The case was heard yesterday (November 8th.) and the judge ruled that "the case was fundamentally flawed".This is the reason why:-

Collection Of data By remote systems

a. Systems using the internet protocol are by their very nature Asynchronous

b. To use the time data derived from a client and server, it must be shown that the two are synchronised.

i. A camera and monitoring software are wrongly considered to be synchronous, they are in fact asynchronous. The time stamp on data collected by a server , the application, is derived locally to the application. A camera may also have a local clock but it is not the clock of the server nor the application.

ii. To use the images and time stamps produced by a server that is remote to the camera requires that the system has its own upper layer timing. If the system at any point uses connectivity provided by a third party, for instance ADSL data connections, then upper layer timing is required and some form of traffic flow security. An alarm and log would have to be implemented to warn of loss of Sync. If Parking Eye cannot show that the system is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. And any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is wrong.

So because Parking Eye just use cameras and don't have feet on the ground in the vast majority of car parks they "manage", then their whole business model has just gone down the pan.

Thanks for this.

Is this a case which you were involved in?

Please would you contact admin by email on our admin email address, please

No. I am just reporting on a case that being featured on PePiPoo.

Great, Ta very much.

Maybe you could get the word out to them that we would be interested in talking to the defendant with a view to possibly funding a transcript of the judgment. It sounds like a significant decision - although if it really threatens PE's business model, they would have to appeal it.

In case you haven't seen it, here is Parking Pranksters take on recent events concerning Parking Eye:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/parkingeye-court-losses-mount-up.html

In case you haven't seen it, here is Parking Pranksters take on recent events concerning Parking Eye:-

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/parkingeye-court-losses-mount-up.html

Brilliant

DBC wasn't it you who questioned PE on their timing synchronisation a couple of years ago and they stated they were synchronized by the Rugby time clock. Two years after they turned it off?

I didn't question them as such. I just observed that the statement on their website about Rugby Radio was way out of date.There is a similar clock still operating, but that's located in Cumbria.

nice to see a judge understanding and believeing that the technology is not perfect and needs calibration. I have seen a judge dismiss a discrepancy on parking timers of 11 minutes as being "in the motorists benefit" as they would hurry back and then find that they werent late after all. Unfortunately he couldnt actually tell the difference between fast and slow timers and the notion of time being t and not starting only at 9 o'clock in mathematics defeated him completely and just ended up shouting.