Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • arrow256
    • By arrow256 5th Jan 18, 5:38 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 4Thanks
    arrow256
    Wrongly accused
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:38 PM
    Wrongly accused 5th Jan 18 at 5:38 PM
    Advice please - Parking Eye’s ANPR camera has me entering a retail car park one day and not leaving until the following day. In fact I made two visits on subsequent days. The idiots have obviously conveniently overlooked the record from their ANPR camera showing me leaving on day one (after about 45mins) and arriving day two (about 1 hour before my departure time on day 2 ) - advice please on how best to proceed - I have ask one of the retailers to contact PE and have the “ invoice” cancelled but interested to know what to do if this fails to have the desired effect.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th Jan 18, 5:43 PM
    • 40,746 Posts
    • 81,341 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:43 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:43 PM
    Start by editing your post to remove information about who did what. Only refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

    Next, please read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then send the BPA template in blue to parking lie, adding a single line to say that the driver made two visits and therefore their ANPR system is in error and you will provide proof at PoPLA if they fail to cancel this.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 5th Jan 18, 5:49 PM
    • 2,197 Posts
    • 6,352 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:49 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:49 PM
    Start by editing your post to remove information about who did what. Only refer to The Driver and The Keeper.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Why? The OP was the driver on both occasions, and should say so, with evidence that it was two separate visits.

    Trying to hide behind the technicalities of POFA is a pointless exercise, unless the keeper wasn't driving and can prove it.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 31. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Jan 18, 6:15 PM
    • 7,669 Posts
    • 6,741 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 6:15 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 6:15 PM
    Sorry FC but I agree with Mr C. There are far too many knee-jerk posts of this nature at this place.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Jan 18, 6:48 PM
    • 17,196 Posts
    • 21,489 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 6:48 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 6:48 PM
    if it is PE then its likely they met POFA2012 so staying as keeper is not the best idea when as driver you were elsewhere , especially if it can be proven

    their whole case is based on the supposition that the driver had one long stay , so in a double dipping case its probably best to meet them head on , especially if their NTK and timeline for delivery met POFA2012
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 5th Jan 18, 7:27 PM
    • 3,956 Posts
    • 5,577 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 7:27 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 7:27 PM
    Who's retail car park was it????

    You must come down like a ton of bricks on the owners of the retail park
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • arrow256
    • By arrow256 5th Jan 18, 9:51 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    arrow256
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 9:51 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 9:51 PM
    I sorry to say but answers to my post directing me to parts of a site I am not familiar with are not really helpful.
    Likewise I feel there are too many abbreviations being bandied about.
    This is simple - I have done nothing wrong- I just went back to my home half a mile away after the first visit to the carpark and didn’t leave my house again until the next morning when I went to the carpark again - how do I prove that?? Surely it is the enforcing agent that must prove that my car was in their carpark for 21 hours. In my case they can’t because my car wasn’t there it was back in my garage. Any useful advice welcome
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jan 18, 10:05 PM
    • 5,190 Posts
    • 3,654 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 10:05 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 10:05 PM
    You need to find the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    It's a thread entitled: **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou!

    You've been on MSE forums for over eight years now so it shouldn't be too difficult to find.

    The first post in that thread explains how to deal with your situation.

    The fifth post explains many of the 'abbreviations' used.

    Like most things in life, if you are accused of something you need to demonstrate why that accusation isn't valid.

    Pretty much like your parking situation.
    .
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 5th Jan 18, 10:18 PM
    • 2,431 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 10:18 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 10:18 PM
    If you are using a mobile phone ,,, you may find that a PC/laptop will improve matters .......

    the newbies thread is here ...

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    please accept that this forum is very ... Very busy and lot of Lots of questions get re asked ....

    to some it may look like you are an experienced forum user as your account is 8 years old ... but I noticed that you have made 5 posts in that time ... so ... please accept that this some times things can wear thin ....

    have a look through the newbies thread ... I am sure it will help ..

    good luck

    Ralph
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 5th Jan 18, 10:27 PM
    • 3,956 Posts
    • 5,577 Thanks
    Half_way
    I sorry to say but answers to my post directing me to parts of a site I am not familiar with are not really helpful.
    Likewise I feel there are too many abbreviations being bandied about.
    This is simple - I have done nothing wrong- I just went back to my home half a mile away after the first visit to the carpark and didn’t leave my house again until the next morning when I went to the carpark again - how do I prove that?? Surely it is the enforcing agent that must prove that my car was in their carpark for 21 hours. In my case they can’t because my car wasn’t there it was back in my garage. Any useful advice welcome
    Originally posted by arrow256
    There will be no agent, just a dumb camera on a stick controlled by a computer that may, or may not work.

    The ton of bricks on the landowner comment comes form the fact that the landowner as principal is jointly liable for the actions of its agents.
    If the parking company has accessed your data without good reason, ie it has been careless in using a flawed system (ANPR) then it has no just cause to access and process your personal data - and then use that data to cause you upset/stress/grief/aggro etc.
    This is/could be interpreted as a Breach of the DPA (Data Protection Act) for which the landowner will be jointly liable.

    Who's car park was it?

    edit- as for the mobile phone comment - you don't need to have been using it, just having it on your person or with you - this only applies to smart phones in most cases though
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jan 18, 10:37 PM
    • 52,914 Posts
    • 66,449 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I sorry to say but answers to my post directing me to parts of a site I am not familiar with are not really helpful.
    Likewise I feel there are too many abbreviations being bandied about.
    This is simple - I have done nothing wrong- I just went back to my home half a mile away after the first visit to the carpark and didn’t leave my house again until the next morning when I went to the carpark again - how do I prove that?? Surely it is the enforcing agent that must prove that my car was in their carpark for 21 hours. In my case they can’t because my car wasn’t there it was back in my garage. Any useful advice welcome
    Originally posted by arrow256

    There is an entire thread about what we call the 'double dip' ANPR phenomenon:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5550336

    and a Parking Prankster Blog or three about it:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/elvis-walks-free-map-department-fails.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

    and this list too, from the 'No To' Mob:

    http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768,0

    You can appeal saying that this was a double visit and it's best of you can evidence where you were in between (e.g. show that your credit card was used 20 miles away that evening, or show you were at work the next day, etc.).

    You might ask why you should provide this evidence? Point being, POPLA will expect you to show the ANPR failure, or POPLA will assume 'the system of cameras' was working.

    Easiest to start by a massive complaint to the Retail Park owners/managing agents/Store Manager.

    As an aside, please also contact WHICH? magazine using the easy link from this thread to tell them briefly of your plight. The more people who contact WHICH, the more likely they are to take up this unregulated scam industry as their next cause:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-01-2018 at 11:31 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jkdd77
    • By jkdd77 5th Jan 18, 11:16 PM
    • 252 Posts
    • 323 Thanks
    jkdd77
    Why? The OP was the driver on both occasions, and should say so, with evidence that it was two separate visits.

    Trying to hide behind the technicalities of POFA is a pointless exercise, unless the keeper wasn't driving and can prove it.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    You've often said, quite forcefully, that PoFA non-compliance is irrelevant unless the motorist can prove they weren't driving. I respectfully disagree.

    As I'm sure you know, in the event of PoFA non-compliance, it is for the PPC to prove on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was driving; the defendant does not need to prove anything. A defendant who wasn't driving ought to win in court in the event of PoFA non-compliance by making a statement to that effect backed by a statement of truth, since the PPC cannot prove otherwise.

    Different judges take different attitudes to the question of driver identity in the case of PoFA non-applicability or non-compliance.

    Where PoFA doesn't apply, some judges take the view that a failure to name the driver, combined with being the RK, is sufficient to show that the defendant was driving, but others tend to take the view that the claimant must provide hard evidence as to the driver on the day to prove their case to their required standard. Judges can ask the defendant directly who was driving, and this question, if asked, must be answered truthfully, but most do not do so.

    I've seen a handful of cases on this forum and on Pepipoo where defendants have won on this ground alone, with the judge dismissing all other defence points, and commenting that the charge would have been enforceable but for the failure of the PPC to comply with PoFA and subsequent inability to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was driving.

    The PoFA requirements are simple, clear, cheap and easy for a PPC to comply with, and many judges, recognising this, are reluctant to bend over backwards to help a PPC who has failed to comply with them on a subsequent fishing expedition against a defendant who might or not be the right person to sue.

    Indeed, "PoFA non-compliance" is normally, although not quite always, a winning argument at POPLA where a motorist has not admitted to being the driver, with POPLA normally recognising that, contrary to what you appear to suggest, it is for the PPC to prove that the RK was driving and not for the RK to prove that he/ she wasn't driving. On the other hand, POPLA appear to be more likely than courts to uphold "double-dip" charges.

    If PPCs could just simply assume that the RK was driving unless he or she could conclusively prove otherwise, there would have been little need for RK liability in the first place.

    Frankly, post Beavis, with many of the old defences (e.g.GPEoL) no longer working, and with so many judges, even circuit judges on appeal, thinking that it makes all PPC invoices enforceable in all circumstances, even where the signage is pathetic, I actually think that PoFA non-compliance combined with a non-admission of the identity of the driver is now one of the strongest remaining defence points, assuming the facts of the case are indeed such that PoFA non-compliance or non-applicability is clear, (as with railway car parks subject to byelaws).

    Having said that, a defendant who was genuinely driving should, in the absence of other killer defence points, probably consider a settlement offer even facing a claim based on a non PoFA compliant invoice, since their chances of success are highly dependent on the attitude of the judge, and the costs associated with losing likely quite high.

    In this case, the OP did not overstay and so has a immensely strong defence. Furthermore, he/ she is not (yet) facing a trip to court, but rather an appeal to POPLA, who routinely uphold appeals based solely on "RK liability not established" (and rarely uphold appeals based on 'double-dip cases), but, with PE, RK liability is likely to apply anyway.

    If the PE invoice appears not to meet one or more of the specific statutory requirements set out in Schedule 4, albeit that this is relatively unlikely, then I would refer to the driver in the third person in the OP's letter denying liability with the intention of winning at POPLA on the "RK liability not established" point.

    Otherwise, I would refer to the driver in the first person, provide a detailed timeline, and provide such supporting evidence as he/ she is able to in order to maximise his or her credibility in the likely court case to follow, given that PE rarely cancel invoices voluntarily.
    Last edited by jkdd77; 05-01-2018 at 11:19 PM.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 6th Jan 18, 7:37 AM
    • 2,197 Posts
    • 6,352 Thanks
    bargepole
    You've often said, quite forcefully, that PoFA non-compliance is irrelevant unless the motorist can prove they weren't driving. I respectfully disagree.
    Originally posted by jkdd77
    I should make it clear that my view on this is based on dozens of court appearances, and relates to court cases, not POPLA or IAS appeals which I don't get involved in.

    Many Judges do not like 'technical' defences which say nothing about the actual facts of the parking event, and in the absence of a denial that the Defendant was driving, will assume on BoP that he/she was the driver.

    Others will go by a strict application of POFA, and if the PPC has failed to comply, will dismiss the claim. The risk for defendants is that they will not know, until they walk into court, which type of Judge they will get.

    The other issue is that if the D has other winning points, such as poor or unlit signage, a double dip, queues to exit the car park, machine issuing wrong ticket etc., it's going to be hard to argue those unless he can say he was actually there at the time.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 31. Lost 9.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 6th Jan 18, 9:39 AM
    • 40,746 Posts
    • 81,341 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I agree that in some cases there is no harm in revealing the driver's identity, and in certain cases it is to the motorist's advantage, but I am of the opinion not revealing the driver's identity should be the default starting point until the poster understands what they are doing.

    Too many people throw away the driver's identity when they shouldn't. Surely it is better to start from a keeper only stand point and then admit to being the driver if necessary once the facts have been established.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 06-01-2018 at 9:43 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • arrow256
    • By arrow256 11th Jan 18, 4:46 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    arrow256
    Hi All - can I first state unequivocally that I was a genuine victim of double dipping by PE. I am 99% sure that I have had this charge cancelled by PE as a result of my appeal to the DVLA Data Sharing Directorate. No explanation of the cancellation of the charge by PE but the DVLA stated that PE had admitted a “camera fault” in their response to the Compliance Officer. If you have being wrongly accused I would recommend the DVLA as an option in dealing with the ticket.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Jan 18, 5:19 PM
    • 34,168 Posts
    • 18,116 Thanks
    Quentin
    Until you get it confirmed in writing that they have cancelled the ticket continue with the appeal process.

    Don't miss any deadlines.

    And don't ignore the advice to edit your posts to remove details of who was driving
    Last edited by Quentin; 11-01-2018 at 5:40 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

570Posts Today

5,407Users online

Martin's Twitter