Smart Parking - stupid copper nanotubes

[speedking31]

QuickQuack said:

... 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;

According to their data it is only one parking event.

[Red Devil]

speedking31 said:

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.

Do try to keep up. I already mentioned this on page 1. Furthermore you don't seem to have read this which the OP posted before you did: it should be quite suffcient to kick this into touch..

QuickQuack said:

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.

speedking31 said:

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?

On the face of it, yes, assuming you are the RK. If the driver's name and address is provided to the PPC it is disbarred from pursuing keeper liability. However you'll either have some explaining to do to your wife or she will need to be a willing participant in the scam. The obvious question will be, if she was provably somewhere else how did your vehicle get to the location where it was seen? It can't have driven itself. Telling lies is a risky strategy which often come back to haunt the perpetraor/s.

'Double dip' is known ongoing issue with PPCs which use ANPR.

OP, if you haven't already seen it, may I suggest you have a look at this before you send your letter.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/pa...
The only difference between that case and yours is the PPC involved.
What is particularly significant is the complainant is an ex-senior investigating officer with the ICO.

QuickQuack said:

...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.

So, just as in the linked case above, the PPC is already on notice about the deficiencies of its systems.

I reckon you have them at a serious disadvantage. You may find this of interest as well.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/sm...

"Lock and load!"
Sands of Iwo Jima

[QuickQuack]

Thanks Red Devil, that second link is pure gold!

[yeager2004]

Smart parking are a shower of st. I had a run in with them, which prompted me to Google them:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/smartparking.com

Tell you all you need to know!

Good luck in your appeal OP.

[speedking31]

Red Devil said:

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.

Sorry RD, don't doubt the OP. But often people know the truth and then find it difficult to see from he other party's point of view. Agree with what you say here, and maybe the employees at the climbing centre can place the driver, but the chance of them knowing that that vehicle was in the car park is probably zero, unless they have good CCTV coverage.

[SantaBarbara]

You are reporting them to the DVLA for abusing the system to ask for Drivers or Registered Keepers details

[QuickQuack]

speedking31 said:

Red Devil said:

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.

Sorry RD, don't doubt the OP. But often people know the truth and then find it difficult to see from he other party's point of view. Agree with what you say here, and maybe the employees at the climbing centre can place the driver, but the chance of them knowing that that vehicle was in the car park is probably zero, unless they have good CCTV coverage.

Chap, seriously, do try and keep up. This is the second time you've been pointed towards the answer to your question. A question which had been answered before you asked it the first time.

Red Devil said:

speedking31 said:

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.

Do try to keep up. I already mentioned this on page 1. Furthermore you don't seem to have read this which the OP posted before you did: it should be quite suffcient to kick this into touch..

QuickQuack said:

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.

[QuickQuack]

Aside from that, I have sent the final version of the letter by recorded delivery, emailed it to them on their contact us details, and also uploaded it via their online appeals process. They've emailed me back with this:

Smart Parking said:

We can confirm an appeal has been logged onto the system for you and it is in the process of being reviewed by our appeals team, once they have done so they will contact you via email or post. In the meantime the PCN has been frozen at the discounted amount until it has been reviewed and responded to by our appeals team. The appeals team have 35 days to review your appeal however we can confirm they are working on them at a much quicker time frame.

Although I had given them 14 days for an apology and withdrawal of their allegation, I might just give them a bit of extra time. However, the 28 calendar days for the DPA complaint before I get the ICO involved stands...

[speedking31]

What was the outcome?

[Short Grain]

speedking31 said:

What was the outcome?

Damn, just skimmed through the thread again, (read it at the time), thinking OP had had his day in court and won, only to find no outcome yet!

Come on OP, what's happening?

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

I just want to thank the OP for reminding me about the exquisite case of the scientific paper written by a non-native English speaker, which would have been peer-reviewed and nobody said anything about the choice of abbreviation!

Actually I suspect it was reviewed by non-native speakers, and published in a non-English journal. So maybe nobody realised!

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Saturday 10th February 08:16

[FunkyGibbon]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

I just want to thank the OP for reminding me about the exquisite case of the scientific paper written by a non-native English speaker, which would have been peer-reviewed and nobody said anything about the choice of abbreviation!

Actually I suspect it was reviewed by non-native speakers, and published in a non-English journal. So maybe nobody realised!

Edited by Dr Mike Oxgreen on Saturday 10th February 08:16

It also got picked up by a very English speaking journal Chemical Communications by the Royal Society of Chemistry. No-one there noticed either until it appeared as a letter in Viz. The letter was sent in by a professor at Oxford.

They went on to explore Cu NT in Bismuth. Cu NT in Bi NTs.

Here it is...

http://www.chemistry.bristol.ac.uk/sillymolecules/...

Edited by FunkyGibbon on Saturday 10th February 08:59