PCN alledging 8 hour stay but two separate visits

jackieblack

The earlier photo is suspiciously dark, despite the fact that it was bright and sunny at 7.30 that morning, only the actual numberplate and a reflection from the reflective strip on the bollard separating the entry/exit lanes of the car park are visible.


Could I please ask a question regarding reason C on the template? (I am looking at the shortened version for online use)
The signage in this car park is very clear and prominent. Ought I to still keep this in?


Does this sound ok?
D) I contend that the ANPR system is flawed and the data incorrect.
The driver made two separate visits to the car park on the day in question and your photographs show the driver exiting the car park on each of the two visits.
This is evidenced by the fact that the motorcycle only displays a number plate on the rear.


My husband is going to telephone the retailer he visited on that day (large motorcycle showroom/accessories store) tomorrow, hoping that they will be able to cancel the PCN, but I'd like to get the appeal wording ready in case they're not co-operative.

Dee140157

Yes keep signage pont in. It may be prominent, but this doesn't make it compliant. It will depend on height, font, words used, whether there was entrance sign, etc etc.

And yes point d) is good too. I suspect you will get a cancellation at this stage. They would be barking mad to take you to POPLA!

jackieblack

Dee140157 wrote: »

Yes keep signage pont in. It may be prominent, but this doesn't make it compliant. It will depend on height, font, words used, whether there was entrance sign, etc etc.

And yes point d) is good too. I suspect you will get a cancellation at this stage. They would be barking mad to take you to POPLA!

Thank you for your help

The_Deep

Whatever else you do, take it to Trading Standards, however way you look at it , this is attempted fraud.

Parking-Prankster

Hi there jackieBlack, I would love to blog about this. Please contact me at [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]


It's all jolly interesting, especially as ParkingEye threatened to sue me for exposing flaws in their ANPR system


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/hill-dickinson-try-and-gag-prankster.html


Just to remind fans of Hill Dickinson's diligence in investigating their client's claims, they wrote:

Your allegation that our client uses a fundamentally flawed ANPR system...These allegations are seriously defamatory of our client in that they allege our client intentionally used flawed practices to purposefully catch motorists out and ensures it recovers the maximum amount of money through parking charges... This allegation is baseless.

Dee140157

See what an excitement you are causing on the forum. Normally it's appeal and be done. But yours could be so good at POPLA for picking out the flaws in the ANPR systems used by PPCs such as Parking Eye.

Do let Pranksters have your details. If you haven't read any of them you should, they are very good, converting many aspects of Parking.

jackieblack

The_Deep wrote: »

Whatever else you do, take it to Trading Standards, however way you look at it , this is attempted fraud.

Have rung them this morning, they have taken the details and assured me it will be 'passed on'.

The_Deep

Oh dear! Never ever make a complaint by telephone. Always put it in writing. A telephone conversation can be denied or misinterpreted, a paper trail is for ever.

Unless you want this to be side tracked I suggest that you send a follow up letter.

jackieblack

The_Deep wrote: »

Oh dear! Never ever make a complaint by telephone. Always put it in writing. A telephone conversation can be denied or misinterpreted, a paper trail is for ever.

Unless you want this to be side tracked I suggest that you send a follow up letter.

Will do, I will also quote the reference number I was given

Dee140157

It's great that you are taking the fight up with Trading Standards. The more complaints the better.

Please do not feel you have to do a one point POPLA appeal should it get that far just because we think it is such a good piece of evidence. We do get excited by such glaring errors from the PPCs. But we also get that you just want the charge cancelled and to get on with daily life, so a full appeal may well be better for you.