ANPR / Expedion charges and fines. Need advice please.

[smegbondaustin]

Hi

 

On 12th April 2013 I cheeckily parked in a zone enforced by ANPR Ltd to be for Permit Holders Only. I did not have a permit.

 

There was a Parking Charge Notice on my car when I returned. Knowing about how private parking companies are Cowboys, that it can only be the landowner who takes you to court and how they can only claim for what they are out of pocket, I decided not to pay the £100 they were asking for.

 

I later received a letter from them (after they got my details from the DVLA) asking for £140.

 

I wrote back, saying something along the lines of "the charge is punitive and therefore unenforceable"

 

Today (NEARLY TWO YEARS LATER) I recieved a letter from Expedion containing a draft court letter explaining again why they want to take me to court.

 

After reading various threads I have come to the conclusion that Expedion is the same company as ANPR. However, as I feel I was genuinely in the wrong do I now have to pay the £175 they are asking for? Or is there a way to appeal this to get the charge reduced or gone altogether. And what hope do I have in being successful??

[SabreSheep]

you will have to defend this in court.

 

Appeal times limits have passe dyou by.

 

When you get a claim form from Northampton Bulk Court come back here after reading the following thread and putting in your answers in this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-December-2014**

[ericsbrother]

Complain to the court manager at Northampton County court and also to Action Fraud as this is coercion at best and fraud at worst. You are not being taken to court, they are using a false instrument to gain a pecuniary advantage.

Expedion are part of ANPR so you can ignore them.

You are very unlikely to get a real court form but do keep an eye on this forum for the result of PE v Beavis appeal just in case

[Nev Met]

Did you at anytime admit to being the driver?

 

As regards the draft court particulars, some of us raised this very issue a couple of years ago when another well known PPC was doing it and to my astonishment we were informed (by a senior Consumer Lawyer) that this is a well used and acceptable 'tactic', it is merely a way of making a statement of intent. I don't agree with that assessment but my opinion counts for didly squat so there we have it.

[smegbondaustin]

Did you at anytime admit to being the driver?

 

As regards the draft court particulars, some of us raised this very issue a couple of years ago when another well known PPC was doing it and to my astonishment we were informed (by a senior Consumer Lawyer) that this is a well used and acceptable 'tactic', it is merely a way of making a statement of intent. I don't agree with that assessment but my opinion counts for didly squat so there we have it.

 

No. At no point have I admitted that I'm the driver.

[smegbondaustin]

Complain to the court manager at Northampton County court and also to Action Fraud as this is coercion at best and fraud at worst. You are not being taken to court, they are using a false instrument to gain a pecuniary advantage.

Expedion are part of ANPR so you can ignore them.

You are very unlikely to get a real court form but do keep an eye on this forum for the result of PE v Beavis appeal just in case

 

Do you have a link to this "PE v Beavis" thread?

[Nev Met]

So are they are either claiming 'keeper liability' under PoFA

 

or

 

that the Registered Keeper (and initial appellant) was the driver, taking everything into account on the balance of probabilities

[Nev Met]

Do you have a link to this "PE v Beavis" thread?

 

My understanding is that the Beavis case concerns ParkingEye and the amount of damages for breach of contract (BPA CoP 19.5) whereas ANPR Ltd go down the contractual charge route (BPA CoP 19.6) so that's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

If however, you wrote back as you say and appealed within the 28 days (and you still have a copy of the appeal letter?) then ANPR Ltd were required, under the BPA Ltd CoP to deal with your appeal within 35 days full stop......(if it was two years ago then it's the CoP that was applicable at the time and V1 (Oct 2012 to 12th March 2013) states "22.8 You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the challenge, you must accept or reject the challenge in writing within 35 days of receiving it"

 

If ANPR Ltd failed to comply with the CoP then they have also failed to properly deal with their ATA guidelines that set out the pre-action protocols that must be followed before they can commence proceedings through the County Court.

[ericsbrother]

My thinking was that if PE succeed with their claim for commercial justification then all of the parking companies will try their luck quoting the case, whether strictly relevant or not. Some are already doing so and PE have regularly spouted forth on it as though the original CC decision was some case law precedent.

[Nev Met]

My thinking was that if PE succeed with their claim for commercial justification then all of the parking companies will try their luck quoting the case, whether strictly relevant or not. Some are already doing so and PE have regularly spouted forth on it as though the original CC decision was some case law precedent.

 

Indeed, the BPA Ltd latest CoP (V5 Oct 2014 onwards) 19.5 now says ".......this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable". - which is a tad premature as the appeal is still pending but that's the nature of the beast.

 

ANPR Ltd only enforce under 19.6 (Contractual Sum - ie the price for parking other than in accordance with the other rules) so in my mind Beavis will not impact on those who use the Contractual Charge model. If Beavis wins then it could be that the 'damages' model is dead in the water and they all switch to the 'contractual sum' but to be honest, anyones guess is as good as mine.

 

One things for sure though, the DVLA will already (even now) have a data release document (just in case Beavis wins) to justify the continual sale of data and that's why it's so important that people sign up with Michael Green at 'challengethefine'