Smart Parking - stupid copper nanotubes

Smart Parking - stupid copper nanotubes

Author
Discussion

silverfoxcc

7,683 posts

144 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
Quickquack


Words of advice from a long term lurker on pepipoo.

NEVER NEVER NEVER admit , or even hint,who was driving..it is ALWAYS the driver did this, the driver saw that

Do EXACTLY what they tell you to do

Also look up a few related cases on there to get your own 'letter' although Gan has some cracking templates as they take a dim view of people just wanting them to do all the leg work, help yourself and more than enough assistance will be forthcoming

DONT lie orf fudge the truth

These guys spend a lot of their own time helping other people and dont like it when someone takes exteacts the urine

Some PPC deliberately make a false statement that has no consequence eg colour, wrong digit, on VRN make etc in order to get you to write in at once correcting it, and dropping yourself in it.




Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
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.
Not a chance in hell of that because it is NOT (as so many people refer to PPC PCNs) a fine! It would be a civil claim for debt heard by a judge in the small claims track at your local county court.

QuickQuack said:
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?
With one minor exception (whereof the chances are vanishingly small unless a RK is not clued up, lazy, or prone to memory lapses), yes, the PPC can no longer use keeper liability for recovery.
See PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 4 (keeper liability) and 5 (conditions) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...

As civil cases are decided on the balance of probablities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt and given the scope of the evidence you can produce, it would be a particularly perverse judge who would find for the creditor imo. I don't think it will get as far as a hearing but you never know: the avarice and/or stupidity of PPCs often overrides their common sense.

glasgow mega snake

1,853 posts

83 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
does the OP read Chem. Comm.?

QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Sunday 10th September 2017
quotequote all
Thanks again everyone, especially Silverfoxcc.

I have made sure that my letter does not admit to driving the car or identify the driver; I have not withheld any information or lied here or on PePiPoo.com; and I have done as suggested and went to Waitrose which has revealed further interesting information. I was very lucky and got to speak to the Deputy Branch Manager who happened to be on duty. He confirmed that he had customers complaining about exactly the same problem at least 3 times in the past 12 months and he had informed Smart Parking on all occasions. He mentioned that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. He also said that both the landowner and Smart Parking had been singularly unhelpful in resolving the matter and had not cancelled the tickets despite requests from him. He has promised to help as much as he can and he will confirm these in an email to me soon.

PePiPoo users have been quite helpful and they liked my letter as amended in my post earlier today. There have been a couple of additional suggestions, firstly as also suggested by Red Devil to add that there can be no keeper liability in this case because the PCN is trying to cover TWO parking events, and the POFA Schedule 4 is strict in that it MUST only relate to one; and secondly to threaten action under the DPA section 10 for the misuse of my personal data in that they used my data knowing full well that a defect in their system incorrectly issued a claim. That last bit was suggested before my visit to Waitrose this afternoon but the information from the manager there confirms that they're aware of this and have been so for months. I will further amend my letter to demand a response within 28 calendar days specifically about the breach of DPA.

PS No, I don't read Chem. Comm. however I do read other scientific journals and I have published a number of scientific papers on cardiac surgery and cardiac biochemistry. wink

Edited by QuickQuack on Sunday 10th September 23:52

QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Well, I have now amended, and significantly lenghtened (sorry!), my original letter in the light of the feedback from PePiPoo chaps. As they seemed to like the original, I suspect they will not mind the additinal sections as I think they like seeing the full picture. To make it easier to read, imagine the solitary neurones of the barstewards running Smart Parking panicking and losing control of their bowel function as their heads explode... hehe

My amended letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413

I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 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 [reg no] (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 and time spent 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 19:24.

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. As a further point, please remember that there can be no keeper liability in this case because your PCN is trying to cover two separate parking events, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 is strict in that it must only relate to a single one. I will therefore not be divulging the driver’s identity except by a court order.

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.

In addition to the above, I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly. I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it. Please consider this as an official notification of my complaint under Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

I have been in contact with the aforementioned Waitrose store and the Deputy Branch Manager has confirmed that he has contacted Smart Parking Ltd. as a result of Waitrose customers experiencing exactly the same problem on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months adding that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. It is beyond any doubt that Smart Parking Ltd. has been aware of this technical problem with their software, which itself is not fit for the purpose of enforcing the rules at the Site as laid out in the signage, for the past year. The company has been manifestly negligent in not rectifying the fault which has been brought to their attention numerous times. Consequently, Smart Parking Ltd. has committed breaches of the DPA first by acquiring my personal data from DVLA under false pretences knowing full well that your system is defective, and having thus acquired my personal data in breach of DPA, by misusing my personal data to send me an invoice without just cause. Indeed, given the layout and the threatening nature of your communication, it is a highly distressing demand with menaces. At this juncture, I would like to remind you that in 2015 the Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone.

As a data subject under DPA, I would like to know and receive a copy of all the information you hold on me and my aforementioned vehicle. I further would like to know why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules. Finally, I would like to know what corrective action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data thus obtained.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take. If I have not received a full response within 28 calendar days on the points I have raised above regarding the breaches of the DPA, I will escalate this matter by making a complaint to the ICO about Smart Parking Ltd. and will initiate legal proceedings for distress, time spent dealing with this matter and all costs incurred. Again, I draw your attention to the 2015 Court of Appeal ruling, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone. If, when I receive your response, I am not satisfied and would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider along with copies of this letter and the original PCN.

I expect to receive an acknowledgement that you have received my letter and that you are withdrawing your allegations within 14 calendar days. Any further correspondence received at this address or via email, or any telephone calls for a further demand to pay the original PCN will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.

Yours faithfully,

etc.

QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Very odd. I'm sure there was a reply from Red Devil around 1 am. Where's it gone? confused

Solocle

3,247 posts

83 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
Well, I have now amended, and significantly lenghtened (sorry!), my original letter in the light of the feedback from PePiPoo chaps. As they seemed to like the original, I suspect they will not mind the additinal sections as I think they like seeing the full picture. To make it easier to read, imagine the solitary neurones of the barstewards running Smart Parking panicking and losing control of their bowel function as their heads explode... hehe

My amended letter said:
Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number TC46291413

I have received the above numbered Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 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 [reg no] (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 and time spent 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 19:24.

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. As a further point, please remember that there can be no keeper liability in this case because your PCN is trying to cover two separate parking events, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 is strict in that it must only relate to a single one. I will therefore not be divulging the driver’s identity except by a court order.

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.

In addition to the above, I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly. I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it. Please consider this as an official notification of my complaint under Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

I have been in contact with the aforementioned Waitrose store and the Deputy Branch Manager has confirmed that he has contacted Smart Parking Ltd. as a result of Waitrose customers experiencing exactly the same problem on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months adding that these were only the ones which had been brought to his attention and that there could be more. It is beyond any doubt that Smart Parking Ltd. has been aware of this technical problem with their software, which itself is not fit for the purpose of enforcing the rules at the Site as laid out in the signage, for the past year. The company has been manifestly negligent in not rectifying the fault which has been brought to their attention numerous times. Consequently, Smart Parking Ltd. has committed breaches of the DPA first by acquiring my personal data from DVLA under false pretences knowing full well that your system is defective, and having thus acquired my personal data in breach of DPA, by misusing my personal data to send me an invoice without just cause. Indeed, given the layout and the threatening nature of your communication, it is a highly distressing demand with menaces. At this juncture, I would like to remind you that in 2015 the Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone.

As a data subject under DPA, I would like to know and receive a copy of all the information you hold on me and my aforementioned vehicle. I further would like to know why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules. Finally, I would like to know what corrective action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data thus obtained.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take. If I have not received a full response within 28 calendar days on the points I have raised above regarding the breaches of the DPA, I will escalate this matter by making a complaint to the ICO about Smart Parking Ltd. and will initiate legal proceedings for distress, time spent dealing with this matter and all costs incurred. Again, I draw your attention to the 2015 Court of Appeal ruling, in the case of Vidal-Hall v Google, that compensation under the DPA could be awarded for distress alone. If, when I receive your response, I am not satisfied and would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider along with copies of this letter and the original PCN.

I expect to receive an acknowledgement that you have received my letter and that you are withdrawing your allegations within 14 calendar days. Any further correspondence received at this address or via email, or any telephone calls for a further demand to pay the original PCN will be classified as harassment and legal proceeding will be initiated against Smart Parking Ltd.

Yours faithfully,

etc.

QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Solocle said:
(nuclear mushroom cloud pic)
Heh heh he, just imagine the PPC bds bang in the epicentre of it... hehe The awful pun is intentional.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
Very odd. I'm sure there was a reply from Red Devil around 1 am. Where's it gone? confused
There was: I deleted it. Updated version herewith. smile

QuickQuack said:
THe also said that both the landowner and Smart Parking had been singularly unhelpful in resolving the matter and had not cancelled the tickets despite requests from him
Why am I not surprised?

It seems that they would prefer to take it to the wire or even end up letting a judge do it for them. rolleyes
It's singularly inept by the PPC as it will cost it more than the full undiscounted PCN amount.
The bottom feeding legal outfits PPCs use don't work for free.

Some of the people they send to court don't even have rights of audience ffs!
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/right-of-audience/
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=r...

Hopefully the OP won't have to take a day off to attend although watching the PPC lose might be gratifying. wink

If the PPC doesn't cancel forthwith the PCN should get thrown out by POPLA (Smart are a BPA member) anyway before it ever gets that far.
OP make sure you're fully up to speed on the formal appeal process, the best winning points to use, and time scales.
A win at POPLA is binding on the PPC but not on you.

Word on the street is that the quality of assessors has dipped since the departure of Henry Greenslade (Lead Adjudicator).
It is no coincidence that also coincided with London Councils losing the contract run POPLA in October 2015.

SantaBarbara

3,244 posts

107 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Less is More

Do not give them All that detail

You are doing the investigation for them.

Find out if they have got the systems to be able to follow the registration number leaving two hours after it arrives

If I were you, I would write a letter of complaint about the company to DVLA, say that companies systems are inadequate. They should not have needed to ask DVLA for your address. Ask DVLA to ban the company

Edited by SantaBarbara on Monday 11th September 11:59

Pica-Pica

13,625 posts

83 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
SantaBarbara said:
Less is More

Do not give the. All that detail
Very much agree, give them the bare facts and say you have evidence of what you claim, three or four sentences is ample. Say that any further correspondence has an admin charge of £25 a letter, rising to £50 after the second letter, and any court attendance is £500 a day.

anothernameitist

1,500 posts

134 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20.

Why is this not accurate?
Is it one entry that's not recorded or their inability to correctly monitor?

Solocle

3,247 posts

83 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
anothernameitist said:
The second entry of the Vehicle to the Site is estimated to be between 18:05 and 18:20.

Why is this not accurate?
Is it one entry that's not recorded or their inability to correctly monitor?
That's OP's estimate, PPC did not record.

anothernameitist

1,500 posts

134 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
^ Thanks

woodyTVR

622 posts

245 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
I appreciate you are in the right with this but for ease of having it cancelled I'd also attack with PofA non-compliance. Smart Parking's notices don't conform and are therefore easy to have cancelled. See my thread here on mine https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...



QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Well, even better news. I got an email from Waitrose this afternoon which confirms what the manager had told me but the best part is that he's been through their CCTV, he has found my car leaving within a few minutes of my estimated exit time, and sent me some images. Bingo! The only downside is that having been up most of the night for the last couple of nights thinking about this st, I've had a pretty awful migraine today frown That's just made me even more determined to take them on though. I don't want a simple cancellation of the PCN now, I want DVLA and ICO causing them maximum hassle. Smart Parking losing their licence to look up registered keeper details from the DVLA database would be the ultimate victory but I know that's not easy so I'll satisfy myself with lobbing an arsey letter their way, demand a plan to rectify their systems and unless they provide me with both details of the plan and proof that it has been implemented, I will make a complaint to ICO and to DVLA. I will redact some personal stuff in the letters but I'll try to update the thread with the letter I finally end up sending and any further developments, unless you'd like me to leave it here...

vsonix

3,858 posts

162 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
Well, even better news. I got an email from Waitrose this afternoon which confirms what the manager had told me but the best part is that he's been through their CCTV, he has found my car leaving within a few minutes of my estimated exit time, and sent me some images. Bingo! The only downside is that having been up most of the night for the last couple of nights thinking about this st, I've had a pretty awful migraine today frown That's just made me even more determined to take them on though. I don't want a simple cancellation of the PCN now, I want DVLA and ICO causing them maximum hassle. Smart Parking losing their licence to look up registered keeper details from the DVLA database would be the ultimate victory but I know that's not easy so I'll satisfy myself with lobbing an arsey letter their way, demand a plan to rectify their systems and unless they provide me with both details of the plan and proof that it has been implemented, I will make a complaint to ICO and to DVLA. I will redact some personal stuff in the letters but I'll try to update the thread with the letter I finally end up sending and any further developments, unless you'd like me to leave it here...
YESS

make these vultures RUE THE DAY

Pica-Pica

13,625 posts

83 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
Well, even better news. I got an email from Waitrose this afternoon which confirms what the manager had told me but the best part is that he's been through their CCTV, he has found my car leaving within a few minutes of my estimated exit time, and sent me some images. Bingo! The only downside is that having been up most of the night for the last couple of nights thinking about this st, I've had a pretty awful migraine today frown That's just made me even more determined to take them on though. I don't want a simple cancellation of the PCN now, I want DVLA and ICO causing them maximum hassle. Smart Parking losing their licence to look up registered keeper details from the DVLA database would be the ultimate victory but I know that's not easy so I'll satisfy myself with lobbing an arsey letter their way, demand a plan to rectify their systems and unless they provide me with both details of the plan and proof that it has been implemented, I will make a complaint to ICO and to DVLA. I will redact some personal stuff in the letters but I'll try to update the thread with the letter I finally end up sending and any further developments, unless you'd like me to leave it here...
Good. I would still just write to say you have irrefutable evidence, etc., and then add a paragraph to say you are reporting them to..blah, blah, blah.
(They will probably drop the case, out of 'goodwill'). I would lose sleep over this, but not through worry, I would be gee'd up to really hammer them. Once you get all that evidence, there is also Waitrose head office in Reading, local paper, local MP (and Councillor, they love all that). Go for the throat!

QuickQuack

Original Poster:

2,144 posts

100 months

Monday 11th September 2017
quotequote all
Well, I have re-jigged the letter a bit, but to save you trudging through several pages of stuff, here's a summary.

I have set out the evidence I have and refuted their claim. To that end, I have demanded an acknowledgement that they have received my letter, a full apology, and confirmation that they are withdrawing their allegations within 14 calendar days.

I have outlined breaches of the Data Protection Act and as a data subject, I have requested a copy of all the information they hold on me and my vehicle, the reasons why Smart Parking Ltd. has not amended its defective systems which it was informed were incapable of functioning as required on multiple occasions over the past 12 months, and having not corrected the defect, why it continues to issue PCNs to registered keepers of vehicles which were parked at the Site without contravening the rules, and what corrective and preventive action Smart Parking Ltd. will undertake so that the company can demonstrate that they will not continue to breach the DPA regularly by obtaining registered keeper details from DVLA without justification and then misuse the data. I reserved the right to inform the ICO and DVLA if I am not satisfied with their response to this section. As suggested by the ICO, I have given them 28 calendar days to respond to these.

Let's see how they respond...

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Tuesday 12th September 2017
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
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.
I think you miss the point. If you don't disclose who the driver is, then proving that someone who may or may not be the driver was somewhere else is not relevant to the case. Even if you prove that the driver was elsewhere then that doesn't prove that the car didn't remain parked. You need to prove that the car was elsewhere. CCTV of the car at another location in the alleged timeframe is the evidence you need. All the stuff about receipts and card numbers means nothing.

QuickQuack said:
Once I as the registered keeper disclose who the driver is, surely the fact has to be accepted, no?
Well no. If my wife is out of town at a conference (provable), can i just park anywhere and nominate her as the driver, hence avoiding any tickets?