Printfriendly

Friday, 4 October 2013

ANPR right of reply - rejection letter

The Prankster would like to print Trevor Whitehouse's reply in full.

May I reassure both the public and our clients that we do care about our persona and that we are fully aware of the discontent which our so called 'Rejection Letter' is causing. We are and have been working closely with the BPA to improve the diction following a recent complaint.

Before we attached any tickets, sold any contracts or erected any signs, we employed the services of Martin Cutts from the Speaking Plain English PLC to oversee our literature. He personally supervised and sanctioned all of our stationary which also included the invoices that we send to the motorists. Unfortunately this was prior to the introduction of Popla which as we know was an afterthought.

Ironically the letter in question is not our 'rejection letter' but more of a 'think twice' letter. There is no mention in the code of practise which deters us from sending out such a letter and if it is as we say a 'think twice' letter then it is beyond retribution from the BPA. We actually added the popla reference number in case we were in breach of the code. Our rejection letters are much shorter and to the point. They provide details of how to appeal/ where and we always incorporate an appeal form which we have had pre-printed.

We spend on average £1,000 per month to the BPA for POPLA which is roughly a case a day. Mel my former PA fights every case and 14 days after the appeal has no qualms chasing up the now £140, She will go to any length to seek retribution.

Surely when naivety is the only error then we should be encouraged to offer leniency.

  • But this is my space, I have a permit,
  • I didn't know I had to display my disabled badge on private land.
  • I've just moved in
  • In was only there for a few minutes
  • But I was in the premises
  • I didn't see the signs
  • I'd broken down.
  • I was visiting friends etc. etc

In reply to your 'blog' I am so sorry to see just how incorrect your comments are. May I suggest that you re-read the last paragraph after taking in the following notes. Firstly the clock only ticks 28 days after the rejection letter, 'this is clearly not a rejection letter' On the contrary it clearly says “ I personally think it more prudent at this stage not to forward your claim on to appeals. So there is no clock ticking and therefore 'No time out'... There is no rejection. We also extend the 14 day early bird discount. We do mention an independent appeals process, that is:-- “if your still aggrieved” All of which nullifies all of your bullet points.

The ONLY conditions that Popla will consider (Copied in full from the Home page.)

Grounds of appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are as follows:
  • The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed. 
  • The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid. 
  • The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.
  • I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you had paid to park the vehicle in the first place (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) is not in itself a valid ground of appeal.

Ok now back to my bullet points and you decide? Olive branch £50 or lose and its £100 and £140 (after 14 days) which is almost always the case.

There is no evil, money grabbing, intent behind our motives and I'm sorry that you think that about me or my staff. I am surprised and offended I held you in higher esteem. It is true that I care more about the proprietors than the motorist but thats because the British public think that its wrong not to try to get off a parking ticket, that's its fair to over exaggerate and lie.

I am (unfortunately) old enough to remember what it was like 25 years ago before I invented my clamp and introduced wheel clamping to the service industry. I have always represented the people who are truly aggrieved and that is the land owners who have no alternative but to employ the likes of me because we the British motorist are rude and bend rules where we can.

I like Mr. Martin feel sorry for those without the guilty mind.

 
Trevor Whitehouse
Chairman
ANPR Ltd and National Clamps
1989 ~ Present Day

The Prankster thanks Mr Whitehouse for his comments.

The Prankster has been in contact with Mr Whitehouse via email and as well as the above comments, Mr Whitehouse has also stated an intention to once again seek the advice of Martin Cutts to amend letters in the post-POPLA era. The Prankster applauds this and think this is a good step forward.

The Prankster disagrees with Mr Whitehouse about the ticking clock. As he understands it, once the POPLA code is issued the 4th to 7th digits are a timestamp which starts the 28 day timer. The Prankster will seek clarification from the BPA Ltd and apologise if he is wrong.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

5 comments:

  1. Stationary = not moving

    Stationery = envelope

    ReplyDelete
  2. Parking Prankster you are correct.

    The clock starts fromm when the code is issued. Trevor knows this full well and is being deliberately deceitful. A statement for which i make no apology.

    Although he copies and pastes the reasons for appeal on the popla website he knows full well that you can appeal on anything you like and Anpr have been beaten amongst others on things such as pre estimate of loss etc. He will have read (as Trevor is constantly on the forums all the Popla appeals that have been upheld on the pre estimate loss basis, where on the Popla home page is the pre estimate of loss trevor?

    So yes Trevour ANPR operate deceitful practices and continues to mislead motorists, extorting money to which it is not entitled, even employing H & S litigation which their so called compliance manager (Paul Hargreaves) is a director of. This is no more then a front for anpr

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this guy for real?

    Does he ever read what he writes?

    Does he really believe it?

    If he really is the "saviour" of PPC land why is he widely ridiculed on all the parking forums and being consistently spanked at POPLA.

    Never mind Trev if you don't get your rewards in this world you may get them in the next.

    And you though operating a PPC would be your pension LOL.

    Complete and utter nonsense from this man I would not trust him to run a whelk stall let alone a Ltd Company.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The ONLY conditions that Popla will consider (Copied in full from the Home page.)

    Didn't POPLA admit that these were just guideline appeals reasons, and the motorist can actually use ANY reason for appeal, they just didn't want to list too many as it may confuse the motorist and put them off?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given the amount of time Trev seems to spend exercising his right of reply to people who criticise his company, it's amazing he still manages to talk so much unmitigated drivel.

    ReplyDelete