ANPR must be wrong ?

ranchhand

Hi,

Received a PCN as keeper a couple of days ago from parking eye.On checking with the driver the car was definitely not in the car park on the stated date. Image shows the car going in and coming out after a stay of 52 mins,its my car but the image must have been taken on another day,it could not have been on the date stated in the pictures.

I asked the question of the driver has the car been in this car park before and the answer was yes, but only once and a ticket was bought 1.50p for one hour.When pressed its possible that an incorrect or partial reg was entered on the ticket and not the full reg,which I assume is why this PCN was come about.

However,the car was in another hotel car park at the times stated and the hotel have offered to provide a copy invoice of the charges paid,time date and registration for the appeal.They will need a few more days to retrieve the ticket from their finance department.

I am going on holiday on Tuesday morning so I have used the newbe sticky thread to come up with the following to get the appeal in before I go:


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

1. The vehicle was not in the car park on the date specified in the PCN images.

The vehicle was in fact parked in the #### Hotel car park from 11 am until 4.30pm whilst the driver attended a concert at the hotel.

A copy of the parking invoice from the hotel is available showing the date, time, charge and vehicle registration for that day.

The date and times of your ANPR are clearly incorrect.

The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

If you reject the claim above please provide a valid POPLA code.

#######################################################

Your PCN can also be challenged on the following grounds.

1. The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is extravagant and unconscionable when compared to local parking charges issued by the Council so cannot be justified.

2. There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

3. Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

4. There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.


The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter providing a valid POPLA code.


2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal“ drop hands”offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £25 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.


3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer and if I decide to use IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies.

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. Following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, express consent must be obtained for consumer contracts now not implied consent. You have failed to meet these requirements and you did not serve the driver with the terms by durable medium.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,


Do I need all of this,some of it or none of it ?

I know they will reject anyway but trying to lay the grounds for the appeal.

Thank you for your time.

Umkomaas

The date and times of your ANPR are clearly incorrect.

That may suggest that on another date and time there might have been some infringement of their 'rules'.

I think it needs a bit of re-phrasing to say they have absolutely no grounds to pursue this charge, given your irrefutable evidence that the car could not possibly have been where they are saying it was on that date.

hoohoo

I would not bother with any other appeal points. Save them for POPLA if PE are stupid enough not to cancel

ranchhand

Hi Umkomaas,

Thanks for that I will take that line out and put in your phrase

You have absolutely no grounds to pursue this charge, given the irrefutable evidence that the car could not possibly have been where you are saying it was on that date.

Is everything else looking ok ?

I wasn`t sure if I even needed any more other than the top paragraph but thought when they reject if I have not put anything else in I could not then use it in an appeal.

ranchhand

Hi HooHoo,

I was typing a reply when you posted, right I will do that and then use the other points in an appeal to POPLA if needed.

Thanks

Umkomaas

What you put in your initial appeal does not restrict you in adding (or removing) any other points in your POPLA appeal.

The usual 'goal' for your initial appeal is a POPLA code, rarely do you get a cancellation, although PE went through a phase of knowing if they received a forum-assisted appeal they would ultimately lose at POPLA, and took the pragmatic decision to cancel at the first stage rather than waste £27 for a POPLA defeat.

But at the moment they are a bit buoyed by the Beavis case and are chancing their arm again at POPLA. There's not enough evidence yet to determine how successfully.