ANPR LTD denying me a POPLA code?

HPH

Writing my POPLA letter now. When I logged into ANPR's website (long time ago now) to check the registration etc, they had an option to look at the photographs of the car parked. When I checked, they did not seem to have any photographs whatsoever.

The car park is a 'self ticket' car park, and I wonder whether any photographs of my car being parked there exist. I cannot be sure though. I was wondering if I should put an appeal point along the lines of:

The driver cannot remember ever parking in the area stated. I have not seen any evidence by means of photographs that the car was ever parked there. Therefore I contend the car was never in the car park which ANPR claim have interest in.

Thoughts? Too much? I was just thinking the more ANPR have to prove, the more likely POPLA will tell them to do one!

HPH

Anyway, without the above point, this is my first draft POPLA appeal - taken from all sorts of examples around this site and PePipoo. Any help would be much appreciated!

PCN Reference: xxxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.
BPA Code of Practice Breaches
1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
No entrance signs. As CoP states in paragraph 18.2: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area”. (PHOTO) The lack of entrance signs to the land means that no contract was formed between the driver and ANPR Ltd. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.
2) Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on three counts.
• Firstly, the NTK was posted on the 24/11/2014, and allowing for two working days postage as specified by Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 paragraph 8 (6), arrived at my address on the 26/11/2014. As the alleged breach of contract is said to have occurred on the 30/09/2014, 57 days before, this means the NTK arrived outside the relevant period of 28 days followed by 28 days as specified by Schedule 4 paragraph 8 (5), and therefore keeper liability is not established.
• Secondly, it fails to identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made: paragraph 8(2)(h)
• Thirdly, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.
This breach of POFA 2012 means that keeper liability is not established.
In a flagrant disregard for the POPLA rights of appeal available to myself as the registered keeper, the section 'Appeals' wholly misleads the recipient. This will be the basis of point 5.

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by ANPR Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the issue parking charge notice (PCN) to be a penalty because ANPR Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).
I asked in my initial appeal for ANPR Ltd to submit a full breakdown (including full amounts) of their genuine pre estimate of loss stated to illustrate how their loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach, but none was given. The charge has since risen to £140 as the operator has stated loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach.
This cost of £140 is more than what is expected by the BPA CoP section 19.5. This section states that if the charge is more than £100 then operators must be able to justify this in advance.
The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and is not commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I respectfully request my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
ANPR Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put ANPR Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

5) Failure to provide inform of POPLA appeal process (BPA Code of Practice)
By virtue of s.22 BPA guidelines October 2014, the Operator is required to inform of ’the arrangements for independent appeal’ and ’at what stage an independent appeal to POPLA becomes available’. The ‘Outstanding Parking Notice’ (NTK) breaches BPA CoP 22.12, where it is stated that if an operator rejects a challenge they must tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA including a 10 digit verification code, and also giving the driver at least 35 days before restarting the debt collection process. As neither a code was provided in my appeal rejection letter, nor a 35 day period given before sending increasingly threatening letters, this breaks two CoP points. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

trisontana

Is it UKCPS or ANPR? (see point 3)

HPH

trisontana wrote: »

Is it UKCPS or ANPR? (see point 3)

Its ANPR, well spotted. Any other ideas? Good enough to see of ANPR?

HPH

Got a email from POPLA today - ANPR dropped the charge (obviously couldn't be bothered fighting the case!) and so its done and dusted.

Thanks to everyone who helped along the way, and anyone reading the thread who is in two minds about fighting back - do it! With the help of the people on this forum its easily do-able.

Thanks again.

HPH

Redx

ANPR were kicked out of the BPA today so that is the more likely reason for cancelling any ongoing POPLA appeals

well done m8 , a win is a win

HPH

Kicked out of the BPA - I can imagine what for, but what does that mean for their parking fines etc? Basically they are irrelevant now?

ManxRed

It means that they can no longer access RK details via the DVLA (despite them believing they can), so they will rely purely on people just paying up straight away. In theory, if anyone ignores them, they they cannot discover who they are to pursue anyway.

Redx

HPH wrote: »

Kicked out of the BPA - I can imagine what for, but what does that mean for their parking fines etc? Basically they are irrelevant now?

thay are not fines, they are invoices

it makes it harder for ANPR to enforce the charges on their invoices , especially if they cannot get RK details from the DVLA

all covered in parking pranksters blogs