PCN - Case law on ANPR entry/exit time penalty not parking ?
Discussion
Mates
I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
catfood12 said:
Mates
...Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court ....
Really? Which Mickey Mouse Bumper Book of Made up BS Law do you "know" that from? ...Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court ....
I would like to try telling a Judge in a County Court that he or she can ignore every case ever decided by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. Or maybe, I wouldn't.
You are perhaps unlikely to find a decision of a higher court (High Court and upwards) that bears on the issue you raise. I am not saying that there isn't one, and if there is maybe someone here knows of such a decision, if one exists. You might find a decision of a County Court, although such decisions are not usually reported. That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court. That point, by the way, may be the origin of the Chinese whisper that you found in your Christmas Cracker law book (see above).
catfood12 said:
Mates
I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
I remember seeing that as well but, like you, I can't remember where. I'll see what I can find.I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
flashbang said:
catfood12 said:
Mates
I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
I remember seeing that as well but, like you, I can't remember where. I'll see what I can find.I saw a thread somewhere recently referencing case law on a PCN challenge based on ANPR entry/exit timing from a private car park rather than time parked. Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court, I'd like to try and read the details.
Searching hasn't shown up anything, I must have see it on a different web site. Does the above ring any bells with anyone ? Any references or links gladly received.
The only parking case which I know of that has gone higher than County Court is Beavis (which decided an altogether different issue)
Not sure where you searched but I reckon it's this one which attracted some attention at the time.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/wait...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5...
Systems which rely solely on ANPR are inherently flawed because they are incapable of determining the amount of time actually parked.
They simply record how long the vehicle is on site which is by no means the same thing.
Each case turns on its own facts: the T&C signage (or lack of it) will be crucial.
Breadvan72 said:
Really? Which Mickey Mouse Bumper Book of Made up BS Law do you "know" that from?
I would like to try telling a Judge in a County Court that he or she can ignore every case ever decided by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. Or maybe, I wouldn't.
You are perhaps unlikely to find a decision of a higher court (High Court and upwards) that bears on the issue you raise. I am not saying that there isn't one, and if there is maybe someone here knows of such a decision, if one exists. You might find a decision of a County Court, although such decisions are not usually reported. That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court. That point, by the way, may be the origin of the Chinese whisper that you found in your Christmas Cracker law book (see above).
Awesome, BV lords it over the common man again. Well done you. You are obviously a bright chap, but a complete chump. Do you count it as a triumph to know more in your specialist field that people who dont? Grow up you childish fool.I would like to try telling a Judge in a County Court that he or she can ignore every case ever decided by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. Or maybe, I wouldn't.
You are perhaps unlikely to find a decision of a higher court (High Court and upwards) that bears on the issue you raise. I am not saying that there isn't one, and if there is maybe someone here knows of such a decision, if one exists. You might find a decision of a County Court, although such decisions are not usually reported. That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court. That point, by the way, may be the origin of the Chinese whisper that you found in your Christmas Cracker law book (see above).
Breadvan72 said:
Really? Which Mickey Mouse Bumper Book of Made up BS Law do you "know" that from?
I would like to try telling a Judge in a County Court that he or she can ignore every case ever decided by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. Or maybe, I wouldn't.
You are perhaps unlikely to find a decision of a higher court (High Court and upwards) that bears on the issue you raise. I am not saying that there isn't one, and if there is maybe someone here knows of such a decision, if one exists. You might find a decision of a County Court, although such decisions are not usually reported. That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court. That point, by the way, may be the origin of the Chinese whisper that you found in your Christmas Cracker law book (see above).
BV, please accept my sincerest apologies for causing such ire and indignation by my thread. I have read many insightful and interesting posts you have made over the years, and have never before seen you prompted to make such a vitriolic or sardonic response. I am surprised at someone in your experienced professional position could post such comments. I can only assume that someone else has prompted such anger in you, or that your account has been hacked and a bitter short man has been posting such content in order to enfeeble your reputation on here.I would like to try telling a Judge in a County Court that he or she can ignore every case ever decided by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. Or maybe, I wouldn't.
You are perhaps unlikely to find a decision of a higher court (High Court and upwards) that bears on the issue you raise. I am not saying that there isn't one, and if there is maybe someone here knows of such a decision, if one exists. You might find a decision of a County Court, although such decisions are not usually reported. That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court. That point, by the way, may be the origin of the Chinese whisper that you found in your Christmas Cracker law book (see above).
Your lack of comprehension in reading my thread is astonishing. I am of course always glad to be corrected if I make a mistake, but I don't think, even in your wildest interpretation of evidence, unless preparing for a particularly humiliating cross examination, that I'm anywhere suggesting that I am expecting to tell a Judge to ignore a decision made by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords/Supreme Court. This thread's contents is all County Court related. You have deliberately misunderstood my statement
Catfood12 said:
Whilst I know that case law doesn't apply in County Court,
As not being related to County Courts, but then chosen to state the same;Breadvan72 said:
That is because the decision of one county court does not bind any other court.
I'm sorry if the level of such matters is below your professional standard. Thank you as always for the time you took to respond to my thread, however in this case, I'll take a view to ignore your contribution. 
BertBert said:
Awesome, BV lords it over the common man again. Well done you. You are obviously a bright chap, but a complete chump. Do you count it as a triumph to know more in your specialist field that people who dont? Grow up you childish fool.
BertBert, thanks for this. It gives me confidence that I'm not posting crapola. There are glimmers of his genius and positive contributions in many of his previous posts in other threads. As in my response above, I can only assume that someone has accessed his account and is impersonating him, as I couldn't imagine someone with his experience or in his position posting with such virulence. Either that or a hard day in court and night on the whiskey or the spectre of creeping early onset.
At least others have made positive contributions. I'll post the details of my day in (County) Court with a parking company in due course.
There was another thread recently concerning ANPR logging of time in and out of a motorway services area, where the OP was using the unofficial services access road to go home and then then out again some hours later. So he never parked in the services at all. I don’t know what the outcome was, but might be the thread you are thinking of?
catfood12 said:
I'm sorry if the level of such matters is below your professional standard. Thank you as always for the time you took to respond to my thread, however in this case, I'll take a view to ignore your contribution.
If such comments irritate you, the best thing to do is ignore them. Mind you, it's not my normal response. A bit of passive/aggressive and I always feel better. This'll be the case you're looking for:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5...
Essentially, Parking Eye's cameras caught the defendant entering and leaving a car park, but the defendant claimed they were unable to find anywhere to park and left without doing so. This was during a busy holiday period, and the time was short enough to cast doubt as to why they would leave so quickly.
Paragraph 36 is interesting in light of POFA, in my non-legal opinion:
"The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities."
This is primarily useful in cases where there is an overstay of <30 minutes, of course, since it's easier to use the Altrincham case to support the argument. However POFA requires, amongst other things, that the parking company specifies a "period of parking" in order to invoke keeper liability. Where ANPR is used, typically the parking company is only providing time-stamped images of a car driving past fixed cameras (clearly not parked) and then inferring a period of parking from those times.
A strict interpretation of POFA could be that the parking company hasn't met that criterion because they've stated a period of parking that cannot possibly be accurate; the car was driving for some period of time between those images - and Judge Hayes considered that driving and parking are different. The keeper could very reasonably claim that the car wasn't parked for the period claimed, in which case the requirements of POFA are not met and keeper liability would not apply. I wouldn't mind seeing that tested as a single-point appeal at POPLA...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5...
Essentially, Parking Eye's cameras caught the defendant entering and leaving a car park, but the defendant claimed they were unable to find anywhere to park and left without doing so. This was during a busy holiday period, and the time was short enough to cast doubt as to why they would leave so quickly.
Paragraph 36 is interesting in light of POFA, in my non-legal opinion:
"The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities."
This is primarily useful in cases where there is an overstay of <30 minutes, of course, since it's easier to use the Altrincham case to support the argument. However POFA requires, amongst other things, that the parking company specifies a "period of parking" in order to invoke keeper liability. Where ANPR is used, typically the parking company is only providing time-stamped images of a car driving past fixed cameras (clearly not parked) and then inferring a period of parking from those times.
A strict interpretation of POFA could be that the parking company hasn't met that criterion because they've stated a period of parking that cannot possibly be accurate; the car was driving for some period of time between those images - and Judge Hayes considered that driving and parking are different. The keeper could very reasonably claim that the car wasn't parked for the period claimed, in which case the requirements of POFA are not met and keeper liability would not apply. I wouldn't mind seeing that tested as a single-point appeal at POPLA...
Red Devil said:
You're a bit late to the party with that link. See my post the previous day. 
I'll admit, I didn't open your link since OP seemed to still be looking a few posts further down - I assumed you must have posted something different since it seemed like a certainty that's the case OP wanted. My mistake! 
Incidentally, OP's name rings a bell, is it the same guy that ended up being paid by Parking Eye a while back?
EDIT: Found it here, and it was indeed OP. Hilarious, OP should've got far more credit for that!
Edited by spikyone on Thursday 13th February 12:52
Red Devil said:
You're a bit late to the party with that link. See my post the previous day.
Thank you both, that was the case I was looking for. Apologies RD, I did miss your post first time round.Yes, I do end up on the wrong end of a number of these. It's four nil to me at the moment against PE. I did get a payout too previously as per Spikyone's link.
I'll update all as this one progresses. It's a parking company who once may have ruled the waves, their solicitors are very aggressive, but as usual in a 'this may happen' way.
The alleged infraction was from May last year. It all went quiet, so I wrote to the solicitors a couple of times for an update, as they'd told me a CCJ was pending for me(!). They kept ignoring me, so I reported them to the SRA for failing to respond to enquiries.
It has since started up again, however there's many issues with there claim, and I didn't actually do it, so am quite happy to go to a hearing and have some costs from them.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff