Azure Parking PCN

rocketrob5

Hi and thanks in advance.
I received a PCN stating the driver had parked for an hour in a space for use by customers of a shop only.  The driver stopped briefly to turn around and pick up drop off a family member coincidentally twice in one night, approximately an hour apart.

The photos (video grabs presumably) they include in the PCN an hour apart clearly show the car in different positions with lights on.

I have appealed to the shop owner, and am awaiting a response.  I assume the next step would be to appeal to Azure without naming the driver.  Can I demand to see the whole 1 hour video to prove, or by asking would that likely make them realise the error of their ways?

Nellymoser

Sounds like it's a 'double dipping' incident in an ANPR controlled car park? Two short visits made on the same day. Azure have missed photos of your car leaving on your first visit and re-entering later.

rocketrob5

Fixed cctv camera on 2 parking spots. They must have footage, and have seen it, between the 2 times of the car not being there. Seems very dishonest to me?

Gr1pr

What makes you believe that it's CCTV cameras and video  ?

Its irrelevant if the driver made 2 short stops and not the long one alleged in the pcn , due to bad processing by Azure,  them not checking for 2 short visits, so making assumptions 

ChirpyChicken

Gr1pr said:

What makes you believe that it's CCTV cameras and video  ?

Unfortunately a lot of people make that mistake 

rocketrob5

Gr1pr said:

What makes you believe that it's CCTV cameras and video  ?

Its irrelevant if the driver made 2 short stops and not the long one alleged in the pcn , due to bad processing by Azure,  them not checking fir 2 short visits, so making assumptions 

What is the next step if landowner does not cancel it?  They have replied, but not confirmed yes or no. The driver recalls seeing what looks like a cctv camera. It is literally 2 spaes at right angles to a wall, not a seperate car park

Gr1pr

Its usually ANPR cameras with the signs having ANOR warnings and or logos, so doesn't matter what it looks like 

If its CCTV surveillance then there should be CCTV warning signs 

The two are not the same,  cameras have been taking pictures for over 150 years, video perhaps 40 at most

If its 2 short visits,  then the allegation is incorrect,  unenforceable 

The newbies sticky thread in announcements explains the various stages, so we don't have to,  please study it

Coupon-mad

rocketrob5 said:

Gr1pr said:

What makes you believe that it's CCTV cameras and video  ?

Its irrelevant if the driver made 2 short stops and not the long one alleged in the pcn , due to bad processing by Azure,  them not checking fir 2 short visits, so making assumptions 

What is the next step if landowner does not cancel it?  

Appeal and then laugh at ZZPS' efforts at POPLA stage. They are awful and even Steve Clark can't rescue Azure/ZZPS. Read a few threads where we've laughed at Shannon.