Please return this payment advice slip along with a cheque or postal order for the REDUCED CHARGE amount to the address provided.
Cheques should be made payable to ATHENA ANPR Ltd. Please write the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE No. on the reverse of the cheque.
CIVIL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE RETURN ADDRESS
Athena ANPR Ltd Reg in England: 05678510, Vat Reg: 888279058, Reg Office: The Heights, 59-65 Lowlands Road, Harrow, HA1 3AW
REDUCED CHARGE DUE DATE 15/08/14
PARKING CHARGE DUE DATE 29/08/14
Athena ANPR Ltd
PO Box 306
CHERTSEY
KT16 6ED
Regist

We iss
The ke
ered Keep



sued the c
eeper did n
per Detail
harge to t
not confir
ls for
the registe
rm the driv
at 3
ered keep
ver at the
30.07.14:
per, who m
time of a
may also b
ppeal.
be the driver.
1
appeals
From: xxxxx
Sent: 25 August 2014 20:44
To: appeals
Subject: Appeal against invoice of Civil Parking Charge Notice (CPCN) with ref xxxxxxx
Categories: Victoria
Dear Sir/Madam at Athena ANPR Ltd,
CPCN: xxxxx
While abroad I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. I decline your invitation to pay or
name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability
to your company is denied on the following basis:
A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to
your company or the landowner.
You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your
own right.
C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties,
so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon
legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL
terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety
must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking
terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning,
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long
as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the
issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand
ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand
pointing to it - or something equally startling.'
D) While the footage provided in your invoice shows clearly the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of my car
entering the car park in question, the same cannot be said on the footage when you claim that my car exited the car
park. The VRN is not visible in the body of my car on the second picture (exiting the car park) that Athena ANPR Ltd
claims and it does not identify that it is my car apart from the detached extract showing my VRN. Hence, your
request for payment should be dropped on this basis.
E) The car was parked at the location in question for a genuine shopping trip to Lidl store. Hence, no abuse of the
intended purpose of car park took place and as such your request for payment should be dropped.
As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under
your Trade Body's, British Parking Associations (BPA), current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter
which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:
1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be
expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your
enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the
calculation of this sum by the landholder.
2
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers
to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and
profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law
(as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014
Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course
point out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence
to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to
support it.
2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this
particular contravention. If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the
restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client
and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary
for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be
deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal
stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who
is not the landowner.
3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.
4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of
day in similar light conditions.
5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a
breach of the Code of Practice.
If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be
reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written
communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.
Yours Sincerely,
xxxxxx
xxxx
xxx
xx
x
email: [EMAIL="appeals@athena-parking.com"]appeals@athena-parking.com[/EMAIL]; web: www.athena-parking.com; Tel: 0330 223 1444
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - 0 001 641 779 - Lidl Clapham Car Park
Parking Charge £90.00 Due Date 24/09/14 - Reduced Charge £45.00 Due Date 10/09/14
Dear xxxx,
Yours sincerely
Athena ANPR Ltd
29 August 2014
Registered in England: 05678510 Registered Office: The Heights, 59-65 Lowlands Road, Harrow, HA1 3AW
Appeal Verification Code
Athena ANPR Ltd, PO Box 306, Chertsey, KT16 6ED
xxxxx
We are contracted by the owner of the land, to manage the site at which the parking event occurred and the charge was
accrued. The car park is on private land and a private landowner is free to impose any terms they wish on the use of their land by others.
We are a member and approved operator of the British Parking Association and comply with all of our obligations
regarding the enforcement of car parking regulations. We have an agreement with the DVLA to process data held by
them.
The DVLA will release the name and address of a vehicle keeper to us, because we can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’
under the data protection rules as a company enforcing car-parking restrictions on private land to request and process
your data.
The terms on which customers are allowed to use the car park are very clearly stipulated on the signage and drivers have
the option not to park there if they disagree.
There are a sufficient number of signs in the car park, which clearly state that if you fail to comply with the terms you will
be liable to pay a parking charge. When you drove into the car park and parked your vehicle, you agreed to the
contractual terms detailed on the signage.
Therefore, we are entitled under those terms to require you to pay the parking charge and to then take enforcement
action against you if you refuse or fail to pay.
We do not find that your challenge contains substantive reasons to cancel this charge and whilst the terms of use in
operation on that site are very clear you have made no effort to indicate any substantive mitigating circumstances.
Consequently we regret to advise you that your appeal has been unsuccessful and our appeals process is now
exhausted.
You may still pay online at www.athena-parking.com, by telephone on 0330 223 1888 / 0330 223 1444, or by sending a
cheque or postal order to the address below. You still have the opportunity at this point to pay the reduced rate.
If you wish to appeal further, you may do this via the Independent Appeals Service, Parking On Private Land Appeals
(POPLA), but if they reject your claim you will have to pay the charge at the full rate. We will not enter into discussions
with you or offer any further discounts following the commencement of the POPLA appeal process.
To appeal to POPLA please go to their website www.popla.org.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with
this matter by post please contact our appeals office and we will send you the necessary paperwork. You must supply
POPLA with the verification code shown in the bottom right hand corner of this letter. They will not consider an appeal
unless this number is supplied on their appeal form.
POPLA’s decision will be based on the evidence produced and by applying the relevant law. The most recent legislation
concerning private parking is contained in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
Please think very carefully that you have adequate grounds before submitting an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to
POPLA and they reject your appeal you will then have to pay the charge at the full rate, or, you could still pay a
reduced rate at this time.
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Signage
Entrance Signs Quantity = 1 Terms & Conditions Signs Quantity = 9
Page 1 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Signage Map
Page 2 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Site Plan
Page 3 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Sign 1 Sign 2
Sign 3 Sign 4
Page 4 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Sign 5 Sign 6
Sign 7 Sign 8
Page 5 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
POPLA Information Pack – Lidl Clapham 0134
Sign 9 Sign 10
Page 6 of 6 Issued 24.04.14 | V1.0 | 045
1/24/2014 Information Commissioners - Data Protection Register - Entry Details
http://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch 1/3
Data Protection Register -
Entry Details
Registration Number: Z9642706
Date Registered: 31 October 2006 Registration Expires: 30 October 2014
Data Controller: ATHENA ANPR LIMITED
Address:
THE HEIGHTS
59-63 LOWLANDS ROAD
HARROW
MIDDLESEX
HA1 3AW
Other Names:
ATHENA COLLECTIONS
This register entry describes, in very general terms, the personal data being processed
by:
ATHENA ANPR LIMITED
Nature of work - CCTV and Crime Prevention
Description of processing
The following is a broad description of the way this organisation/data controller processes
personal information. To understand how your own personal information is processed you may
need to refer to any personal communications you have received, check any privacy notices the
organisation has provided or contact the organisation to ask about your personal circumstances.
Reasons/purposes for processing information
We process personal information for the following;
maintaining a cctv system for crime prevention and prosecution of offenders
also maintaining a cctv for the purpose of preventing unathorised or unwanted access to
privately owned land and issuing and processing of parking charges on private land
maintaining our own accounts and records
administration of justice
promoting our own products and services
debt administration and factoring
1/24/2014 Information Commissioners - Data Protection
private investigation
trading and sharing in personal information
to support and manage our employees
Type/classes of information processed
We process information relevant to the above reasons/purposes. This may include:
personal details
employment details
financial details
family, lifestyle and social circumstances
goods or services provided
education details
other information relevant to the investigation
outcome of investigation
We also process sensitive classes of information that may include:
offences and alleged offences
criminal proceedings, outcomes and sentences
visual images, personal appearance and behaviour
physical or mental health details
racial or ethnic origin
trade union membership
religious or other beliefs
Who the information is processed about
We process personal information about:
staff
customers, clients
offenders and suspected offenders
members of the public and people in the area which is under CCTV surveillance
suppliers
complaints, correspondents and enquiries
relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject
advisers, consultants and other professional experts
applicants for licenses and permits
businesses and other contacts
subjects of investigations
witnesses

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - ISO 9001:2008
This is to certify that: Athena ANPR Ltd
Quantum House
59 Guildford Street
Chertsey
KT16 9AX
United Kingdom
Holds Certificate Number: FS 606209
and operates a Quality Management System which complies with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 for the
following scope:
Parking Operations Management, including provision of parking attendants and
installation of equipment.
For and on behalf of BSI:
Gary Fenton, Global Assurance Director
Originally registered: 27/02/2014 Latest Issue: 27/02/2014 Expiry Date: 26/02/2017
Page: 1 of 1