We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Double Dipping
trisontana
Posts: 9,472 Forumite
This POPLA decision gives the lie to Parking Eye's boast that their ANPR system is foolproof and undergoes numerous checks before they issue their fake fines:-
I made a appeal against Parking Eye ticket in Manchester that 'double dipped' my car. I couldn't produce visual evidence of my car being elsewhere during the ticket time, but I knew I had visited Tesco for a large shop (over £50) and the distance between home and Tesco was too long to carry items. I screen grabbed both of these. Appeal upheld.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the vehicle was detected by the operator’s ANPR
system entering the car park at 11:16 and exiting at 17:49. As the difference
between the times was larger than the 2 hour permitted free stay, a parking
charge notice was issued.
The appellant made representations, stating that he left the car park and
returned and that this was not detected by the operator’s ANPR system.
The operator state that this was not possible, and rejected the
representations.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has
provided evidence, by producing an extract from his bank statement, that he
was at a Tesco store during part of the time the operator claims his vehicle
was parked in the car park. As the appellant has shown that the stores are
nearly 1.8 miles away from each other, I find on the balance of probabilities
that the appellant travelled to and from Tesco in the vehicle, meaning that
the vehicle cannot have been in the car park for the duration of the period
to operator alleges. As there is no way of knowing how long the appellant
was parked in the car park for each of the two times, I cannot find that it was
over 2 hours, so cannot find that a parking charge notice was validly incurred
by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
In this instance the motorist could prove that they were elsewhere, but if that hadn't been the case PE could have taken in further.
Just using this argument at POPLA is a risky business, even the Parking Prankster has lost POPLA appeals over this, even though he had strong evidence that he was elsewhere at the time. Still it's good to see a POPLA decision that not GPEOL or contract.
I made a appeal against Parking Eye ticket in Manchester that 'double dipped' my car. I couldn't produce visual evidence of my car being elsewhere during the ticket time, but I knew I had visited Tesco for a large shop (over £50) and the distance between home and Tesco was too long to carry items. I screen grabbed both of these. Appeal upheld.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the vehicle was detected by the operator’s ANPR
system entering the car park at 11:16 and exiting at 17:49. As the difference
between the times was larger than the 2 hour permitted free stay, a parking
charge notice was issued.
The appellant made representations, stating that he left the car park and
returned and that this was not detected by the operator’s ANPR system.
The operator state that this was not possible, and rejected the
representations.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has
provided evidence, by producing an extract from his bank statement, that he
was at a Tesco store during part of the time the operator claims his vehicle
was parked in the car park. As the appellant has shown that the stores are
nearly 1.8 miles away from each other, I find on the balance of probabilities
that the appellant travelled to and from Tesco in the vehicle, meaning that
the vehicle cannot have been in the car park for the duration of the period
to operator alleges. As there is no way of knowing how long the appellant
was parked in the car park for each of the two times, I cannot find that it was
over 2 hours, so cannot find that a parking charge notice was validly incurred
by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
In this instance the motorist could prove that they were elsewhere, but if that hadn't been the case PE could have taken in further.
Just using this argument at POPLA is a risky business, even the Parking Prankster has lost POPLA appeals over this, even though he had strong evidence that he was elsewhere at the time. Still it's good to see a POPLA decision that not GPEOL or contract.
What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
0
Comments
-
All very well, but what if an appellant has no evidence of being elsewhere? It's a bit rich that PE can simply state that their ANPR cannot be in error, and POPLA seemingly accepting it, even if challenged.0
-
Even if their system was 100% fool-proof, there is no way that it could read a number plate it there was a St Bernards standing in front of it.
In any case. they still have to get their money. If they take it to court they have to convince a judge that they are the good guys, and the appellant is lying.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Im not sure if i have come to the right place with this. Please advise if i haven't.
In July we were left with a PCN on our windscreen after "overstaying" on a car park in Preston. £50 early bird discount!
We were unaware that there was any limits to this carpark and as it was a Sunday it was virtually empty.
A month later we received a "outstanding Parking Notice" £100
17 days later a "final demand" came £140 consisting of The Parking charge notice charged at £100. Debt recovery costs: Contacting DVLA, invoice production and correspondence £40.
Since then we have received a "notice of intent" which came a month later. £140.00. It states "unless this incident is under appeal (which it is not), the debt will be passed to a debt collection agency. The appropriate agency will seek a court order instigating the recovery of this debt.
After having looked around the carpark for signs I found 2. One in a tree pointing outwards (not visible on entry to the car park) and a small one on the wall of some shops right next to the shop signs and smaller than the others. There is no clear signage there at all.
I took photographs but i cant work out how to upload them.
I was originally told to take no notice of the parking notice but now im worried. Ive recently been very poorly (still am, but not as bad). I feel physically sick, please help?0 -
Im not sure if i have come to the right place with this. Please advise if i haven't.
Hi kmars. I am not one of the experts but in short you have 'hijacked' an existing thread; don't do this even if your circumstances appear to be the same as that thread.
Read the two sticky threads in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking forum for the latest advice then start your own new thread. That will allow someone far more knowledgable than I to locate your missive and advise accordingly.
Good luck0 -
Thank you and apologies for the hi jacking!
I cant work out how to post a new thread, could you help me?
I know its probably obvious but i cant find it.
Sorry to be a pain!
Karen0 -
Go to the main Parking forum and up in the left hand corner there is a blue box saying New Thread. Click and go.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
There is no doubt a version of the software which would eliminate this double dipping problem but until forced they won't use it.Even if their system was 100% fool-proof, there is no way that it could read a number plate it there was a St Bernards standing in front of it.
In any case. they still have to get their money. If they take it to court they have to convince a judge that they are the good guys, and the appellant is lying.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards