NCP/BW ANPR PCN Claimform - double dipping - Ipswich Tacket Street, Ipswich IP4 1AU

[kregrs]

Ok, so an update. I have been a bit busy with work etc, but the date for court is 23/05/19, and as such I have received from BW their witness statement. Stupid question time, do I need to do the same and send them a witness statement?

 

They are relying heavily on the ANPR data, and claiming there was no fault with the cameras and have provided ANPR logs for the day. 

 

They have also provided the full t&c's, nearly 3 pages, strangely too much too fit on a sign, but again something they are relying on.

 

Also, there is a mistake in the witness statement regarding times, one of the times quoted is quite a long way out, although the timings on the camera stills are correct.

 

Copies of all correspondence from BW are also in there, but not copies of the letters received recently, especially the pay up demands from the last few months.

 

And lastly, they're saying my defence is without merit!

[dx100uk]

Scan up their ws inc exhibits to one multipage pdf

Read upload

 

Yes you must file one no later than 14 days before..get going!!!

 

You are already late!!!

 

Dx

[kregrs]

What do I need to put in this witness statement?

[dx100uk]

Dunno till we see theirs.....

Why does everything have to be last minute with you...

[lookinforinfo]

gThe Parking Prankster did an interesting article on ANPR cameras and double dipping which might help to show the Judge what happened in your case.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

[lookinforinfo]

Here is another example from the parking Prankster of an error with ANPR cameras and an interesting article contained within it by an expert who claims that far from the cameras being 98% accurate as the makers claim ,

 

the true picture with the newest systems is between 90 and 96% accurate and the older cameras dropping to 60-80%.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/picture-of-week-anpr-error.html

 

Obviously NCP are aware of these anomalies and should have taken your protestations into account.

 

Go for exemplary damages as they are abusing the Court system trying to force you to pay when they know that on balance of probabilities, your story is the correct version.

[ericsbrother]

so they say that their terms are 3 pages long and dont appear on the signs.

That means that if you look at S62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 then you are not obliged to accept ANY of the contract as it is unfair and that would inlcude the bit you can read.

 

In short, you are not and cannot be bound to something that you have not been given the opportunity at the time to consider and if the terms are unfair then you can decide that you don't want to be bound by them.

 

They have shot themselves in the foot by trying to be clever.

They might have stood a chance if they relied on the wording of the signage (if you could read them and if you had broken them).

 

Now with regard to their error on times,

you need to challenge this in your WS and also make it clear that you need to cross examine the person signing their WS about this and if they don't turn up at court you ask for the entire document to be chucked out as unreliable.

 

you are day over to get your WS written up and posted off to court

pull your finger out and get somehting written which we can then advise on and then get it sent off (coy to them as well) otherwise you will ahve just chucked this case away.

 

As for your comments about what do you put,

read a load of other ones and use that as a guide.

 

You have pictures of the carpark, signage and also a plan of the site to show where the signs ect are to show that you cant be expected to read them whilst passing through.

[kregrs]

Not sure if this will work, having issues uploading pdf from phone....

 

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Addc228f0-52fb-47aa-bed0-a1786596ecb5

[ericsbrother]

so they have included a log of all the payments but they dot include a log of all the vehicles captured on their cameras.

On the images of your car they have used an edited close up of your number plate that shows the front plate but is used to indicate your vehicle leaving the site as it is below an image of the vehicle apparently exiting. The angle of the plate in this image shows it is not from any of the other pictures they are offering in their evidence so you need to see every picture they have and also the ogs of the vehicles as recoreded by ANPR, not the meter metrics. You should have demanded sight of all of the data they hold on you as I bet that the full images tell another story that you can now only hint at.

Also where is your WS? you needd your own pictures of the signage as well. I would say that as the signs at the entrance keep referring to other signs and terms then they are not a contract but an "invitaion to treat" and so not binding until you actually agree the terms by feeding the meter. you can then go into the "double dipping" ad quote th parking prankster's commentary and use the cases there as being persuasive in your case. Also make use of the lack of full disclosurea nd the dodgy pictures and cropping to leave room for doubt about the accuracy of their story

[kregrs]

Will be writing statement today, so will upload as soon as it is done, will also go and take shots of the signage in the car park, do I need pics of every sign?

What should I make of her mistake with the timing? Where she has stated that I left the car park at 17??, I can prove I was elsewhere at that time, some 4 miles away from the car park.

Do I ask them to provide the complete ANPR logs? 

 

[ericsbrother]

you need pictures of the entrance from the public highway and each sign there in clear detail. You nee pics of any other sign that is different to the ones at the entrance and you need pucs of the payment meter and any associated blurb.

As you have left it too late to ask the claimant for anything all you can do is make hay about th fact that their claim is for 2 separate events that they have welded into 1. You will need to give an indication of where you were in the interim and who was there with you. if that person intends to give evidence you should ahve filled in the allocation questionnaire accordingly but you can use a properly attested statement from them and it will be given the same weighting as any other written evidence that cannot be cross examined.

as fopr their timing error yu ram this point home but as said you will need evidence of being elsewhere. Even if it was a slip of the pen it creates a doubnt about the veracity of the rest of their evidence.

[kregrs]

Do I reference their mistake in my ws? Or is it a matter left until the day?

[kregrs]

Witness statement 

 

In the county court at Ipswich
Claim number - 

Claimant      National Car Parks Limited
                                       -vs-
Defendant    

1)    I, *****, am the defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 
2)    I make this statement in readiness for the hearing listed for the 23rd May 2019 at 10.00 and in support of my defence.
3)    On the 28th August 2017 the claimant alleges that my vehicle was parked in a car park operated by themselves, and that the vehicle was parked with out payment of the parking charge. While the vehicle did enter the car park, it was to set down two passengers, before leaving the car park immediately afterwards, and returning approximately thirty minutes later to collect the same two passengers. 
4)    I believe that I have been victim to a circumstance referred to as double dipping, where ANPR technology fails to record the entry or exit of a vehicle. As members of the BPA, the claimant would be aware of this issue, as the BPA provide guidelines to their members regarding this situation. Document DA1 is a copy of a document relating to ANPR performance, and shows that systems may only be accurate to 90 – 94%, and as low as 60%. In order for double dipping to take place, the ANPR camera would fail to record an image of the registration plate on entry or exit, this could be due to the vehicle entering or exiting too close to the vehicle in front, or a pedestrian walking in front of the vehicle and obscuring the registration plate. The camera would be unable to read the registration and would therefore not record the event.
5)    In paragraph 28 of the claimants statement, the claimant has stated that my vehicle left the car park at 17:31, but has provided no evidence to back up this claim.
6)    Document DA2 shows pictures of the signs placed around the Tacket Street car park. As can be seen from the photographs, the terms and conditions shown are significantly less than those that the claimant is relying on in their claim. Under s62 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 that is unfair. In short, I would not and cannot be bound to something that I had not been given the opportunity at the time to consider.
7)    I believe that the facts contained in this witness statement are true.

Signed –
Dated - 

 

[ericsbrother]

now this is far too short and vagyue regading what you are saying for your defence.

You need to tell your story so you start off by saying on the xxth of month my vehicel did enter the car park in question at 0900 and left 5 minutes later having performed a reversing maneouvre (or whatever-passenger drop off) at 1300 on the same date it returned to pick up passenger and left 4 minutes later. neither of these events were parking events and both were less time than the BPA 10 minute grace period ( look that up and take the PBA code of practice as part of your evidence bundle).

you then say about double dipping adn refer to document 1 in your bundle( the pranksters blog)

where you refer to the CRA in point 6 you ahve completely left out the stronger claim that the sigsn are not a contract but an invitaion to treat

 

now we have spent more time advising you than you ahve in putting this together so pull you finger out and reread everything. and do it again.

Another thig I noticed abotu their WS is that they have included at least 3 pages of terms that dont exist on the signs. You use this and the CRA to state that as they rely on terms that are not advertised the the contract is VOID under S62 of the CRA and you then refer to your bundle again where you have a copy of the relevant legislation.

 

TYou havent mentioned the pint I made about the disparity of the angles of the number plate in their image and how it wouldnt be possible for the image of your front plate they have enlarged to go with the exit time to come from a photograph of that exit nor the entrance they ahve recorded so it must come from the entrance at the time of the second entry of your vehicle into the car park.

 

If you dont write t down it doesnt exist as evidence so you put it all on paper and send it to court in advance.

i am really aggrieved that you have let this all slip, you have had months to think about what you need to do having read up on procedure  etc so get writing again, post up here and hopefully you will have doen enough to at least make  something you can talk about on the day.

The other reason you need a full written defence is to make them realise that they are wasting their time turning up so go at it now and they may well drop the claim at the last knocking, do nothing or put in a load of junk and they will know that they are likely to get a payday

[kregrs]

Having been down and taken photos of the signs, it seems I was wrong and there are two signs with the terms and conditions, and they're the full t&c's. All I can say is I have never noticed them before, there is one on each entrance, although the signs do look to be fairly new, no damage, marks or weathering on them, same with the posts, very new looking galvanised sign posts. Interestingly, in their pack of photos, there isnt a picture of the sign with the full t&c's on

 

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Acc7ba12a-e709-4e0a-811b-7a8a097eccca

 

 

[kregrs]

I've juggled my ws around, but cant see that I can refer to their lack of t&c's having now seen there is a sign bearing the terms at the entrance of the car park, so have left that out, and it's not much longer than the original. 

 

In the county court at Ipswich
Claim number - 

Claimant      National Car Parks Limited
                                       -vs-
Defendant    

1)    I, , of am the defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my own knowledge.

2)    I make this statement in readiness for the hearing listed for the 23rd May 2019 at 10.00 and in support of my defence.

3)    On the 28th August 2017 at approximately 12:55 my vehicle did enter Tacket Street car park to drop off two passengers, leaving the car park within a few minutes of entering.

 

It then returned at approximately 13:25 to collect the same two passengers, and again left within a few minutes of arriving.

 

Neither event was a parking event, and each time the vehicle had left within the ten minute grace period recommended by the BPA. Document DA1 is a copy of the BPA guidelines. 

4)    I believe that I have been victim to a circumstance referred to as double dipping, where ANPR technology fails to record the entry or exit of a vehicle. As members of the BPA, the claimant would be aware of this issue, as the BPA provide guidelines to their members regarding this situation. Document DA2 is a copy of a document relating to ANPR performance, and shows that systems may only be accurate to 90 – 94%, and as low as 60%.

 

In order for double dipping to take place, the ANPR camera would fail to record an image of the registration plate on entry or exit, this could be due to the vehicle entering or exiting too close to the vehicle in front, or a pedestrian walking between the vehicle and the camera and obscuring the registration plate. The camera would be unable to read the registration and would therefore not record the event.

 

5)    In paragraph 28 of the claimants statement, the claimant has stated that my vehicle left the car park at 17:31, but has provided no evidence to back up this claim, this is also a contradiction of the timings given on the ANPR images.

6)    Page twenty seven of the claimants documents show an image taken from an ANPR camera, and an enhanced image of the vehicle registration plate. There appears to be a disparity between the two images, the angle of the enhanced image does not match the angle of the registration plate in the full image.

7)    Page twenty eight of the claimants documents shows an image from the ANPR camera of the rear of the vehicle, again the enhanced image does not appear to match the full image, showing a white registration plate, therefore a front registration plate. It also does not match the image on page twenty seven, and appears to have been taken from another image.
 I believe that the facts contained in this witness statement are true.

Signed –
Dated - 

 

[ericsbrother]

point 3, give a maximum time you were there, a few minutes is open ended so say that you were there a maximum of 5 minutes if you think that is the casenow point 4 really needs to tie itself with  point 3 so just say THUS or THEREFORE as the first word

Edited May 14, 2019 by ericsbrother

[ericsbrother]

you also need to quote the parking pranksers cases where the judge ruled in the defendants favour and copy the entire blog as a defence document. Also reread this entire thread and cut and paste anything that can be useful, you are still showing too little uin the way of argument and you ahve more to use than you have

[FTMDave]

So what happened in your case?

 

We have someone new on the site today who is being sued for visiting the same car park, so it would be useful to know.