parking fine from 2016 - advice please

Gingersun

I can make out the people. Only on entry in pictures

KeithP

Gingersun said:

I mean I can *

Why not edit your post to correct it?

As I said earlier, how do the parking company know what you look like?

Coupon-mad

And if you can't see who was driving on the exit image, that reinforces your suggestion that there is no evidence that this was a single visit.

Far more likely 2 short trips within 24 hours, quite possibly by different drivers in the family, or just returning something or getting a forgotten shopping item. 

Gingersun

Coupon-mad said:

And if you can't see who was driving on the exit image, that reinforces your suggestion that there is no evidence that this was a single visit.

Far more likely 2 short trips within 24 hours, quite possibly by different drivers in the family, or just returning something or getting a forgotten shopping item. 

Ok thank you so if different drivers possibly,  go with I don't know who was driving for sure..? I thought I'd need to state if I can make out who is driving, even if they don't know. Thank you 

Coupon-mad

But you can't tell.

If this is a double visit how the heck do you know who did the second visit, or even if it was two visits - you have no idea so don't admit that you know that you shopped there that day.  You don't!

We have already advised you how to word this about an 'unremarkable day'.  Hundreds of defences use that phrase here (search the forum, this is normal stuff).

Gingersun

Hi How's this? Does this defence work for me making out the driver in the photo - should I be asked outright I can identify from the photo but no photo of people leaving? did I need to add the bit about not being pofa compliant? Thank you

Think maybe too late to send today now - deadline should be Monday as advised when looking at dates.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not known who the driver/s were on that unremarkable day almost six years ago as the car had shared use. 

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, at Waterfields Retail Park, Watford. 

4. 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.

5. 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

Coupon-mad said:

Just copy any other Highview defence from 2022 (search the forum and read half a dozen so you get what's needed). They never use the POFA so they can't hold a keeper liable.

As I said to you way back in May, as above.  YES this is as simple as copying including the POFA stuff seen in other Highview defences. You could just copy one and it would have taken you 20 minutes!

Your mistake in earlier drafts was in admitting to shopping there and being the driver when in fact, you know no such thing and this is a non-POFA PCN, and there is not even any evidence that this was a single visit.

I have a paper form through - do I not fill that out? do I do online instead? I'm confused - the paper form asks for employment info & bank info etc.

Which is why the clear advice already set out in the NEWBIES and the Template Defence thread (both) tells you not to fill out any paper forms, but to EMAIL the defence as a signed & dated PDF.

You do not do the defence online either - EEK!!

Gingersun

Thank you - yes i understod that - haven't filled out any forms and will email defence. I was stating driver - as although I can't recall I can make out the photos entering so Just wanted to be clear as I may need to admit this.

So how's this please? Thank you for all the help. Hopefully nearly there...

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is not known who the driver/s were on that unremarkable day almost six years ago as the car had shared use. 

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, at Waterfields Retail Park, Waford. 

4. 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.

5. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the PoFA, Schedule 4.

Coupon-mad

That'll do (followed by the entire re-numbered template defence, and signed/dated).

Is this a typo for Watford?

"Waford."

Gingersun

Coupon-mad said:

That'll do (followed by the entire re-numbered template defence, and signed/dated).

Is this a typo for Watford?

"Waford."

Thank you, yes spotted that after. wait til monday am now to send you think? Thank you