Definition of Remote Detection

parkingbandit_2

Hi,

I'm currently wrangling with Napier Parking and bwlegal as the vehicle keeper (no notice given to driver, they went straight for NTK). Current stage is at LBC pursuing me as keeper and the driver has not been identified. I'm just trying to align my info prior to a possible court case. Advice in the sticky threads has been great and I have a good defence due poor signage and no likely contract with a driver, but I have a question I hope someone can answer for me.

The signage indicated that ANPR was in use (but I think that's a lie...). A SAR response did not indicate that any data was gathered by ANPR on the vehicle, only that vehicle data was obtained from the DVLA from ZatDVLA, which I think is a feature of ZatParking - but I'm not sure and this could be key. However, the SAR response did contain a few photographs that were clearly taken by a hand-held camera.

So, no evidence was provided from overhead cctv etc. Regarding the "hxxx://goo.gl/ef54LK" Guide on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA Section 6 Ticketing, at 6.2 the landholder is permitted to request keeper details from the DVLA where a contravention is detected remotely. But surely in my case this couldn't be considered a remote detection of an alleged contravention in the context of the guidance...?

Since a parking attendant (contractor, I suspect) was present to determine alleged contravention (the attendant checked the "whitelist", which I presume is a list of vehicles to ignore, so there was more of a function than just being a photographer), should Napier have issued a ticket to driver as per Section 6.1 and not elected to obtain the keeper's details as if this was a remote detection? I would have thought that gathering the vehicle details using a parking attendant does not in any way constitute a remote detection...

Any advice or thoughts on this would be appreciated. It smacks of sharp practice - no attempt to ticket and then immediately going for the keeper doesn't appear in the spirit of the guidance. Thanks in advance.

The_Deep

As long as the PPC have obtained the necessary permissions for the signs, advertising permissions, cameras and poles I doubt that it matters if they, or a parking weasel, was used.

Fruitcake

I don't believe the PoFA mentions the method of obtaining photographic images. It refers to a NTD and NTK, and the methods by which they must be given in order for them to be relied upon by the PPC.

If there was no NTD then a NTK must meet the requirements of para 9 of schedule 4 of the PoFA. How the photographic "proof" of the contravention was obtained is irrelevant, and the DVLA are perfectly happy to sell the keeper's details to the scammers when requested.

parkingbandit_2

I agree - I think the PoFA does not mention how photographic evidence should be obtained. Just that the PoFA Guidance implies that a NTK is only applicable for cases in cases of remote observation etc.

StaffsSW

Having researched a few "known sites", the parking wardens I believe without exception are cowardly, insidious inadequates who do all they can to avoid confrontation, to the extent that one was driving past a row of parked cars, taking pictures from inside his car.

Umkomaas

http://goo.gl/ef54LK

If you want to pray in aid the guidelines, then quote them in a complaint to the DVLA, asking why are they providing the PPC with your data from a photograph which has clearly not been taken by remote detection.

If there was someone close enough to take a photo, then they were close enough to issue a Notice to Driver (windscreen ticket), giving the driver the opportunity to deal with it.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

However, just to exclude the possibility that ghost ticketing might be in play, what is the date of the 'contravention', and what is the ' Date of Issue' shown on the NtK please?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

parkingbandit_2

@Umkommas,

That's a really good suggestion. I am now about to complain to the DVLA. Let's see what happens...

The NTK, the SAR to Napier and the SAR DVLA all indicated the same date. Definitely not double ticketing.

Umkomaas

parkingbandit wrote: »

@Umkommas,

That's a really good suggestion. I am now about to complain to the DVLA. Let's see what happens...

The NTK, the SAR to Napier and the SAR DVLA all indicated the same date. Definitely not double ticketing.

I didn't refer to 'double ticketing', it was 'ghost ticketing', where a parking goon places a ticket on your windscreen, takes photos of it, then puts the ticket back in his pocket. It avoids confrontation if the driver returns, finds the ticket on his windscreen and finds the goon still in the car park!

However, just to exclude the possibility that ghost ticketing might be in play, what is the date of the 'contravention', and what is the ' Date of Issue' shown on the NtK please?

Dates?

MothballsWallet

StaffsSW wrote: »

Having researched a few "known sites", the parking wardens I believe without exception are cowardly, insidious inadequates who do all they can to avoid confrontation, to the extent that one was driving past a row of parked cars, taking pictures from inside his car.

I wonder what would happen if someone saw said "warden" using a camera-like device while in charge of a vehicle (engine running and it moving, albeit slowly)?

I wonder what the police would have to say about that as it's driving without due care and attention?

Unless said "warden" is a passenger and their mate's driving in return for a coffee or beer later.

KeithP

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I wonder what the police would have to say about that as it's driving without due care and attention?

In a private car park?

Why would the police be interested?