Rebel
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 11:08
Hi All
We have received a Civil Parking Charge Notice addressed to the registered keeper (not the driver) from Athena ANPR Ltd.
Asking for £90 reduced to £45 if we pay quick. For a 10 minute overstay in a 2 hour allowed free parking car park.
I have scanned the document but it saves as a PDF so have not been able to edit out personal details so far.
Its been many many a year since we had anything like this and i understand ignore is no longer the route to go and it needs to be appealed.
Any recommendations on current stratagy to use?
Thanks all
ostell
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 11:16
so print yourself a copy of the document, edit out your personal and identifying details, but leave dates, and scan that. Use a hosting site such as imgur and post the link on here.
Have a read of POFA
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted and see if the notice complies with the requirements to hold the keeper liable. if there was no windscreen ticket then para 9 is relevant.
Rebel
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 11:20
Thanks Ostell, i should of thought of that.....
Rebel
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 11:40
1st image
2nd image
ostell
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 14:29
Looks like the have, in the main got it correct. However there is one point of argument in that the period of parking has not been given. They are talking about period of stay. You cannot read the conditions, and thereby create a contract, while driving and thus you can only read the conditions and create the contract. There is a grace period of 10 minutes to be allowed. You take several minutes from the entrance and the cameras to get to your parking spot outside Lidl. Similarly you finish your stay and it takes several minutes to leave and get to the cameras. You stay, ie parked, has been considerably less than the time recorded by the cameras and you are therefore within the 10 minutes grace period for parking (they use that word) in the CoP section 13
https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/d...actice%20v7.pdf Basically your time parking plus permitted grace time is less than the time allowed for stay. You cannot be "staying" while you are moving in front of those cameras at the entrance. Look up the definition of "stay".
Write your appeal on this basis, on here for critique
First take your receipt into Aldi and complain to the manager. If he doesn't want to know then Aldi head office.
Lynnzer
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 14:56
Not only does the IPA Code of Practice set a requirement for a 10 minute period of grace for EXITING the car park, but it also lays down a reasonable consideration period for a driver to notice a sign and read the T & C's. At the least that would add on perhaps another 3 minutes. I have a defence already made out prior to a claim actually going to court for my HX PCN in similar circumstances. I haven't added the defence onto the topic yet though.
Read this:
The consideration period at 13.1 of the Code of Practice states:
13.1 Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately. This provision does not state an exact consideration period, but it is arguably the time it would take a person to find a space, park up and read a sign without undue delay. At the very least a period of 2 or 3 minutes may suffice, however it may equally be 5 minutes bearing in mind the difficulties of parking by some persons with physical disabilities. In effect the alleged overstay of 2 minutes would be well covered by any such application of a consideration period.
Just in case the period is covered by what seems to be the more common incident of being on site longer than a permitted period, then as far as I can see, the actual contract could only commence upon reading the sign, not at the point of entry time on the ANPR pictures.
Rebel
Sun, 26 Jul 2020 - 15:49
ignore this post, asked a question already answered....
Rebel
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 09:40
Dear Parking Scammers
Ref invoice - ####
I wish to appeal the above refenced invoice on the grounds that the driver was parked for less than the allowed time at the site.
Your invoice shows images of a moving vehicle and as such the time parked would be less than shown on your invoice.
I am under the understanding that under the IPA code of practice allows a 10 minute grace period for leaving of the site and and as this invoice shows a moving vehicle with under 11 minutes ellapsed from the claim time allowed, also noting that at the time of the first image the vehicle was moving so the time parked could not start at that time either.
As such I hope to hear fromy ou in the near future confirmting the cancellation of this invoice, or failing that a suitable code for further appeal to the intrested body.
Yours
RK
Any good?
Lynnzer
Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 11:55
QUOTE (Rebel @ Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 10:40)
Dear Parking Scammers
TRY THIS
I wish to appeal the above referenced invoice on the grounds that the driver was parked for less than the allowed time at the site including the periods required for compliance to the IPA Code of Practice. It is an essential requirement that members of the IPA MUST comply with the Code of Practice. ParkingEye v Beavis makes this clear in the Supreme Court's judgement.
The Code of Practice lays down in 13.1 (That) Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. A contractual agreement cannot be backdated. The acceptance of said contract would begin at the point of a driver reading the terms and conditions then either leaving the site in disagreement, or by staying on site if a contract was accepted. You have made no allowance for that consideration period. Also the code of practice allows for a 10 minute grace period for leaving of the site on top of the consideration period. Your invoice shows a moving vehicle with under 11 minutes elapsed from the claim time allowed, also noting that at the time of the first image the vehicle was moving so you have failed to comply with the IPA Code of Practice.
I now advise that I am rejecting liability for payment of the invoice for your failure to adhere to the strict Code of Practice requirements.
Lynnzer
Tue, 28 Jul 2020 - 17:25
Another useful snippet from the Code of Practice that gives argument to it being trespass rather than a parking incident.
The section on Notice to Driver, b) (b) specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking
to which the notice relates.
There is no period of parking given, only the time spent between ANPR in and ANPR out. In other words you stayed on site longer than permitted, not parked longer than permitted. Clear trespass? I say yes.
Rebel
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 09:29
Ok appeal emailed off....just waiting for rejection to come now
Umkomaas
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 10:02
QUOTE (Rebel @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 10:29)
Ok appeal emailed off....just waiting for rejection to come now
They
will reject. Unless you can obtain a landowner cancellation you just join the growing queue of motorists waiting for the next 6 years to see if the PPC issues a court claim. Athena issued no claims in 2019 and to my knowledge have never ever issued court proceedings. Past performance however is not necessarily an indicator of future performance.
Rebel
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 13:55
appeals
12:06 PM (2 hours ago)
to me
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Governing regulations and our data protection policies require us to validate the identity of correspondents when discussing cases in order to securely manage data and to take reasonable precautions regarding the privacy of peoples data.
Your email address does not match the name used in your email and we can accept no further correspondence from you without correct validation of your identity as the registered keeper of the vehicle. We can only correspond with the registered keeper of the vehicle or a properly validated driver of the vehicle at the time of the event.
In order for us to process your requests and respond, we will require signatory proof that you are the registered keeper of this vehicle.
We can accept this in a form of a copy or photograph of a driving license or passport.
We will await your response.
Kind Regards,
Customer Service Team
For and on Behalf of Athena ANPR Ltd
Are we forced to send identity documents to these people? Or should we just chalk this up as a refusal to deal with the matter and ignore from now on?
Umkomaas
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 14:27
QUOTE (Rebel @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 14:55)
appeals
12:06 PM (2 hours ago)
to me
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Governing regulations and our data protection policies require us to validate the identity of correspondents when discussing cases in order to securely manage data and to take reasonable precautions regarding the privacy of peoples data.
Your email address does not match the name used in your email and we can accept no further correspondence from you without correct validation of your identity as the registered keeper of the vehicle. We can only correspond with the registered keeper of the vehicle or a properly validated driver of the vehicle at the time of the event.
In order for us to process your requests and respond, we will require signatory proof that you are the registered keeper of this vehicle.
We can accept this in a form of a copy or photograph of a driving license or passport.
We will await your response.
Kind Regards,
Customer Service Team
For and on Behalf of Athena ANPR Ltd
Are we forced to send identity documents to these people? Or should we just chalk this up as a refusal to deal with the matter and ignore from now on?
So are you the keeper, or are you doing this for someone else?
Rebel
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 14:31
we are the keepers
Umkomaas
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 14:34
QUOTE (Rebel @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 15:31)
we are the keepers
Who's 'we'? Whose name appears on the V5C (logbook)?
Rebel
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 14:37
My vehicle, wife down as RK
ostell
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 15:27
So a person unconnected with this, the owner, responded. In these situations the owner has no significance. They wrote to the RK and someone else answered. So you have confused them so you'll need to respond. No naming of the driver though
Rebel
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 16:25
Email was sent through wife and signed off as such
Umkomaas
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 17:19
QUOTE (Rebel @ Mon, 10 Aug 2020 - 17:25)
Email was sent through wife and signed off as such
So why do you think they are making such a fuss? I've never seen them do this before, other than with SAR requests where proof of identity is required. If you have no idea, then have your wife contact them and ask precisely what it is they are having a problem with.
Rebel
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 - 09:45
The wife mailed them back saying there is no requirement for her to provide identity documents to them and as such it will not be happening.....got this reply
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately if the documents that are required are not provide we will be unable to look into your appeal further.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.