Double dipping appeal letter

tadpole74

Hi all

I'm just preparing my appeal letter for a PCN I received from Euro Car Parks. My car has been caught double dipping but not with an ANPR camera but an employee based in the car park. I'm using the template letter from the Newbies thread but wanted to add an additional paragraph and wanted to run the wording past the experts on here.


a). The PCN is flawed (hence invalid) as it assumes there was a single duration visit. The vehicle attended this site on two separate occasions on the date of this PCN, and neither visit exceeded the allowed stay. I have two neighbours who are witnesses to the vehicle being parked at the registered address on the morning of 21/11/14 at the time it is claimed the vehicle was parked in the Co-op carpark.

Should I get a signed statement from my neighbours or wait until my appeal is rejected?

Thanks

Herzlos

Wait until it's rejected.

tadpole74

Thanks, does the wording in paragraph a) seem ok?

Herzlos

Yeah it looks fine, they are with the BPA so you'll get a chance to make a full appeal to POPLA (All the usual points about it not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, etc). They'll likely reject it anyway.

I thought ECP did pay-and-display car parks, was this a free for X hours car park?

tadpole74

Yes free car park for 2 hours.

Thanks Herzlos, I better get this appeal sent off.

Umkomaas

a). The PCN is flawed (hence invalid) as it assumes there was a single duration visit. The vehicle attended this site on two separate occasions on the date of this PCN, and neither visit exceeded the allowed stay. I have two [STRIKE]neighbours who are [/STRIKE]witnesses to the vehicle being parked at the registered address on the morning of 21/11/14 at the time it is claimed the vehicle was parked in the Co-op carpark.

Add:

I presume you have an audit trail of the photographs of cars entering and exiting the car park, in which case it will be quite easy for you to check the car's each entry and exit times.

However, if photographs were taken by a hand-held camera without a Notice to Driver being affixed to the car's windscreen, then should this appeal not be upheld I will make a full complaint to the DVLA that ECP is failing to adhere to its Kadoe contract. In terms of keeper liability, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes absolutely no provision for the use of hand-held camera evidence without the accompaniment of a Notice to Driver placed on the car windscreen.

Please let me know how you wish to proceed.

---

No need for Witness Statements.

hoohoo

The BPA code of practice requires them to send you all photos if asked.

Ask for them, because this will clearly show the vehicle in 2 different parked places.

tadpole74

I don't think they take hand held pictures (though I could be wrong). They use one of those handheld machines and I am assuming just punch in the registration number. But I suppose there is no harm asking for their evidence.

I did ask at the co-op store if they had cctv so that I could prove that my car left the car park but they said the cameras are only placed at the entrance to the store and not the car park.

Umkomaas

Did you get a windscreen ticket attached to the car?

tadpole74

Yes. It was placed on the windscreen during the 2nd visit to the car park

Umkomaas

Sorry, misunderstood.

OK - ask to see photographic evidence to see if you can identify from photos 2 separate locations.

But, you can win this easily on GPEOL, signage, lack of contract, locus standi - all standard POPLA winning lines. Even if you do get good double-dipping evidence, the strong likelihood is that POPLA will opt for GPEOL.

Just get this won!