Napier Parking - Aggressive Letter

RaptorBlue

Hi @Snakes_Belly yes he is 17 so technically a minor, although i dont really want him involved as such and going to court, if I wrote to BW Legal naming him as the driver Im not sure that they would not then persue him which is the last thing I want and hes too young to get caught up in a court case....but if you think that may get them to drop this then its an idea.

I suppose I could say in court that the ticket was on display but not shown in photos doesnt mean that is wasnt there, you can take a phot from any angel and one will show something and the opther wont, Im sure its been argued in various types of cases that photos are not always the truth of the matter and as you say can easily be tamperd with.

If a judge is working to a balce of probability Id hope they would go with the burden to prove a ticker wasnt bought, not for me/my son to prove one was.

RaptorBlue

@Snakes_Belly that could be an avenue to explore, would my son need to turn up to court or just give a statment though, i think it would be too much to ask him to turn up even for a civil matter, if I write to BW and they start asking for his details and him to give a statment and send his details it will get messy and upsetting for him, hes still quite a young 17. If simply writting to them stating that my son who was the keeper at the time was 17 and a minor so the case should not proceed and they took that and dropped it then great....but my gut feel is that they would just then persue him which I dont want, id rather take the hit then him being involved.

Trainerman

If they still went after him, you could still be his Lay Rep in court

Snakes_Belly

I am from a financial background and not legally trained. My knowledge of the law relates to finance, lending etc.

You could go with him as a Mackenzie friend. That means that you cannot answer for him but can support him and pass notes during the hearing.

My own opinion which is not necessarily the opinion of the regulars on this forum is that it is going to be how believeable the judge finds the defendant. There is of course a possibility that something else may come out of the woodwork such as whether Napier has the landowner's authority to pursue the claim through the courts.   

Snakes_Belly

When you blow up this image there is something white on the dashboard. It's not a reflection but looks like it could be a parking ticket. At first I thought that it might be a tissue as it looks a bit crumpled. If the driver did try to push it down it could be crumpled.  Blow it up to 300.

RaptorBlue

@Snakes_Belly I think I would want to go down that road, even if im there with him, thats a lot for a 17 year old whos never been in troible, it wouldnt be good to put him through it and for a parking ticket of all things!

Lets see how far they will go, if it comes to court I may decline to say who was driving the car or say can't remember, if the Judge demands it i will say it was probably me, but as this isnt obviously a criminal issue Im not sure how far a Judge can insist, although i wouldnt want to be found in contempt of court, so lets see.

As for the photo i agree its the onlt one that givves an indication as my sopn said that the ticket was pushed under the black park of the windscreen. All the other phots seem on purpose not to try to show that, cant see it clearly if blown up but there is doubt what that could be and it could be a ticket, Napier/BW cant prove that it wasnt and as no phot seems to have been taken directly via the drivers side looking straight on to the dasjboard (which seems odd) the one that is from the drivers side is set back and at an angel that dows the streeting wheel but not the top of the dash, none show the dask except from either above or from a distamce. Maybe thats my argument, that there was a ticket but the person taking the photos purpossly took photos so it was not seen....this may even be a "tactic" that Napier take, its easy to do and very hard to prove that thats not the case...well as hard to prove as to say 100% there was no ticket.

It does seem mad that theyd spend all this money over a £1.50 ticket, its completly crazy when they have at best 50/50 chance of winning, surely they have enough people just paying up so those like me that dig in they just think sod it and move on. lets see how far they go but i am prepapred to go to court and defend this.

Snakes_Belly

I do understand how you feel but it is a civil case. He is not in trouble. I do think that they should include dealing with parking meters and ANPR on the driving test.

I think that could be a ticket. It's not a reflection and looks like paper. It could be enough to create doubt in their argument. 

These PPC's do show their images to the best advantage. There are other issues that may come out of the woodwork such as landowner authority.    

RaptorBlue

Thanks @Snakes_Belly I think its that doubt to put in the Judges mind and see how they want to take it, they cant show i havent paid through the machine and refuse to share that data as it cant indentify the payment anyway. Then you have the photos which are taken from far back. A judge could say "why did you not clearly show it" but I would say I did and upon clsoing the door it went further under the windscreen, I thought nothing of it on my return as no paper PCN was put on my windscreen so I threw the ticket (which again i think is a possible get out, they dont put a ticket on your screen hoping youd through your own ticket thinking nothing was wrong until 2-3 weeks later getting a letter!)

So there is doubt, i suppose if it goes that far depends on the Judge on the day, added to that if I say Im currently not working/self employed any judgement would need to take that in to sonsideration and Id ask for the longest time possible to pay them.

Snakes_Belly

RaptorBlue said:

Thanks @Snakes_Belly I think its that doubt to put in the Judges mind and see how they want to take it, they cant show i havent paid through the machine and refuse to share that data as it cant indentify the payment anyway. Then you have the photos which are taken from far back. A judge could say "why did you not clearly show it" but I would say I did and upon clsoing the door it went further under the windscreen, I thought nothing of it on my return as no paper PCN was put on my windscreen so I threw the ticket (which again i think is a possible get out, they dont put a ticket on your screen hoping youd through your own ticket thinking nothing was wrong until 2-3 weeks later getting a letter!)

So there is doubt, i suppose if it goes that far depends on the Judge on the day, added to that if I say Im currently not working/self employed any judgement would need to take that in to sonsideration and Id ask for the longest time possible to pay them.

If the hearing went against you would have a given time to pay to avoid a CCJ. 

Coupon-mad

He seemed to think whoever took the photos purposly did so from angels that would not and did not show a ticket was on display. Not sure a Judge would go for that but thats essentially what he is saying.

Which is exactly what I am saying too.  Deliberate angles. Judges are cleverer than you might think and can tell an honest witness.

Why not defend as keeper - to avoid scaring your son, so it remains your case - but have your son as second witness and attend any hearing together?