Fine for Paid Parking Ticket - HX Car Park

reysham

I don't get it, my replies keep disappearing!

12 minutes 12 seconds from time of expiry to ANPR capture.

According to PND Data, ticket was purchased within a minute of ANPR entry capture.

PCN and Appeal Rejection state that driver was in contravention of condition that states that ticket must be purchased within 10 minutes of entry. As evidence clearly shows that ticket WAS purchased within this time, can my defence outline same? Or should this point be in addition to the above?

Hoping this reply makes it!

Coupon-mad

The 12 mins 12 secs is from expiry time to ANPR capture of vehicle exiting.

Driver paid within 1 minute of entering according to ANPR capture and PDT Machine data.

See, I'd say that to drive round, find a space, park, lock the car, read the signs, then walk to the PDT machine and pay, all within 1 minute, is nigh on impossible.

It leads me to conclude that the clocks attached to the ANPR system are ahead of the clocks that serve the separate PDT machine system.

You can certainly allege this in defence and say their evidence actually supports your contention that the ANPR clock is not synchronised with the PDT machine clock, such that even 2 minutes 'out' would make a person look like they had overstayed by more than 10 minutes when in fact, they didn't.

Have you got from that day:

dashcam footage
GPS tracking
Google location on your phone

that proves they are minutes out with the real time?

reysham

I have tracked my location history for the date in question and I'm unsure how reliable the data is because the data shows that i was driving until 9 minutes after the time the ticket is stamped, i.e. either my phone is/was 9 minutes out, or the ANPR and the PND machine is/was.
The location history also shows that I was driving 4 minutes before the ANPR capture, circumventing the car park perhaps?
What do I include in the DS regarding the above?

Coupon-mad

Please explain in more detail, with minutes, e.g.

On arrival

- my phone shows I was driving (NOT at this location?) until 8.13pm but
- the ANPR ''in'' photos suggests I drove past the camera at 8.04pm, and
- the PDT machine ticket time is suggested to be 8.05pm

then on leaving:

- the 'out' ANPR image suggests I drove past the exit at x.xxpm, but
- the PDT ticket was valid until x.xxpm, yet
- my location is shown as having left 4 minutes before, at x.xxpm

Can you fill in the real times you have?

reysham

According to the Location History, the car was not parked there that day. It shows the vehicle driving past the car park, but then moving past it.

So:

It is proposed that there was a service issue with either the ANPR or the PND machine. This is due to the Location History on the driver's phone showing that the vehicle was being driven at the time the ticket was purchased. In addition, the vehicle was also in motion 4 minutes before the ANPR capture upon leaving. At both times, the car was not near the location of the Claimant's car park.

The possible repercussion of this issue is that the ANPR is capturing images and providing false information, leading to possible legal cases being raised that have no basis in actual facts.

reysham

Is it plausible that both the PND machine and the ANPR can be synced, and therefore both are incorrect, because the dates on both align.

reysham

Another thing, on the PND machine dump, there are two entries for the car on the same day. One is added by 'Auto', and the other has a name redacted. Is this normal? I've tried looking for images to compare but can't find any.

reysham

amended DS with redacted information:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that a ticket was purchased at xx:xx on the material date for the vehicle to be parked on the land for a total of 2 (two) hours until xx:xx.

3. An ANPR capture of the vehicle provided as evidence for the PCN shows entry at xx:x:xx and exit at xx:xx:xx on the material date.

4. The PCN states that the notice relates to the ‘period of parking’ – the evidence shows the vehicle as it is entering and exiting, and NOT in parking conditions, i,e. in a stationary position, parked within a parking bay.

5. The signage in the car park is at a height that is not easily visible for a short person – the photographic evidence was taken by the driver, who is 5ft 2in tall. It is evident that some effort must be made to read the terms in its entirety.

6. The signage informs drivers that they must purchase a ticket for parking and does not make clear that the charges are for navigating the space when entering and exiting.

7. In addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in the data held by the PND machine for the vehicle. Two entries are shown, with the times differing by some seconds, one logged automatically and the other with the person’s name redacted.

8. The ticket itself shows that, per the ANPR and the PND machine, the driver parked, removed the accompanying toddler from the car seat and purchased the ticket within 60 seconds (if the second entry line is to be believed) or within 2 minutes. Neither scenario is plausible.

9. It is therefore submitted that there was a service issue with either the ANPR and/or PND machine. Either scenario would then affect all times – arrival, expiry time and time of exit – and bring the issue of an infraction into question.

10. Even had this not been the case, the terms for BPA signage is clear that drivers are to be provided with a sufficient grace period during which to meet the conditions of the parking service both before and after the payment period.

11. The grace period provided to drivers should take into account any and all situations that could prevent a user from leaving at the exact expiry time. This includes, but is not limited to: mobility, the presence (and therefore safety) of children and the conditions of driving within the car park. The Claimant does not outline a grace period after the expiry of the paid time.

12. The driver has outlined in their witness statement that, on the material date, a young child was present. By necessity, the driver was responsible for ensuring that the child was secured in the vehicle safely, and all child-associated paraphernalia stored away.

13. In addition, the driving conditions of the car park are not easily navigated – the video evidence provided show the repeat manoeuvring required to navigate an exit from the car park.

14. A Location History of the driver on the day in question shows that the vehicle was in motion 4 minutes before the ANPR capture of the vehicle exiting at xx:xx:xx.

15. The Claimant’s evidence purports that the vehicle exited the car park 12 minutes and 12 seconds after expiry time.

16. The Location History refutes the Claimant’s argument that the BPA suggested grace period of 10 minutes after expiry for parking was breached.

17. The Keeper further states that the additional time beyond the paid time – a total of 12 minutes and 12 seconds - was used to secure a minor into the vehicle per the legal requirements and guidelines of the law and to safely exit the car park without posing a risk or causing harm to other users.

18. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

19. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

20. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

You need to change #11 as the ''12 mins 12 seconds'' is disputed (be more vague):

11. The Keeper therefore states that the additional time beyond the paid time - alleged to be some 12 minutes but this is not only perfectly reasonable as a grace period, but is also disputed - etc etc

Then your new bit can be 12, 13, 14, 15 but fleshed out more, like this?:

12. The Defendant has independent evidence that puts into significant dispute, the reliability of the times shown by this Claimant. It is proposed that there was a service issue with either the ANPR or the [STRIKE]PND[/STRIKE] Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) machine, or at least it is averred that the clocks are unsychronised and contradictory between the two systems and give false readings. The possible repercussion of this issue is that the ANPR is capturing images and providing false information, leading to possible legal cases being raised that have no basis in actual facts.

13. This contention is [STRIKE]due to[/STRIKE] supported by evidence that will be adduced by the Dedendant, namely the Location History on the driver's phone (a reliable and independent source of actual timing, not set by the Defendant or Claimant). [STRIKE]showing[/STRIKE] This record from the material date shows that the vehicle was being driven at the time the ticket was allegedly purchased.

14. Further, this contention is supported by the Claimant's own evidence, which astonishingly expects a keeper receiving their unsolicited postal PCN to believe that the car was captured by ANPR at the entrance in one minute and had already paid at the PDT machine, by the next minute.

14.1. This is simply not credible as a timing and exposes the fact that the ANPR system, whilst working in tandem with a PDT machine system, is not synchronised with that machine's clock. The Claimant is put to strict proof, which will not be satisfied by mere blanket assurances or statements abut the 'reliability' of ANPR systems, since this issue is specifically about the lack of sychronisation of two distinctly separate systems at this location.

14.2. It is not possible that the driver has driven in and slowly traversed the car park around pedestrians to find a space, then parked, got out, unstrapped the child and put them safely into their buggy (taken from the boot and set up securely first) then walked to the only visible PDT machine in a corner, then queued to pay, having also read the signage and noted the tariffs and then paid, all within sixty seconds.

14.3. The original - and far more reliable and unbiased - founding Trade Body for this industry, the British Parking Association, published an article* about the need to allow an 'observation period' on arrival, which the BPA suggest ''might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.'' Not one minute flat.

15. In addition, according to the driver's independent phone evidence, the vehicle was also in motion 4 minutes before the alleged ANPR capture upon leaving. This is more than sufficient to cast doubt upon the timings supplied by this Claimant and if the car was being driven four minutes before the Claimant says it even left, then in fact, the car had left well within the 10 minute 'grace period' that has applied as a mandatory minimum in all car parks for some two years. The Defendant avers that a PCN should never have been issued and the Claimant had no DVLA KADOE 'reasonable cause' to obtain the registered keeper's data at all. [STRIKE]At both times, the car was not near the location of the Claimant's car park[/STRIKE]

*BPA article about the two periods before and after paid-for time:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

This and other evidence (and the driver's WS you mention) is for later, not now. Nothing goes to the CCBC with the signed defence.

reysham

Thank you - the statement reads much more 'legally' now. Ok I'll amend and post up before I print and sign.