VCA raises again as council forced to refund tickets

da_rule

The other outcome may be that the PPC's just buy ANPR camera that appear on the VCA approved list, a cost to them yes, but will get around it.

I think the issue will be that the burden of evidence in criminal matters being higher (beyond all reasonable doubt) than in civil matters (balance of probabilities). It would however be a good point to raise as standard in a court defence where ANPR has been used alongside the usual point (no GPEOL etc).

Fergie76

What about double-dip arguments?

ColliesCarer

Good point Fergie76 - also I've seen a couple of posts from people who never actually went on to the private car park but entered and left a premises very close to the car park entrance and got a charge because the ANPR had picked up their plate. What would be the issues in this scenario?
Minimum distance from boundary the camera was located?
Was the vehicle actually within the boundaries of the private land when the image was taken?

da_rule

As it's a test on the balance of probabilities, it would be a case of submitting the potential of double dipping as a defence and the PPC would have to show what radius their ANPR picks up, and whether it extends further than the land that they are employed to manage.

If it does, and this extension is onto public land, there may be other issues regarding data collection/protection.