Fine for Paid Parking Ticket - HX Car Park

Castle

reysham wrote: »

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?

Based on your location history can you work out how long the vehicle appears to be stationary; based on what you have written it looks to be 1 hour and 59 minutes.

reysham

according to the location history, the driver was walking for 1 hour 51 minutes

reysham

I've edited the DS per the suggestions made by Coupon-mad (thanks) and now submit the following. I'd just like to ask though, that in light of points 2 to 6, do the points from points 7 to 15 become redundant?

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXX 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:xx: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 Appeal Response from the Claimant to the Keeper dated xx.10.2018 states that the PCN was issued as the Driver was in breach of the condition that ‘…a pay and display ticket must be bought within 10 minutes of entering the car park’. It is further stated that there is signage within the car park that outline the terms and conditions.

6. 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.

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

8. In addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in the data held by the Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) 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.

9. The ticket itself shows that, per the ANPR and the PDT 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. An astonishingly short amount of time, but definitely within the grace period outlined by the Claimant’s terms and conditions.

10. The Claimant may wish to bring into dispute the time that the Driver left the car parking premises as the data from the ANPR capture and the ticket expiry allege that the vehicle exited the car park some 12 minutes after the paid time.

12. This length of time, while perfectly reasonable as a grace period, is also disputed.

13. 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 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.

14. This contention is 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). This record from the material date shows that the vehicle was being driven at the time the ticket was allegedly purchased.

15. 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.

15.1. 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 for the material date, which will not be satisfied by mere blanket assurances or statements about the 'reliability' of ANPR systems, since this issue is specifically about the lack of sychronisation of two distinctly separate systems at this location.

15.2. 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.

15.3. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

reysham

Please help! I have until tomorrow to submit the defence and I'm unsure whether to focus on the appeal response from the Claimant, or the probable reason for the PCN (which they have not mentioned) in any document.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

If you re read post # 8, you have until 4 p.m. on Monday May 13th to submit your defence.

Coupon-mad

reysham wrote: »

Please help! I have until tomorrow to submit the defence and I'm unsure whether to focus on the appeal response from the Claimant, or the probable reason for the PCN (which they have not mentioned) in any document.

No-one has a Sunday deadline for a defence email.

You have no point numbered #11 now (I didn't advise it needed removing, so is this an error?) and #10 and #12 make no sense, or are in the wrong place so it reads a bit oddly.

reysham

I don't have a printer at home so everything needs to be done tomorrow, AND I have reread the notices/solicitor paperwork again so I'm thinking I may need to rewrite the DS, hence the panic - my own fault, so please accept my apologies.

Having re-read the Appeal Response and the solicitor's first letter outlining the 'charge', I realised that the Claimant is asking for a fine as the ticket was allegedly purchased outside of the 10 minute grace period. Breaching a grace period after the paid time is not mentioned.

Should I revise the DS to address the issue of purchase only, i.e. point out that per their own evidence, the ticket WAS purchased within the minimum 10 minute grace period? It would look something like this:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxx 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: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 Appeal Response from the Claimant to the Keeper dated xx.10.18 states that the PCN was issued as the Driver was in breach of the condition that ‘…a pay and display ticket must be bought within 10 minutes of entering the car park’. The Appeal Response further states that there is signage within the car park that outline the terms and conditions.

6. 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.

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

8. In addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in the data held by the Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) 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.

9. The evidence supplied by the Claimant themselves shows that, per the ANPR and the PDT 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. An astonishingly short amount of time, but definitely within the grace period outlined by the Claimant’s terms and conditions.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

Should I revise the DS to address the issue of purchase only, i.e. point out that per their own evidence, the ticket WAS purchased within the minimum 10 minute grace period?

100% NO.

Having re-read the Appeal Response and the solicitor's first letter outlining the 'charge', I realised that the Claimant is asking for a fine as the ticket was allegedly purchased outside of the 10 minute grace period. Breaching a grace period after the paid time is not mentioned.

Sounds like the appeal response and solicitors letter are wrong and you would be silly to drop half your defence based on old letters that were misleading, only to find later (too late) at Witness Statement & evidence stage that they ambush you and say in fact this is about 10 minutes overstay (which it clearly is).

It is obviously not about not buying the ticket in time, so don't be led up that garden path, only to be caught out later on.

Stick with the fuller defence you had, and add in somewhere, in addition, that you have evidence according to your Google location history, that the driver was walking for 1 hour 51 minutes and this supports the view that the car was, on the balance of probabilities, not parked for over two hours at all and nor is the evidence from the Claimant strong enough to demonstrate an unreasonable overstay not covered by the grace periods either side of paid for time, especially as the purported ANPR timings either side of 'paid for time' are demonstrably unreliable/verging on impossible. Either the PDT machine or the ANPR system is not synchronised to Greenwich Mean Time and you put the Claimant to proof re BOTH systems' synchronisation.

reysham

edited:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxx 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:xx: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 Keeper therefore states that the additional time beyond the paid time – alleged to be some 12 minutes – is not only perfectly reasonable as a grace period, but also disputed.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 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.

16. This contention is 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). This record from the material date shows that the vehicle was being driven at the time the ticket was allegedly purchased.

17. 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.

17.1. 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 for the material date, which will not be satisfied by mere blanket assurances or statements about the 'reliability' of ANPR systems, since this issue is specifically about the lack of sychronisation of two distinctly separate systems at this location.

17.2. 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.

17.3. 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.

18. In addition, according to the driver's independent phone evidence, the driver was walking for 1 hour 51 minutes after parking, and the vehicle was also in motion 4 minutes before the alleged ANPR capture upon leaving.

18.1 This is more than sufficient to cast doubt upon the timings supplied by this Claimant as, on the balance of probabilities, the car was not parked for over two hours at all, and therefore was parked for the paid time.

18.2 If, per the Location History, 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.

19. The evidence provided by the Claimant is therefore not strong enough to demonstrate an unreasonable overstay not covered by the grace periods either side of paid for time

20. 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.

21.. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

Very nice, now print that off, sign & date it, and email it as per KeithP's advice.