Exceeding the notified maximum free parking period - Horfield Leisure Centre, Bristol

[onFourWheels]

Just to clarify, this is also a "double dip" where the first exit and second entry ANPR images are "orphaned" and two separate visits have been merged to show a single visit from the first entry to the second exit?

Just putting to gather further ammunition as a double dip is also a breach of the PPSCoP section 7.3(d) where the operator has failed to perform the required manual quality control check on the ANPR images. Note 1 clearly states:

7.3. Use of photographic evidence

Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:

d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

It is, yes, and on the original letter sent, there is no exit image, only a broken URL which was printed in place of it.

I didn't originally add that in as I (as keeper) don't know the exact times of entry and exit and didn't want them (CEL) using that as a weakness when the land ownership issue should be an absolute, and I wondered if the question would be asked how that information would be known to someone who is/was not the driver? But if it should be added then absolutely that's another issue, yes.