PCN alledging 8 hour stay but two separate visits

jackieblack

Hi
I have read the newbies sticky but am a bit overwhelmed by all the info and jargon.
My husband received a PCN from Parking Eye today, alledging that he overstayed. The car park limit is 50 mins and the photos show him entering at 07:23 and exiting at 15:38.
Now, he did enter at 07:23, but just to check the opening times of the store, and exited about 3-5 mins later. He then drive to work and, after work, returned to the store, entering the car park around 15:20, made a purchase(in cash, but hasn't got the receipt) and left at 15:38.
So the allegation of overstaying is false. These are not 'mitigating circumstances', the 'facts' they have given are just incorrect.

Does this make any difference to how we should approach applealimg this?
Thanks for any help you can guve - this is our first time!

Redx

no real difference, just add a point D to the newbies template saying the DRIVER made 2 visits that day and their ANPR data is incorrect - hance your appeal

if they refuse , take it to popla with a typical PE appeal from post 3 of that thread

its well known as parking prankster has blogged about it, including today, see his site

Dee140157

Focus on post 1 of the sticky for now.
You will need to use the appeal in that post.
However you need to add a further point about the fact that you contend that their ANPR system is flawed as you have evidence that you car was at a different place from the time of xxx to xxx. I assume you can get evidence for this either as evidence com another car park , or perhaps a witness statement from the boss stating that he was present with his car during those hours.

This is a clear case of flawed ANPR records. It needs to be challenged very strongly.

Fergie76

Something needs to be done about this double dipping, it's just plain criminal.

HO87

Fergie76 wrote: »

Something needs to be done about this double dipping, it's just plain criminal.

Agreed. However, one man's potentially criminal act is another's business opportunity. If you inhabit PPC World.

The_Slithy_Tove

Fergie76 wrote: »

Something needs to be done about this double dipping, it's just plain criminal.

I would agree. It's extortion if nothing else. The PPCs know their systems are not perfect, yet they still pursue people even when presented with cast iron evidence. But I guess if bankers can go scott free when they've cost the country billions, what's a few criminal PPCs unlawfully fleecing the public of a paltry few million?

Guys_Dad

Is there any way that he can prove the car was elsewhere during the intervening period? CCTV at where he works, perhaps. Proving he was at work on its own doesn't prove the car was there.

But as said, this would be to discredit the technology and win on the truth as you put it rather than "technicalities" which will, of course, win.

daveyjp

The only way of beginning to start seeing the end of this money making scam is for the issue to be reported to Trading Standards each and every time it happens.

One report my not get far, but trading standards will take notice if they start getting report after report.

jackieblack

Thank you all for your advice.

My husband's vehicle is a motorbike, so only has one numberplate on the back.
We've realised that the two photos (which both show his numberplate) are, in fact, both photos of him exiting the car park.

(Not sure why we didn't realise this sooner )

Dee140157

Oh now that's good.
In this case I would be so tempted to do a standard appeal including a general statement about leaving and coming back but not too strongly, get a POPLA code then make it a one point appeal to POPLA on ANPR usage and double dipping.

However I appreciate this is a risky approach and you may want to go for the full POPLA appeal at stage 2.

In fact if you write a strong point in your first appeal, I suspect it would get cancelled straight away, as they would know they are on a hiding into nothing.

So you have all the cards here.

You can chose which way to go. But you won't be paying a bean!

trisontana

So those idiots at PE can't tell the different between the front and back of a motorbike. So much for their umpteen checks they are supposed to do on each picture.