Civil National Business centre claim form

bertiewill

BikingBud said:

bertiewill said:

BikingBud said:

@bertiewill
 
The times quoted indicate an overnight stay:

Time in 20:03
Time Out 14:29

How likely is this to be correct?

Is the car park secured overnight so you couldn't possibly have been there?

Can you verify where you were overnight, ie at home at work with evidence to confirm that the car was also there?

Do you go there often and have been double dipped?

I wasn't there, but the car was in the evening. My spouse is a bit unsure about it (it was 18 months ago), besides that it was originally parked at 20.03 for a night out.

Its possible it was double dipped.

Is it possible that it was collected the day after after the driver got a taxi home? It might easily be construed that way unless you can be absolutely clear otherwise.

Yes that's definitely possible, even probable. Is it best to assume thats happened and include that in a defence?

 Is it likely that CEL have evidence and be certain what did happen?

Coupon-mad

As you were not driving, it's best not to guess but you could (in your para 3) put the Claimant to strict proof that this was not two separate visits, which is a typical ANPR flaw whereby 'first in last out' images taken across a 24 hour period are wrongly taken to suggest a single period of parking with no real evidence.

bertiewill

3. The driver parked their car for the purpose of an evening out with friends at 20.03. Can the claimant supply strict proof that the departure at 14.49 the next day was the same visit or was it a separate visit? 

Anything else to add?

Coupon-mad

I gave you the exact form of words to use.  Defences do not include questions.

bertiewill

3. The driver parked their car for the purpose of an evening out with friends at 20.03. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this was not two separate visits, which is a typical ANPR flaw whereby 'first in last out' images taken across a 24 hour period are wrongly taken to suggest a single period of parking with no real evidence.

Coupon-mad

Hmmm we need to think about this one.

Le_Kirk

bertiewill said:

3. The driver parked their the car for the purpose of an evening out with friends at 20.03. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that this was not two separate visits, which is a typical ANPR flaw whereby 'first in last out' images taken across a 24 hour period are wrongly taken to suggest a single period of parking with no real evidence.

Surely better phrased as above!

Castle

It's very unlikely that the driver knew exactly at what time they parked; the "20.03" is the time CEL alleged that the vehicle entered the car park.

Coupon-mad

Yep I'm uncomfortable with that too.

Also wondering:

Why did the driver even use a car park after 8pm when every on-street single yellow line area and most resident's permit bay streets (in every city I know, including London) are likely free all night?  Why seek out a car park in the evening?

I can never understand that.  Use the street.  It's camera and scammer free.

Trainerman

bertiewill said:

3. The driver parked their car for the purpose of an evening out with friends at 20.03. Can the claimant supply strict proof that the departure at 14.49 the next day was the same visit or was it a separate visit? 

Anything else to add?

To my mind. the PoC state that on the 14th October the vehicle entered at 20.03 and left at 14.29 on the same day. This is clearly impossible and in itself shows up the PoC as deficient. A good point of defence perhaps.