VCA raises again as council forced to refund tickets

spacey2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26757327

Council has to refund £347,000. due to ANPR cameras not meeting VCA evidential standards.


Now this has to be worth a punt in the Civil Courts When parking Eye use ANPR evidence in court evidence.

Non VCA equipment does not meet evidential standards of court evidence in Civil penalty notices then the argument it does not in civil court proceedings has to be worth a punt and possible inclusion in the super test case ?
I know I go on about this, but if it was found to be so that is the end of the court cases once and for all.

Parking prankster ?
Any comments.

Judges have "hinted";) about the standard of camera evidence in civil parking charge notice cases without it been pulled up.
Perhaps they are trying to tell us something...:j

da_rule

Non-VCA equipment doesn't meet the standards for criminal courts, in the same way that breath test machines must be a Home Office approved device as must speed detection equipment etc.

For civil cases the burden of proof is much lower, so you could have a digital camera on a pole taking pictures of every car that drives in and out, as long as the number plates were readable. You could then have someone employed to just look at the pictures, write down the number plates and apply to the DVLA. The only time that I can see that it would make a difference in a civil trial would be if there was obviously a difference between the plate shown on the image and the plate that the ANPR camera had detected.

lescm19

Westminster Council fell foul of this recently and all their traffic enforcement CCTV had to go offline

The_Deep

Bur surely, if PPCs use this equipment as a basis for charging for time used, and a complaint was made to Trading Standards would they not be required to check that the timing devices which were part of the cameras were accurate?

bod1467

PE (I think) lost a court case within the last 6 months or so on the basis of their ANPR cameras not being properly time-synched with their data server, so they couldn't prove that the defendant was actually in breach of the time limits. IIRC the VCA approvals was mentioned during the case.

da_rule

The ANPR must be calibrated in terms of time. I believe there was a suggestion with ParkingEye that the camera took the image, then sent it to a computer where the time stamp was added, so the question was about whether this was sufficient.

ColliesCarer

Yes your right bod1467 it was ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was 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.

fisherjim

If a butcher's scales have to be approved and checked by trading stds selling you an £8 piece of meat, why should a scummy PPC get away with charging you £100 to park your car with a non approved ANPR.

da_rule

fisherjim wrote: »

If a butcher's scales have to be approved and checked by trading stds selling you an £8 piece of meat, why should a scummy PPC get away with charging you £100 to park your car with a non approved ANPR.

Because the products are being sold by volume/weight (same as fuel etc) and breaching this could have criminal consequences under the Sales of Goods Act or simply fraud.

The problem private companies will have is, if they're relying on the timings on the ANPR system they will need to show it is calibrated/reliable.

spacey2012

Them the question of calibration arises, hence the VCA protocol was adopted.
Given the case where the judge pick up on this, I can not help thinking something is getting missed that could just kill them stone dead in the water.

bargepole

da_rule wrote: »

Non-VCA equipment doesn't meet the standards for criminal courts, in the same way that breath test machines must be a Home Office approved device as must speed detection equipment etc.

For civil cases the burden of proof is much lower, so you could have a digital camera on a pole taking pictures of every car that drives in and out, as long as the number plates were readable. You could then have someone employed to just look at the pictures, write down the number plates and apply to the DVLA. The only time that I can see that it would make a difference in a civil trial would be if there was obviously a difference between the plate shown on the image and the plate that the ANPR camera had detected.

Correct.

The point is, that in civil claims, the evidence is decided 'on balance of probabilities'. So in the case of an overstay, unless the time overstayed was very close to the limit, a Judge can decide on balance that the motorist probably did exceed the limit.

But arguing about accuracy of camera timings, or for that matter signage, is not a route I would want to go down, because you are then implicitly accepting that if the signage was compliant, and the camera timings correct, you are liable for the charge.

Far stronger arguments are available, such as the fact that with no consideration there can be no contract; the lack of standing for the PPC to litigate in their own name; and of course the fact that no loss has been suffered by the PPC, whether actual or pre-estimated.