Upcoming court case

Umkomaas

spacey2012 wrote: »

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.

I wonder if the Parking Prankster might be interested in testing this - he's got a few cases pending! I'll PM him.

spacey2012

Can it hurt to cut it in a defence.
Only needs one judge to agree and they have a couple of million pounds worth of useless cameras.
To be able to cut them down at the start with what they are using as foundation evidence would see there court cases run cut of dead.
If they can not prove you were there, you certainly do not have to admit you were.
The only proof they have is this ANPR system that as we know, can not even track a person visiting twice in 24 hours correctly, again something that should be shown as the system been totally unreliable.
It may show your vehicle did visit the site from a photographic prospective but when relying on time coding software obtained from video, this is when strict standards come in to place.
Why should they be any different.
Get it in a defence.
If it works, they are totally *****

Forensic

Not too late. I shall take it on board.

joannemc3

I have also taken all of the points on board, My appeal has been sent to PE.
will let you know how i get on.

Thanks for all of your help.