@lidluk Athena ANPR ticket - advice needed, please. WON AT POPLA :)

[f16]

Well done Boofie !!!!

It's a "Good Feeling" beating them

[havinastella]

Well done, I have amended the thread title.

[armadillo71]

Brilliant! Well done.

 

Can you post up the reasons for the assessors determination if possible?

[ericsbrother]

so, Athena didint send in a copy of their contract as evidence...... I bet they didnt want POPLA (and therefore everyone else in the world) to know its contents were not supportive of an agreement to charge people and as soon as that becaem public they would have to be refunding people when requested.

They play the long game, better to lose an appeal by offering no evidence than lose all of your income stream by offering the evidence and haing it torn to shreds. If I win the euromillions jackpot they wont be getting a choice in the matter

[Boofie]

I would be delighted to post up the reasons for the Assessor's determination. I hope others find it helpful. Thanks once again everybody. Whoop whoop! Have a good weekend, Boofie.

 

 

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

 

It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for staying beyond a 1 hour 30 minute stay. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the Appellant’s case that she is not liable because:

- The Operator has no authority to issue and pursue parking charges on the land in question and

- The Operator has not established a genuine pre-estimate of loss on which it is pursuing the charge.

 

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

 

The Operator submits that they have a contract with Lidl who are the owners of the land in question however their contract is commercially confidential so they have attached a letter from Lidl to confirm the contract is in place and they are authorised to issue parking charges. I am not minded to find the letter provided as sufficient as it does not mention or specify the land in question but rather that “Athena ANPR have a contract with us to manage the parking arrangements on some of our properties” – the specific property in question has not been addresses. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority over the land in question. Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

[f16]

No specific contract.

 

Good that means that GPEOL and "no contract" are working.

[DBC]

I wonder if that contract contains a "do not take any of our customers to court" clause as per Somerfield and PE? That might be a reason why they are reluctant to show it. It's believed that Aldi might have a similar clause in their contract with PE, as they have never taken any Aldi customers to court even though PE dish out hundreds of court papers a month for other locations.

[ericsbrother]

I agree that the parking co's would rather throw the odd appeal away rather then risk having their contract held up to scrutiny and lose every penny they earn. Meks you wonder what would happen if they were forced to show their hand, would all of the people rooked by tem be entitled to a refund due to misrepresentation?

keep winning the small oneas and the big ones will fall eventually.

[Boofie]

Oh dear....my dad has just been issued with a similar PCN from a different branch of Lidl by Athena ANPR. This is like déjà vue. I many need your help again hehe.

[ericsbrother]

was it compliant? ie within 14 days of event, contains the details of how much, who it is owed to etc and a proper address for the company, not a PO box number..