Smart Parking - stupid copper nanotubes
Discussion
Without going into too much detail all of which is in the letter below, the stupid copper nanotubess at Smart Parking have just sent me a parking charge notice for overstaying my welcome at the Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre car park when I can prove that it's due to double dipping. What does the panel think of the letter below as my response to them?
My letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [MAKE and MODEL] with the registration number XXXXX (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 9:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case. Any further correspondence received at this address on this matter will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413
I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice on 9th September 2017 for an alleged contravention at Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre (the Site) on 2nd September 2017. The allegation is that the [MAKE and MODEL] with the registration number XXXXX (the Vehicle), which is registered to me, was parked at the Site from 12:17:04 until 19:24:36. This allegation is completely wrong and is due to an error on the part of your systems which are obviously incapable of monitoring the rules set out at the Site and the Vehicle being a victim of the well-known “double dipping” phenomenon.
The information at the site says that a car can be parked for a maximum of 2 hours and then cannot return for a period of 2 further hours. The initial entry time of the Vehicle to the Site at 12:17 is correct as shown on your pictures as the first entry of the Vehicle to the Site. However, your system has not recorded its first exit at approximately 13:10 which is well within the initial 2 hour period. Approximate time of exit can be found on a time stamped cash withdrawal from the cashpoint inside the Waitrose store upon exit from the café at the same Waitrose.
The car was then driven to two further locations in Northampton and the driver has a time stamped receipt from the second, Pinnacle Climbing Centre at a distance of 3 miles from the Site, for a payment at 14:09. Even this time stamp from several miles away is within the allowed 2 hours of stay at the Site. The driver has further receipts from the Pinnacle Climbing Centre for additional expenditure there with the last receipt being time stamped at 17:49, significantly later than the 2 hour exclusion time after the first exit of the Vehicle from the Site. In fact, even if it had stayed the maximum 2 hours from 12:17, the 17:49 time stamp is still significantly later than would have been its 2 hour exclusion time from the Site. In addition to the time stamped receipts, there are two members of staff at the Pinnacle Climbing Centre who are happy to confirm that the driver of the Vehicle was at the Centre for nearly 4 hours between the times the car is alleged to have been at the Site.
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20. Following a further visit to the Waitrose store, the driver has a further time stamped till receipt at 19:20, followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 9:24.
If you still have the complete day’s recordings from 2nd September 2017, you should then check the images within a few minutes on either side of the estimated times as set out above. These will prove the facts as laid out. If you do not have the complete day’s recordings, then your systems are clearly deficient and cannot enforce the rules displayed at the site. The driver can clearly prove that they were not at the between the times the alleged contravention has taken place.
The bank and shopping receipts contain personal information which are not pertinent to the case. Consequently, copies will only be provided to a court of law and to no others unless legally required. Adequate information for you to be able to check your own systems have been provided in this letter. These will demonstrate that no contravention of any rules has taken place and there is no legally enforceable charge between any party in this case. Any further correspondence received at this address on this matter will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
etc.
Yes, all receipts are card receipts with dates and times; cash withdrawal is a Visa debit and the others are MasterCard credit cards and all are in the name of the driver. However, I do not want to send any receipts or copies to them because it feels like admitting that they have some special powers to demand these when they don't. I will happily provide them to a court as as part of pre-hearing documents, but not under any other circumstances. I'm giving them enough enformation that they should be able to check their systems to see everything themselves. The big question is, can I send the letter I have drafted above, send it recorded and then ignore anything else (except a court summons of course) without worry and if it gets to a court hearing, can I claim that I gave them adequate information such that I cannot be held liable for any charges?
colin_p said:
Is doubling dipping something to do with teabagging, whatever that is?
Ha ha, no it's quite innocent compared to the usual stuff one sees on PH and fears to google. It's when a camera system record the first entry of a vehicle into a car park, ignores the exit and the legitimate re-entry, then assumes that the second exit is the first and only exit thereby trying to hold the driver liable for any charges for the entire time between the first entry and the second exit.If it has another meaning which would boggle one's mind, I'm not aware of it.
I've seen two ways of dealing with it.
First was seen in local paper and store concerned was totally embarrassed by it and urged shopper to talk to customer service,where the ticket would be revoked.
I had this problem at same store and passed my ticket to customer service to get it revoked( Before Purple Moonlight et all have a go,I'd visited store in the morning, and that afternoon we'd visited another store on the complex ) .
A week later I got a letter from the parking company. Short exchange with store staff ,mentioning that a letter to local paper (with proof of visits ) and vast assurances of apologies came forth.
Last I heard of matter.
First was seen in local paper and store concerned was totally embarrassed by it and urged shopper to talk to customer service,where the ticket would be revoked.
I had this problem at same store and passed my ticket to customer service to get it revoked( Before Purple Moonlight et all have a go,I'd visited store in the morning, and that afternoon we'd visited another store on the complex ) .
A week later I got a letter from the parking company. Short exchange with store staff ,mentioning that a letter to local paper (with proof of visits ) and vast assurances of apologies came forth.
Last I heard of matter.
QuickQuack said:
Without going into too much detail all of which is in the letter below, the stupid copper nanotubess at Smart Parking have just sent me a parking charge notice for overstaying my welcome at the Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre car park when I can prove that it's due to double dipping. What does the panel think of the letter below as my response to them?
My letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam
Not me Guv, and I have proof, if you want to waste your time chasing this then crack on.
Not me Guv, and I have proof, if you want to waste your time chasing this then crack on.
Sounds like the OP has them bang to rights.
I'm sure a couple of us here would like to see the OP let them instruct the DCAs and take it to court, only to be laughed out of the door. It depends if the OPs time and hassle doing so is worth the extra hit in the pocket to the PPC. Somehow, I doubt it.
I'm sure a couple of us here would like to see the OP let them instruct the DCAs and take it to court, only to be laughed out of the door. It depends if the OPs time and hassle doing so is worth the extra hit in the pocket to the PPC. Somehow, I doubt it.
V8LM said:
As they've chased you the parking system must record the registration. Can you get CCTV footage from the climbing centre.
All of the evidence so far against them in circumstantial.
If you know you are right, tell them to see you in Court.
If you can get CCTV first, then you can write to them. In my opinion, your letter is too long and detailed. Essentially you need to say that you entered, left within two hours, and returned outside of two hours, and left within two hours. Don't give them times to check, that is their job. But do gather evidence to prove you were not there. All of the evidence so far against them in circumstantial.
If you know you are right, tell them to see you in Court.
QuickQuack said:
Without going into too much detail all of which is in the letter below, the stupid copper nanotubess at Smart Parking have just sent me a parking charge notice for overstaying my welcome at the Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre car park when I can prove that it's due to double dipping. What does the panel think of the letter below as my response to them?
My letter said:
...followed by its exit as per your second picture of the Vehicle departing at 9:24.
Best if you amend it to the time you mentioned earlier in the letter. 
My letter said:
Any further correspondence received at this address on this matter will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.
Never make a direct threat you're not going to follow through with. Are you going to institute proceedings if Smart Parking write back to inform you that the PCN has been cancelled.
How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
Red Devil said:
Never make a direct threat you're not going to follow through with. Are you going to institute proceedings if Smart Parking write back to inform you that the PCN has been cancelled.
How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
It's a civil case, the fact that he has a till receipt at the location within minutes of the PPC's quoted "leaving" time, that's extremely strong.How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
Balance of probability: RK is the driver, rather than some other driver while RK is at the same store within minutes leaving either not with the driver or with some means of travelling many miles in the timeframe. All to dupe the PPC out of a few hours of parking?
gazza285 said:
QuickQuack said:
Without going into too much detail all of which is in the letter below, the stupid copper nanotubess at Smart Parking have just sent me a parking charge notice for overstaying my welcome at the Kingsthorpe Shopping Centre car park when I can prove that it's due to double dipping. What does the panel think of the letter below as my response to them?
My letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam
Not me Guv, and I have proof, if you want to waste your time chasing this then crack on.
Not me Guv, and I have proof, if you want to waste your time chasing this then crack on.
Exactly. OP's letter is far too verbose.
Solocle said:
Red Devil said:
Never make a direct threat you're not going to follow through with. Are you going to institute proceedings if Smart Parking write back to inform you that the PCN has been cancelled.
How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
It's a civil case, the fact that he has a till receipt at the location within minutes of the PPC's quoted "leaving" time, that's extremely strong.How do the time stamped receipts prove the driver's identity? If any of them are for parking and contain your vehicle's VRM then you've got them over a barrel. If not, then assuming you are both the RK and the driver I reckon your best card will be the testimony of the employees of the climbing centre.
Balance of probability: RK is the driver, rather than some other driver while RK is at the same store within minutes leaving either not with the driver or with some means of travelling many miles in the timeframe. All to dupe the PPC out of a few hours of parking?
If I was the OP I would also be raising merry hell with Waitrose to get the PCN cancelled. It can't be good for its public image if the PPC's ANPR systems and/or its internal processes are so s
e that legitimate customers who have done nothing wrong are being incorrectly pursued for bogus charges.Should Smart Parking go to the wire and then discontinue at the last minute he might find this of interest - https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/2063775...
Had the same happen at Frankley services on the M5. Arrived there at 0445 and left at 0500. Arrived for work in Cirencester but at midday needed to take some kit to a company in Manchester. On the way back stopped again at Frankley for about 20 mins.
Received a ticket as they apparently thought I had been there the whole day.
Quick email and it was cancelled.
Received a ticket as they apparently thought I had been there the whole day.
Quick email and it was cancelled.
Thank you very much eveyone. I don't want to quote acres of stuff so will try to cover everything which has been raised.
I have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe. I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond.
I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...
I have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe.
I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond. I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt
Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...QuickQuack said:
Thank you very much eveyone. I don't want to quote acres of stuff so will try to cover everything which has been raised.
I have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe. I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond.
I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...
Nice, sue the bI have written the text to cover all details so that if things did get to a court hearing, Smart Parking cannot possibly accuse me of not giving them enough details to check so I'm covering myself really. I would like to make sure that the magistrate looks favourably on me and I can demonstrate that I have tried to resolve my case with full transparency and in good time. I think providing Smart Parking with all the possible details needed to resolve the matter would look better in court than not giving them enough and asking them to sue me. I have corrected the time in the paragraph mentioned by Red Devil, thank you very much.
I have referred only to the driver in my letter and haven't confirmed who they were. Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no? Especially if the movements are corroborated with credit card receipts of cards registered to their name? I don't think that the driver being seen several miles away with a 5 year old in tow isn't circumstantial evidence but I'll be going to the climbing centre again today so will ask if they have CCTV. Also, the first location the driver-and-5-year-old-in-tow combination went to were a fabric shop where they picked up a huge roll of fabric that would be impossible to cart around for 4 miles, and a member of staff there is also happy to confirm the driver's location. This another point where things get interesting. The driver used 2 separate cards and the other cardholder on the same accounts was elsewhere in the country using their card throughout the day. Further, one of the accounts is slightly odd in that the two cards on the account have different numbers and individual cards can be identified. It was this particularly odd card which was used at Waitrose on both occasions, and the receipts contain the last 4 digits of the card so the driver can positively identify that it was their personal card being used at Waitrose cafe in the morning and then later in the day in the store. Combined with the second card's use, the driver was either 3-4 miles or 90 miles away in the middle of the day. In any case, not anywhere near the particular car park in question.
I've had a look at that link Red Devil, thank you very much. It seems that the driver in that case had a lot less than me as evidence so I think I'm quite safe.
I will be printing it and taking it to Waitrose with me today along with a copy of the letter from Smart Parking and my letter and let's see how they resond. I'm not making an empty threat to Smart Parking in my letter though. If I do end up sending the letter and they reply to say they've dropped it, then I'll obviously use my judgement not not take it further but anything else and I will. In fact, I'll modify the letter to that effect and add "save for an acknowledgement that you a're withdawing your allegations" at the approprtiate place. I'm in the lucky position to be able to chuck some money at this just for the satisfaction of getting one over the buggers. We do have our tame family solicitors who deal with all of our affairs from wills, inheritance tax planing, properties here and abroad etc. etc. I'd far rather spend a few hundred pounds with them and annoy Smart Parking than give Smart Parking the £60 they're asking for.
I've registered with PePiPoo.com and posted for help there, thanks to all who mentioned it, even if slightly misspelt
Here's the topic I started http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1156...ards for costs!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff