Parking Eye - ALDI Biggleswade

jooliem

I have received a parking charge notice for a company van parked in the Aldi car park in Biggleswade that overstayed. I have forwarded the notice to the driver of the van and he wants to know what he should do about it. The photos only show the vehicle mounting the kerb. The driver claims that he dropped his partner off and picked her up later at the car park. What do I advise him to do? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

spacey2012

Is this kerb their property or the public street.
We are hearing about parking eyes cameras filming public land and using images from public land as evidence claiming parking charges .
If this is the case, they are really in the brown stuff this time.

Cornucopia

If their evidence doesn't even show an "offence" taking place, simply write and tell them. Alternatively talk to the Aldi Manager.

jooliem

It shows the vehicle on the dropped kerb at the entrance/exit to the car park. He says he pulled in dropped his partner off and left and then came back and picked her up. The same thing happened to me in 2010 in a McD's car park where I visited twice in the same day and they tried to use the first visit picture taken going in and the exit photo leaving the car park on my second visit four hours later. Back then I was advised to completely ignore the charge notice and all correspondance and it went away. I think things have changed since then and I want to make sure I don't give the driver the wrong advice.

Stroma

If this road is outside the car park and it's a public road then go to the council and ask them if this an adopted road, if it is then go to trading standards and complain that parking eye are committing fraud by charging people on land they have no authority over.

Get your driver to post here though as it's easier to advise directly as he must now deal with this.

Guys_Dad

But you should write to PE and inform them that their cameras clearly show "the driver" was on the public highway and had not crossed their entrance signs into the car park.

In that case, would they please examine the photographic evidence again and cancel the charge.

If they don't want to do that, then you dispute that you have contravened anything and (now using Parking Prankster's latest blog)
add
"I wish to appeal your charge on the basis that it is not a true pre-estimate of loss. I have read that every case at POPLA when you are asked to produce a breakdown of your charges and justify your pre-estimate of loss calculation, the appeal is upheld.

I will not be entering into any protracted correspondence so please either cancel the charge or provide me with a POPLA code within 35 days."

The_Slithy_Tove

This is surely not so much where the cameras are filming the van, but actually a classic "double dip", i.e. PE conveniently forgetting the 1st exit & 2nd entry. Simply appeal by saying to them:

"The vehicle was not there for the period claimed, as it made two visits to that location. Your ANPR system is clearly faulty."

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

This is surely not so much where the cameras are filming the van, but actually a classic "double dip", i.e. PE conveniently forgetting the 1st exit & 2nd entry. Simply appeal by saying to them:

"The vehicle was not there for the period claimed, as it made two visits to that location. Your ANPR system is clearly faulty."

That's very true if the car entered the car park. I didn't read it like that at first, but it seems likely, Slithly.

I would amend Slithy's appeal by suggesting that they look 5 minutes after the 1st photo they took and 5 minutes before the second one.

spacey2012

This why all ANPR used by councils has to be VCA approved, to prevent tamper by having a raw codec timing format written in to the actual recording.
Parking eyes is a software cobbled together system which they can edit and change to suit.
Every POPLA appeal should mention the lack of VCA accredited ANPR system Parking eye and all the others are presenting as evidence.
Again in court if it gets that far, drag it up, why should they be using such a easily tampered system to gain revenue.
It is nothing short of fraud they are committing.

Guys_Dad

There is one example of a win where a motorist demanded that the PCN produce the tape untampered to POPLA but the file could not be read, so POPLA through out the PPC's case.

I think in every double dipping case the appellant should state that they want a copy of the file to be produced for the relevant times as the alternative is to accept the assertions of the PPC who obviously has a pecuniary interest in the outcome and suppressing the 2nd and 3rd photos.

spacey2012

Why not every POPLA case, double dipping or not, they claim this as foundation evidence, so is it not as important as the contract itself.
Make it as hard as possible for them, demand the footage covering the time-scale 1 hour before, during and one hour after and demand they explain how the system is accurate when it is one device plugged in to another device to record time.
Who calibrates it, who states it can not be altered.

Time to reel this lot in, they have had it way to easy.