ANPR Ltd Charge Notice

Bessdog

The Operator issued parking charge notice number P2145KN arising out of the presence at 9 Harrison Road, Halifax, on 17 September 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark B2MSW.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
0412664190 2 14 November 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 17 September 2014 the operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark B2MSW.
The appellant raised many grounds of appeal; however I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the parking charge is disproportionate. Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact a sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.
Once a parking charge notice is shown to represent damages, i.e. compensation for the breach of the car park’s terms and conditions, then the parking charge must reflect a pre-estimate of the loss suffered by the operator as a result of that breach. The onus is on the operator to show this, in particular by providing a cost break down of the genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected the representations made by the appellant. With regard to the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator accepted that the parking charge was liquidated damages and provided an itemised breakdown of the loss suffered. The operator calculated this loss as £95.33.
However, the break down provided by the operator contains a number of costs that cannot be properly taken into account. The operator’s break down has separate costs for Appeals Staff (£9.51) and Management, who among other things quality control (£71.65). Thus, each of these individuals is doing substantially the same task and as such overlap. Accordingly, only the Appeals Staff can be properly taken into account. Consequently, the revised pre-estimate stands at substantially lower than the parking charge.
Therefore I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Not sure how that happened after I messed it up but was very pleased to receive this this morning

I think getting the evidence pack through the post completely threw me -thanks once again for this great site

Bessdog

Im sorry I was out of my depth and didnt really understand the procedure despite reading it all - I couldn't find where to post questions I could only find the decisions thread (my friend posted me a link so I could start this thread) I should have asked for it before I know but I didnt - I dont really go on forums and when tried I have found MSE very hard to understand or find what I am looking for unless someone sends me a link - blame it on the age thing

Coupon mad I will look at your link and try get my head around it - I understood and found the information when you previously got a parking ticket - when you ignore it - which we did but that was years ago and since then I have helped others do the same so I have been able to pass on great information found on this site

Umkomaas

First off 'Well done' (aka 'lucky b*gger'). You went to POPLA about an ANPR Ltd PCN with a Civil Enforcement Ltd appeal, and they still allowed it. :rotfl: Goes to show they look for key words - GPEOL - and press the 'Allowed' macro button.

As I said in my earlier post when I spotted your CEL error:

2. Just work on rebutting the ANPR Ltd Evidence checklist, send it off and hope the POPLA assessor doesn't go through your appeal too closely and spot the error, rather just homing in on GPEOL. Would be interesting from our point of view, but I don't think its a great deal for you OP.

Definitely interesting from our point of view!

I would have said the PPC must be inflamed at the result, but we're talking about owd Trev here, who clearly hadn't spotted that fatal flaw in your appeal.

Woeful appeal, great result!

Bessdog

I am very lucky I know and whilst I could make you a Will or do the conveyancing on your property "this"fazes me - I thought I would post the result as for you who know what y ou are doing it might help you in other cases

I realised after I send the appeal by email that I had changed the wrong words but thought it too late then and put my head in the sand