PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks - Parking Fine Sainsburys Ilford, Notice To Keeper received
samosa111
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 19:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



Hi there

I'm finding conflicting guidance over how to deal with this parking fine.

What should I do with this? Do I ignore (are these truly unenforceable), do I appeal or write some other kind of letter to have this cancelled, or should I simply pay up?

BTW I do have evidence that a purchase was made from that Sainsbury on the particular date/time of the fine.

Links to scanned parking fine:
Click here to view

Thanks in advance for your help

This post has been edited by samosa111: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 20:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 19:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 20:35
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



best bet is to contact the manager of the store, not the customer disservice desk, and complain.

It is not a fine it is an invoice.

To hold the keeper liable they have to comply with POFA, they haven't. Check the ticket you received with must be included as defined in POFA, especially 9 (2) . The have also not stated the required period of parking, moving in front of yhe cameras is moving not parking.

they have also not specified the allowed period allowed. What was it. If it was 2 hours then there should be a 10 minute grace period.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:10
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:35) *
best bet is to contact the manager of the store, not the customer disservice desk, and complain.

It is not a fine it is an invoice.

To hold the keeper liable they have to comply with POFA, they haven't. Check the ticket you received with must be included as defined in POFA, especially 9 (2) . The have also not stated the required period of parking, moving in front of yhe cameras is moving not parking.

they have also not specified the allowed period allowed. What was it. If it was 2 hours then there should be a 10 minute grace period.



Thanks for the reply

The staff at the branch were not helpful - their only response was "it is clearly signposted that you have 90 mins free parking". I phoned the customer services number for Sainsbury's and their only advice to a "write to ECP to appeal it"

It looks like my vehicle had stayed over 2 hrs but only 1.5hrs was permitted.

So what's my next move?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Post up the redacted PCN, leaving dates

You need management or head office. myou spent money and can prove i

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:38
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



[quote name='ostell' date='Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 22:17' post='1399539']
Post up the redacted PCN, leaving dates


Click here to view the PCN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:48
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Sorry I missed the original posting! It's flippin awkward using the tablet!

Here's a link to POFA. Check what you got with what is required. section 9

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 21:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 07:28
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



WE didnt say staff
WE said manager
Manager. Not staff. Manager

The manager tends to care more about people returning to the store, and not pointing out how stupidly short a time limit ECP have imposed on Sainsburys. Yes, I bet this is ECP dictating 1.5hrs as they werent getting enough when it was longer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 12:18
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 08:28) *
WE didnt say staff
WE said manager
Manager. Not staff. Manager

The manager tends to care more about people returning to the store, and not pointing out how stupidly short a time limit ECP have imposed on Sainsburys. Yes, I bet this is ECP dictating 1.5hrs as they werent getting enough when it was longer.



I go back to the branch again today and speak to the manager.

But are you saying, this is the only way to get out of this fine (for it to be cancelled by the manager)? If he/she refused, then do you advise that I pay it (today is the deadline for discounted payment)? If there is another way, please do let me know.

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 12:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



If the manager does not play then next step is Sainsbury's head office, if that does not work then you compare the PCN to the requirements of POFA and appeal on that basis.

No one pays ECP, they do not do court currently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 15:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



To avoid being chased by debt collectors, whic his boring and a waste of paper, we advise you to get it cancelled.
THat does not mean you should pay
Your research, whcih you MUST DO, will have told you that NOONE pays ECP, theyre entirely toothless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 16:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



QUOTE (kommando @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 13:40) *
If the manager does not play then next step is Sainsbury's head office, if that does not work then you compare the PCN to the requirements of POFA and appeal on that basis.

No one pays ECP, they do not do court currently.



I went to see the manager at Ilford but I was advised that he was away for the rest of the week. The assistant manager said that there was nothing Sainsburys can do. He went on to mumble that he is doubtful that I could have spent two hours in Sainsburys (90 mins is the allotted free time).


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:08
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



To start you off in YOUR research, this is my thrashing of them a couple of years ago:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...id=1214223&

This will guide you but YOU MUST do your own reading and understand the process.

In particular, don't lose sight of the deadlines they arbitrarily impose. By meeting them, you look reasonable. Your initial appeal must be with them within 28 days, regardless of any parallel discussions you are having with Sainsburys.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Don't wait for the manager to come back off hols, do head office now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 18:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



QUOTE (kommando @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 18:43) *
Don't wait for the manager to come back off hols, do head office now.


Here's the response from Headoffice. Look's like they're not interested in intervening. What now?




Thanks for your recent email. I'm sorry to hear you were fined for over staying in the car park while you were shopping in our Ilford store. I can certainly understand your frustration.

Please be advised that this car park is owned and maintained by Horizon therefore we have no authority to intervene on your behalf. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and hope to see you in store again soon.

Kind regards


Lorraine Cregan | Sainsbury's Careline
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd | 33 Holborn, London | EC1N 2HT
customer.service@sainsburys.co.uk | 0800 636 262
twitter.com/sainsburys | facebook.com/sainsburys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 18 Jul 2018 - 21:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Read post 9 for next step, note that no one pays as they are not litigious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 07:58
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Owner by Horizon?
Odd
Ask the council who pays the rates...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 17:40
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Very odd.

Horizon Parking own and maintain the car park but Euro Car Parks 'enforce' the parking 'regulations' there.

Methinks someone at Sainsbury's Head Office has been very lazy and used a template response without checking the facts. Methinks also that Sainsbury's CEO needs to be apprised of his employees apparent laziness during working hours.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:11
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Check with the local council who pays the business rates. I'll be very surprised if a car park owned by PPC A, is being enforced by PPC B. If however, it is Sainsburys who pay the rates then email this chap:

mike.coupe@sainsburys.co.uk

He is the CEO.

Copy him the email from Lorraine Cregan and ask him - in light of the information you have received from the local authority (send copy of the Council response) - to confirm that the car park at Sainsbury's [fill in branch details] is actually owned by Sainsbury's and not a random private parking company which isn't even the same company that enforces the car park at that location.

Ask him what his atiitude is towards genuine customers being lied to by Sainsbury's head office staff, and harassed for a ridiculous and unjustifiable charge by what appears to be a contracted agent of Sainsbury? Ask if he'd like this incident highlighted in social media, or whether he agrees that you have been treated shoddily and is willing to assist.

Include a copy of your receipt.

Bear in mind though that ECP are toothless. This is just to stir the sh*t a little bit, and to get rid of this ticket, which can hang over you for six years, should ECP suddenly have a change of heart in the next few years about their attitude towards court.

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:14


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 16:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Don't lose sight of the dealines imposed by ECP, et al. They are very easily beaten with a long appeal to POPLA if Sainsbury's give you the runaround.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samosa111
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 20:55
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,588



I'll try writing to Sainsbury's CEO but given their attitude so far, I won't hold my breath - it appears they simply want to wash their hands of having to deal with it.

I've read post no.9 and the link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted. It's all very confusing.

Before I submit my appeal, I wanted to push my draft appeal past you helpful souls. Based on my research, I have modified (removing what I thought was not relevant and adding whatever I believe applied to my case) the appeal submitted by [b]Cabbyman in September 2016 and this is what I intend to write to them as part of my appeal. Your corrections/guidance/confirmation would be greatly appreciated.[/b]

I've bolded my amendments.





As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

1) No keeper liability
2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines
3) No evidence of period parked
4) No landowner authority
5) Lack of signage- unclear signage
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate


No keep liability - your notice must meet the strict requirements of paragraph 9 if it was intended to be a 'Notice to Keeper' (NTK).

The non-compliant wording of this NTK is fatal for 'keeper liability'.

In terms of wording:

- The NTK states "Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed" - it does not state what the maximum period allowed actually was. This is contrary to Section 7(2)(b).

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that: ''the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full''. BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that: ''the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver''

- The NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to: ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and ...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid''

- Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before they actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.


If ECP should try to suggest that there is any method out with the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK and the lack of any windscreen NTD or PCN served whilst the vehicle was stationary. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

2) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance to guidelines:
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

3) No evidence of period parked. The NtK clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. Any alleged overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’.

4)No landowner Authority:

I question ECP’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park. I have been advised in writing by Lorraine Cregan (Sainsbury's Careline) of Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd | 33 Holborn, London | EC1N 2HT "that car park is owned and maintained by Horizon"

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ECP to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question ECP’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

Since you do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ECP is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that ECP are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge car park and that issuing 'PCNs/NTKs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I put ECP to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital; I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers.

I require ECP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

5) Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

The entrance signage was not suitably placed to be read from a distance for a driver in an approaching car whilst manoeuvring into the car park from the public road and many of the words are in a small font and are not legible or intelligible.


The BPA Code of Practice states that- “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm. “

There were no conspicuous signs throughout the site. I put ECP to strict proof on this point. As well as a sitemap they must show photographs of the signs as the driver would see them on entering the car park bearing in mind that they may be completely unfamiliar with the area, the approach to the car park, the entrance to the car park, or the layout of the car park. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. If the driver did not notice any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. Furthermore, as stated, a suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, (should they be easily located), decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner.

Furthermore, the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard, even if I was certain which of several drivers could have used the car that day. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.




6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they, in fact, offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event. The requirements state that all photos must be date/time stampted, which yours are not.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR- work

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally, under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ECP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of this vehicle being in that car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamps. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photo images, I put ECP to strict proof to the contrary.



I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

From
Mr XXXX of xxx as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

This post has been edited by samosa111: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 21:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:28
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here