Private parking ticket via ANPR (Cameras)

scousedicko

Can anybody tell me, definitively, if the fact "photographic evidence" obtained from ANPR cameras erected without planning permission at a car park entrance and exit are admissible as evidence in Court?
I have a letter from the Local Authority confirming Planning Permission was not applied for, and confirming it should.

I'm working with a sizeable group of victims (2 dozen), most currently responding to County Court summonses. I am not legally trained, but we are all learning fast!

If the "evidence" is inadmissible, can you quote chapter and verse, precedent, previous cases, please? Victory would be sweet.

We are collating witness statements from the different victims to establish that there were reasons some of the site's conditions could not be complied with, thus trapping visitors to the car park into a "breach of contract" - allegedly - and have begun to collect witness letters/statements from local people not directly involved. Of course, each of these letters/statements is totally independent in each individual case ehre the witness has no direct involvement in the "incident (offence?).

All results will be put on here as they happen.

Dee140157

The only thing I can suggest is, if you haven't already google Mold and cameras or search this forum as there was a newspaper article for this car park.

scousedicko

Interesting, thanks. Doesn't really help but shows the contempt these cowboys have.

Northlakes

scousedicko wrote: »

Can anybody tell me, definitively, if the fact "photographic evidence" obtained from ANPR cameras erected without planning permission at a car park entrance and exit are admissible as evidence in Court?
I have a letter from the Local Authority confirming Planning Permission was not applied for, and confirming it should.

This may be one point only being put forward as evidence but there are many more significant defence points as you will see from this forum. As you are representing a group I would suggest you pay a small sum and get an expert on the job (such as Prankster). He and few others know the winning points in court. From memory these are PE cases and need to be stayed awaiting the outcome of the Beavis appeal.

Coupon-mad

Glad you are fighting this robustly and in contact with others, to ensure you all win - these CEL ones are the easiest cases to defend, luckily.

However, you won't win in court on planning permission issues IMHO. If this was CEL you can all win as registered keepers simply by pointing out that the 'second condition' under POFA2012 schedule 4 paragraph 9 has not been fulfilled by CEL as the mandatory wording is not compliant. Ergo no 'keeper liability' is possible in law.

As long as no victims have gone and told CEL they were driving! They'd have to just argue 'no GPEOL' and 'CEL v McCafferty'* as per usual for CEL cases.

And BTW none of the group have Court 'summonses'. These are merely small claims where CEL is saying 'he owes us money' and you are saying 'no I don't'.

And CEL always drop cases or don't turn up - I guess you've read all the cases on pepipoo and seen that is true? Boris the Spider's case and others over there confirm it - the first rule of defending a small claim is...to turn up! Especially if i's CEL because they won't, so you win! And turn up armed with a list of your costs, stationery, a few (not dozens of) wasted hours at £18 per hour court rate, lost wages (within reason up to £90) and of course travel/parking costs for getting to the court so you can ask on the spot for the Judge to order costs in your favour! You can also point out it is vexatious & unreasonable for a BPA member parking firm to send out court claims in a scattergun approach to scare keepers into paying them, when in fact no keeper is liable to CEL based on their paperwork and CEL and the BPA know this very well. Then to pursue the matter to a hearing then not turn up, having previously lost at Appeal v Miss McCafferty this year (so they know the score already) is unacceptable behaviour towards consumers who were never liable and have been stressed and who have wasted hours on defending the whole scam.




* transcript from Feb 2014 in the Newbies thread link in post #5 of that sticky 'cases won by defendants'. All CEL defences need that as an exhibit and in their wording.

bazster

I agree. A court would see planning issues as quite distinct from and irrelevant to contractual issues surrounding parking charges.

If a shop set up in your local high street without planning permission would that invalidate the contracts between the shop and anyone who bought something there? The answer, obviously, is no.