Postal PCN from APCOA - dodgy ANPR evidence!

fairleee

Hi,

I have just received a letter from APCOA, alleging that my vehicle overstayed in a car park. As evidence of this, they have provided two photos of my car; they first one entering the car park, the second one leaving. They allege that the overstay happened on 07/02/18; however, looking at the datestamp on the photos they provide, the entry photo is dated 25/01/2018 09:42.24, and the exit photo is dated 07/02/2018 16:30.44. i.e., they are claiming that my car was there for a period of 13 days!

This is clearly an error; my car is in daily use by my family and was certainly not in that car park for all that time (indeed, the week commencing 29/1/18 we went away on holiday by car). As a result I would like some advice on how best to word my response to the company; I was going to say something along the lines of:

"To whom it may concern,

I have received your notice dated 6/3/18, regarding an alleged contravention of your terms and conditions. I will not be naming the driver, and furthermore I deny that any such contravention took place.

The evidence you supply from your ANPR cameras shows that the time and date of entry by my vehicle was 25/01/2018 09:42.24, whilst the time and date of exit was 07/02/2018 16:30.44. This equates to a period of 13 days, 6 hours, 48 minutes, and 20 seconds. This is clearly an error on the part of your system which has conflated two separate visits on two separate days, as one continuous visit. I have ample evidence to demonstrate that my car was in constant use between those two dates and was not present at the car park for the entirety of that time. Your system has, incorrectly, failed to note my car leaving on the 25/1/18 (during a stay that complied with your terms and conditions), and also failed to note my car arriving on the 7/2/18, again for a stay that complied with your terms and conditions.

This charge is therefore invalid and will not be paid as no contravention occurred. Please note that, as stated, I have more than ample evidence to demonstrate that my car was in use and not staying at this car park during the time period of the alleged contravention. I suggest you run some diagnostics on your ANPR system as it is very obviously malfunctioning.

I consider this matter closed. Please do not contact me regarding it again except to confirm the cancellation of the invoice.

Yours,
etc."

Is this suitable?

Redx

save your ammunition for popla as they probably wont even read any appeal you make , except to reject it as non-profitable

use the template appeal listed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, appealing as keeper

if they cannot prove keeper liability under POFA2012, then what happened at the time is irrelevant

appeals are rarely won on "what happened on the day or days", they are usually won on legal arguments and/or failings by the operator

fairleee

Redx wrote: »

if they cannot prove keeper liability under POFA2012, then what happened at the time is irrelevant

So, the NTK is dated 06/03/18, and the alleged offence is dated as the 7/2/18. I did not receive a windscreen ticket; therefore, am I correct in saying that the NTK would have had to have arrived by the 21st of February (and have been dated for the 19th), for there to be keeper liability?

Furthermore, they do have photographic evidence of the car arriving, and in that picture, you probably can tell who the driver is (the face is partially obscured, but you could still make a reasonable guess). Would this change things?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

KeithP

fairleee wrote: »

SFurthermore, they do have photographic evidence of the car arriving, and in that picture, you probably can tell who the driver is (the face is partially obscured, but you could still make a reasonable guess). Would this change things?

Does the PPC have access to face recognition technology?

Is there even a database with the face of everyone in the UK on it?

I am pretty sure even the Police and other security services would have trouble putting a name to a 'partially obscured' photograph.

You are right... they can guess.

Redx

"guessing" does not help them , besides which if they fail on all the other legal points , or just a single legal point , they lose

start with the template letter, then put a strong popla appeal in later

Umkomaas

I'd complain to the BPA and DVLA. Clearly APCOA should have some form of exception report that sifts out nonsense 'overstays' such as 13+ days for a human being (if any employed!) to check out before auto issue of a PCN, then let the unfortunate keeper to have to do all the work to clear this from his/her life. Appalling situation.

aos@britishparking.co.uk - FTAO Mr Steve Clark

Ask Steve Clark - a decent human being, unfortunately finding himself working on the wrong side of this murky business - to please check out this ridiculous PCN.

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk