parking fine from 2016 - advice please

KeithP

Do we really need a discussion on whether or not to adjust or remove those paras from the Defence?

It's simple. No need to even think about it. Leave them in. They'll do no harm.

Gingersun

Ok ill add back in, I just removed as advised. The first paras read: 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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, Waford. 

4. 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 as a customer at the aforementioned retail park. 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. It 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.

5. 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.

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of your point 5 (not needed because everything in it is already in the template defence) and replace it with this which is from the overly-long para above it:

5. The family often did short visits there and it 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. It 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.


Also how do you know this for sure, as it was six years ago?

 however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the event as a customer at the aforementioned retail park. 

Gingersun

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get rid of your point 5 (not needed because everything in it is already in the template defence) and replace it with this which is from the overly-long para above it:

5. The family often did short visits there and it 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. It 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.


Also how do you know this for sure, as it was six years ago?

 however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the event as a customer at the aforementioned retail park. 

It's going by the photos taken etc shown...how best to word...'apparently?'

Coupon-mad

Yes, it's more that the Defendant accepts that the Claimant's images appear to show an arrival and an exit image of the Defendant's car.  You do not KNOW that YOU parked on that date.

Fruitcake

I can't remember who drove our car yesterday, let alone five/six years ago. If you are absolutely sure you were driving, then either you are blessed (or cursed) with a very good memory, or the day in question was of some significance to you such that you remember it clearly.

Personally I don't buy it. How can you say on the one hand the defendant parked, yet also say you think it might have been two separate visits? If I was the claimant I would be all over this saying it is contradictory and therefore puts into doubt the idea that it might have been two visits. How could you remember one part but not the other?
If you are absolutely certain it was you, then so be it, but if there is any doubt, and I would suggest there is doubt since you can't be sure if it was one or two visits, then I think you should say the identity of the driver on a remarkable day X years ago is not known, and amend para 2 and 4, and any other paragraph accordingly.

Jenni_D

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, it's more that the Defendant accepts that the Claimant's images appear to show an arrival and an exit image of the Defendant's car.  You do not KNOW that YOU parked on that date.

In which case modify 2 accordingly ... 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Due to the passage of time the Defendant cannot ascertain who may have been the driver on an unremarkable date almost 6 years ago.

Edited based on @Fruitcake's reply above.

Gingersun

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, it's more that the Defendant accepts that the Claimant's images appear to show an arrival and an exit image of the Defendant's car.  You do not KNOW that YOU parked on that date.

The photos are somewhat blurry but do show the people in the car

Coupon-mad

Same people shown on exit?

KeithP

Gingersun said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, it's more that the Defendant accepts that the Claimant's images appear to show an arrival and an exit image of the Defendant's car.  You do not KNOW that YOU parked on that date.

The photos are somewhat blurry but do show the people in the car

But, but, but... how does the Claimant know what you look like?