Athena@Lidl, CEO Appeal success |
Athena@Lidl, CEO Appeal success |
Fri, 30 Dec 2016 - 21:28
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 220 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,453 |
Complaint to CEO of Lidl resulted in cancellation of pcn.
Link to original thread HERE For ease I have pasted the appeals below as they were sent. Some feel that the Athena appeal is not necessary/should not be sent. If you do send one then just make sure others can verify its correct. QUOTE Lidl appeal amended to the below. I write to you regarding a civil parking charge notice received by myself as registered keeper of the car in question. The driver and their family are regular shoppers at Lidl and on the day concerned the driver had spent a not insignificant amount of money in store, completing the shopping as quickly as they were able to. Card receipt attached. To be threatened with debt collection companies and/or court action whilst shopping in your stores is most disconcerting and will have the effect of making them reconsider where any future shopping is carried out. I would therefore respectfully ask that you instruct your agent to cancel this ticket forthwith. I look forward to your reply. Regards, QUOTE Dear Sir/Madam,
REF: PCN No. VRN. I as registered keeper of the car in question challenge the pcn for, but not limited to, the following reasons. 1. Failure to comply with POFA (Protection Of Freedoms Act). 2. Inadequate signage at the stated location. 3. Proof of planning consent for 90 minute parking and ANPR system 4. No authority to issue charges or legal proceedings. 5. Lack of proof of driver entering into a contract (1). Failure to comply with POFA (Protection Of Freedoms Act). The PCN issued does not comply with Schedule (4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act. POFA requires that a pcn complies with ALL sections and sub-sections as the case may be, of the relevant paragraph in order to impose keeper liability. (2) Inadequate signage at the stated location It is believed the signage at the site in question is inadequate to form a contract and does not conform to relevant codes of practice and/or legislation. (3). Proof of planning consent for 90 minute parking and ANPR system. I put Athena ANPR Ltd to strict proof to provide evidence that they have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities to operate this car park on a 90 minute time limit and for the installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on this site. (3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner. You have failed to show you have any proprietary interest in the land as landowner or that you have sufficient rights to offer contracts for parking or for the recovery of any charges in your own name. Athena ANPR Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means you have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of your charge. Nor do you have the legal status at that site, which would give you any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as you are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner I put Athena 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. (5) Lack of proof of driver and/or registered keeper entering into a contract No consideration has flowed from myself or the driver therefore any contract with either is denied. Proof of driver and/or registered keeper entering into a contract with Athena ANPR Ltd. needs to prove that the driver and/or registered keeper actually saw, read and therefore accepted the terms, which means that I or the driver would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount you are now demanding. Should you refuse to cancel this notice, I will require you to afford access to an independent adjudicator that complies substantially with The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015, such as POPLA or The Ombudsman Service. The Independent Appeals Service, to which you subscribe, falls woefully short of the requirements of these regulations. Should you refuse such access, I reserve the right to bring such refusal to the attention of a court, if necessary. Regards, |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:40 |