Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Wheels back on - ANPR right of reply

Trev Whitehouse from ANPR has been in communication with The Parking Prankster, resulting in this 'guest post'. The Prankster invites other parking companies to put 'their side' if they wish.

Here is Mr Whitehouse's response to this earlier blog entry.

We can categorically deny that we reimburse the proprietor, this is a misinterpretation of the facts, naivety and a loop hole once exploited and now closed.

Collecting revenue from offenders and repaying the proprietor with payment would constitute a 'Service' and attract Vat on fees. We should remind you that Vat is accountable only on goods and service and not on damages that arrive from trespass on land. In any case collecting damages for the proprietor is our opinion a 'kick back' which is totally unethical. Unfortunately I do agree that there are too many companies who don't see it that way and may place them selves and the proprietors in deep and precarious waters with HMRC coming to the rescue. May I reassure everyone that every client of ours is charged £30 per sign per year plus vat and we are paid to deter not to chastise! Hence the would be offender causes our company to be in breach of our contract and in doing-so WE legally seek and spend all of the damages.

In regards to that particular case; We had not prepared for such a defence and expected arbitration to be a little more astute. Nevertheless may I re-assure our clients (proprietors) that we have since proven and justified that charging a proprietor for the deterrent value of the warning signs is liquidated damages and the pre-determined fee of £100 is a term and condition of parking that a motorist accepts by staying put. “If you don't agree with the fee... then move”


  1. Was Trev tired and emotional when he wrote this?

  2. So does Trev understand the law?

    If Trev doesn't pass anything to the landowner, then there are no Landowner damages/losses in his 'fee', so what is he claiming for? (Genuine pre-estimate of losses - my Arse - Jim Royal 2013 (allegedly!))

    If it were for damages/losses it wouldn't attract VAT so that argument is a nullity, but then as we all know it isn't really for genuine damages/losses it would - argh that makes more sense.

    They are paid to deter - right on, it's a deterant - aka penalty.

    So what Trev has told us is that he has no right to ask for anything at all - thanks Trev! We should now all print, trim with gold leaf and add to an ANPR POPLA appeals!

  3. I'm a little confuzzled. £100 is now a term and condition of parking yet the signs say that it is liquidated damages for breach of contract with the land owner. I know the signs say that because I have just been to and had a look. I wonder if all of ANPR ltd's signage will now be altered to reflect this new status and how much this alteration will cost the motorist. £100 perhaps?

    I am also confuzzled by the Pranksters' spelling of 'Shitehouse.'

  4. "that charging a proprietor for the deterrent value of the warning signs is liquidated damages and the pre-determined fee of £100 is a term and condition of parking that a motorist accepts"
    This is really his point?? Surely he has just managed to state that the £100 is NOT liquidated damages but is part of a contract for the supply of goods or services?

  5. Please everyone, lay off Trev, he's special,when i say special I Obviously mean special needs judging by the steaming pile of horse s*&t contained in his reply. It looks like English, however I think it's actually wronglish, nonsensical, comical, would be good adjectives (sorry Trev for using big words you probably don't understand). He clearly doesn't understand that the word unethical actually is a perfect description of his companies business practices, I think it's best for Trev to run away to the circus to be with his fellow clowns