parking fine from 2016 - advice please

Fruitcake

You should tell the truth. If you know you were driving, say so. If you don't know who was driving on an unremarkable day nearly six years ago, then say so.
If it might have been two separate visits, even if you are not sure, then say so.
In all cases you put the claimant to proof that the opposite is true.

Gingersun

Thank you, yes totally it's just hard to recall the events of the day. Nothing significant....besides he passenger has a history of back issues, and a family member was seriously ill at the time. It might have been two visits so will include that. Any other advice welcome. Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Gingersun said:

Thank you, yes totally it's just hard to recall the events of the day. Nothing significant....besides he passenger has a history of back issues, and a family member was seriously ill at the time. It might have been two visits so will include that. Any other advice welcome. Thank you 

As already said.

State that the family often did short shops there and if seems most likely this was two visits, auto-misread (with no human checks of any images)  as one long stay.  This is highly likely, due to the Defendant's family being local frequent visitors to the shop, and this common camera system error was caused by the well reported ANPR inherent flaw of reverting to 'first image in, last image out' in a 24 hour period.  Well known and exposed by the BPA as a flaw of ANPR systems, such that they require their members to carry out human checks of ANPR images to specifically look for what the industry call an 'orphan image' in the middle of what loons like a long stay, in order to avoid issuing incorrect Parking Charges to regular shoppers.

Gingersun

Thank you - how's this? Do I include about the notice not being POFA compliant? or not relevant?
all other paras/numbered points as template?
Aim to get this sent on Friday.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant was issued with a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXXXX nearly six years ago on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2016, when the Defendant visited Waterfields Retail Park, Watford. 

The Defendant parked in the car park at this location and was a customer at the aforementioned retail park. The alleged event was nearly six years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the event. The allegation appears to be that the vehicle overstayed the free parking period based on images by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site. The family often did short visits there and if seems most likely this was two visits, auto-misread (with no human checks of any images)  as one long stay.  This is highly likely, due to the Defendant's family being local frequent visitors to the retail park, and this common camera system error was caused by the well reported ANPR inherent flaw of reverting to 'first image in, last image out' in a 24 hour period, which is well known and exposed by the BPA as a flaw of ANPR systems, such that they require their members to carry out human checks of ANPR images to specifically look for what the industry call an 'orphan image' in the middle of what looks like a long stay, in order to avoid issuing incorrect Parking Charges to regular shoppers.

At no point when parking does the Defendant recall any clear, prominent signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used and the shops visited. The Defendant therefore does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimants charges valid.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.

Coupon-mad

Do I include about the notice not being POFA compliant?

No. Completely irrelevant to an admitted driver.

Fruitcake

You need to add, "but liability is denied" to paragraph 2.

Gingersun

Fruitcake said:

You need to add, "but liability is denied" to paragraph 2.

Thanks added that.

Gingersun

Thanks - and the POFA points further down (15?) - these stay?

Fruitcake

Gingersun said:

Thanks - and the POFA points further down (15?) - these stay?

No, since you have admitted to being the driver. The PoFA only helps a keeper/hirer who was not the driver.

Le_Kirk

If you are using the standard template, you do not need to add "deny liability" because that is now in paragraph #1.  All paragraphs require a number.  Your paragraph which is below paragraph 3 but two above paragraph 4 (see why you need numbers now) has repetition of the "defendant did park".