POPLA decision negative but my car wasn't there

Geoff1963

Check your local Council website for CCTV, it may have a map of locations, or have a look along your route, though it won't be kept for long. They are there to prevent crime, including presumably fraud by parking operators.
This is Manchester :
Rhttp://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200030/crime_antisocial_behaviour_and_nuisance/6900/request_cctv_footage

You can pretty much tell them exactly what time your car was at any place, so it's a quick look for them ; and you only need one frame with the reg number, somewhere off their site. Two journeys, 11 minute walk = 1 minute drive maybe.

Geoff1963

It does seem as if you are being required to prove you were somewhere else ; rather than them being required to prove that during the 7 hours they claim you were there, every vehicle which went in and out of their site was properly identified.

Do any of the businesses on the site have CCTV ? They might show you moving around.

What about businesses on your route ? Not sure if police cars / traffic wardens / police officers have video, but it might be worth asking.

Umkomaas

This is a private parking charge, not a murder or terrorist attack. I can't see anyone agreeing to commit resources to checking back through cctv footage.

Geoff1963

If the company is fabricating ( by selectively withholding ) evidence, that's fraud. The OP will know to within a minute, when they passed any camera.

If it was me, I'd be asking the Council at least.

rm54

Thanks everyone... I'll try some of those contacts... not sure what you mean by it not being a good idea to use POPLA this was the only avenue open to me and HV ignored all my emails... and what do you mean lucky for me they don't sue people...you mean for the parking charge...

Coupon-mad

rm54 wrote: »

Thanks everyone... I'll try some of those contacts... not sure what you mean by it not being a good idea to use POPLA this was the only avenue open to me and HV ignored all my emails... and what do you mean lucky for me they don't sue people...you mean for the parking charge...

Where did we say that it's not a good idea to use POPLA? It would have been, if you'd worded it right and not told them who was driving - or if you had supplied proof of your location.

If you'd used our appeal wording, Highview would have cancelled within 24 hours without any need for POPLA. Next time!

The Council (as such) will not be interested, but Trading Standards might.

rm54

I did supply them with proof of my location via a letter from my course tutor saying I was there all day... and also photo of my college parking permit... so I expected it to work... but unfortunately I didn't know about your wording...

Geoff1963

There is perhaps a lesson here for the rest of us ; if you return to an ANPR-managed car park, get some proof that the vehicle was, for a time, somewhere else. Pity we have to be so paranoid.

Half_way

Geoff1963 wrote: »

There is perhaps a lesson here for the rest of us ; if you return to an ANPR-managed car park, get some proof that the vehicle was, for a time, somewhere else. Pity we have to be so paranoid.

Why go to all that faff, its obvious that ANPR is not for for the purpose to which PPCs claim its for.
If you get double dipped an error has occurred and the PPC and those who allow this scam to operate on their land should feel the full force of any actions/DPA claims.

Geoff1963

its obvious that ANPR is not for for the purpose to which PPCs claim its for.

Perhaps it is not obvious enough to everyone. That's why I'm suggesting this charge should if possible get beaten on proof ( it was elsewhere ) than a technicality of enforcement ; and any more get beaten the same way.

"Well, your honour, my half-blind 90-year old granny saw the car arrive at 8 am and leave at 6pm, but she didn't see or remember any other comings and goings."
ANPR is good for reading plates, but I think such claims should have to supported by video evidence of the car park, showing the car was continuously there. The more we can beat, the sooner that will become a requirement.

I am of course not suggesting, that anyone should deliberately do a double park, and in the meantime log irrefutable proof of it being somewhere else ; just so that the parking company can be prosecuted, and their equipment discredited. Just so we are clear on that.