Upcoming court case

spacey2012

The trouble with the POFA is once you admit your vehicle was on the site, you are liable, end of story.
All the old defences rely on making this admission from the start.
If a District judge could be convinced that the Vehicle Certification Agency standards apply in small claims as they do in all other courts the only evidence they have is inadmissible and you do not have to answer any questions which may incriminate or compromise your position .
An attack on the foundation of their case is a challenge that could provide a golden bullet, if they claim to be acting under legislation then surely the Vehicle Certification Agency standard certification must apply to them.
They can not have both.
Just one win leaves them with millions of pounds of useless ANPR cameras producing inadmissible proof your vehicle was on the site.
It has to be worth a try, the old defence approach just comes in way to high for POFA to clamp on to.
Make them prove your vehicle was there, attack the foundation evidence.

zzzLazyDaisy

As I understand it the Vehicle Certification Agency relates only to police ANPR, but I am willing to be corrected on that by someone who has better information.

Crabman

Forensic wrote: »

I'm in the process of building up a defence for a case I have previously written about regarding Parking Spy.

Hi Forensic :hello:

I've merged both of your threads together so that all the relevant information can be kept in one place for your own benefit and for those in future who may discover this thread via an external search engine.

Forensic

I am fine with the merging of threads so thanks Crabman.

To ZZZ & Spacey:
Yes I'll look into the VCA and whether it applies for private cameras, there has to be some regulation in place because they could be printing whatever times they choose otherwise. But then this BPA requirement that equipment be maintained and calibrated might just stand for that principle. So the consensus is to begin with attacking the foundation and only if they survive that and make it to the courtroom with discussion regarding allegation coming into question do we start chopping higher.

So when writing to claimant:
Asides the documents I mentioned on Post 28 and certification that equipment is up to scratch raised in later posts, I need to request a copy of the contract authorising the operator to issue legal proceedings on behalf of client per Post 24.

zzzLazyDaisy

Forensic - just to clarify a mistake of mine in an earlier post - filining an acknowledgment extends time to 28 days from date of service of the court claim. Check your papers to find date of service in your own case.

Forensic

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Forensic - just to clarify a mistake of mine in an earlier post - filining an acknowledgment extends time to 28 days from date of service of the court claim. Check your papers to find date of service in your own case.

Yeah that's all been done thanks. Spoke to someone in Northampton today so I'm aware of the exact dates for each element.

I now know the order and procedure of actions, such as application for strike out forming part of the written defence as well as how it would be defended on day of possible hearing should it be given go-ahead. I was also informed about mediation which takes place from end of first phase until the possible time of hearing, to see if the matter can be resolved, but this is something I know about because I've had three dealings with Industrial Tribunal where you deal with ACAS - I see from your signature you know all about that too!

Forensic

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

4 Re the letter about the PD - your choice whether to send it, but it does seem to me that a PPC that has not complied with the pre-action steps will probably be suitably grateful that you have brought it to their attention now, so they have time to rectify their mistake

Hi there. I've been away from MSE these past couple of days working on the issue.

Out of curiosity, why do you recommend I alert PE of their wrongdoings? The PD is published and anyone issuing legal proceedings has a responsibility to familiarise himself with the decree because if he doesn't and the defendant informs the court (either when drafting defence or on day of hearing) then the claimant's hands are tied. Isn't bringing this to their attention a way of helping them and allowing them to rectify their errors thus strengthening their chances of the case going ahead?

Umkomaas

I think it's to show just how reasonable you have been in trying to resolve this, whilst at the same time showing how a company, with in-house legal advice (text removed by MSE Forum Team) has failed to follow procedure, when, in fact, they should be expected to follow procedure and explain to you, without access to the same level of legal expertise as them, how this procedure works.

Moral high ground should it come to court.

I'm sure this is why Daisy is recommending this approach, but I'm sure she'll be along shortly to confirm (or otherwise).

zzzLazyDaisy

You have it in one Umkomaas! :j

Forensic, it is just a suggestion and if you choose not to go down that route, that's absolutely fine.

D

spacey2012

The VCS standards are what is accepted in English courts as ANPR standards.
Camera systems have to be of a data format which writes the timecode in to the data stream in an approved data verification standard.
This is so the raw data format can not be corrupted.
Only a two camera makers have the VCS verification standard equipment.
Local councils must meet VCS standards on bus lane ANPR cameras or the evidence is ruled inadmissible.
As parking eye claim to be acting under statutory legislation of POFA, the case that to act under such legislation should carry the same weight as local councils with reference to producing evidence before any court obtained using ANPR equipment.

As we see here, even local councils have had ANPR camera evidence thrown out of court for using non approved equipment .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060

Now, I know our friends cameras do not come anywhere near close to meeting this standard and have no VCS certificate.
The argument must be put forward that what they are producing as evidence is not of an evidential standard by law for all statutory authorities, then it should not be so for those claiming to act under POFA.

When given a parking charge notice by a warden, they have a witness you were at the site, or at least your car was .
Remove the ANPR evidence as non compliant and this shower have nothing.
There has to be a cure, everything has a cure and I feel this could be the silver bullet for ANPR parking Charge notices.
Someoneneeds to start and attack the foundation they build the case on before POFA comes in, which it does once you admit to the event.