unclear photographic evidence

scazone

I have challenged a PCN based on the photographic evidence being insufficient to prove that the driver was not a patron of the premises.

I have received a reply in which National Parking acknowledge that "although the image does not show the person exiting from the vehicle, from the position we feel it is very likely this individual did exit from the vehicle" . Have they just admitted they can't prove that the driver was not a patron?

The photos from their camera are so indistinct I couldn't possibly identify who is in the photos and I can't see how they link the vehicle and the shadowy figure they claim got out of it.
Has anyone else had a similar issue and how was it resolved?

pogofish

TBH, photographic "evidence" means little if anything to PPCs. Even in legitimate enforcement, it sits at the bottom of the evidential food chain.

You are far better to challenge them on the proven points outlined in the Newbies Sticky at the top of this board, or by a direct complaint to the company involved.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

fisherjim

They are just scammers what do you expect follow the advice on here, this is just another one of their stupid ideas to extract money, it's unlikely to get anywhere.

scazone

Thank you for your replies. They may be scammers however I was sent this parking charge notice on the basis that they do not believe, based on photographs from their static camera, that the driver of the vehicle was a patron of the pub who employs them.

The only evidence they have for this assertion are the photographs which are very indistinct and as they admit in their letter, can only say "it is likely this individual exited the vehicle".
Pogofish, i don't know what other proven points I can appeal. It is my car in the photos but I can't remember who was driving and cannot see from the photos.

waamo

Have you complained to the landowner? Does the ticket successfully transfer liability to the keeper?

At the top of this board is a thread that tells Newbies to read it first. That thread tells you how to challenge tickets. You need to have a read of it

Coupon-mad

I have received a reply in which National Parking acknowledge that "although the image does not show the person exiting from the vehicle, from the position we feel it is very likely this individual did exit from the vehicle" . Have they just admitted they can't prove that the driver was not a patron?

That is sooo hilarious I am going to suggest you try this one at IAS stage. If you have a receipt to show the driver was a patron, then their prima facie case isn't going to stand up very well if they tell the IAS the above.

Got to be a rare one where IAS is worth a try.

Of course the driver got out the car. That's what people do. That's not going ''off site''!

fisherjim

[QUOTE=scazone;76791621
"although the image does not show the person exiting from the vehicle, from the position we feel it is very likely this individual did exit from the vehicle" . Have they just admitted they can't prove that the driver was not a patron?
[/QUOTE]


As CM says that is just hilarious, obviously written by someone that missed a few English lessons at school.


What does it even mean?
It is contradictory.
It seems to suggest the driver exited the vehicle which is surely what the trader would want, the driver couldn't spend anything in the business if they didn't exit the vehicle.

Or is the muppet that wrote that rubbish suggesting the driver left site, but can't string the correct words together.

Do the signs say the driver has to enter the pub, or that the car park is for customers of the pub?
What about taxi drivers waiting for customers?
What about other occupants of the vehicle.

Absolute amateur rubbish.

beamerguy

scazone wrote: »

I have received a reply in which National Parking acknowledge that "although the image does not show the person exiting from the vehicle, from the position we feel it is very likely this individual did exit from the vehicle" . Have they just admitted they can't prove that the driver was not a patron?

Just imagine NP telling a judge that ??

NP must be chatting to UKPC who uses this rubbish. Both are as daft as a brush:rotfl: