I assume you mean the above... Isn't that just proof of where the GPS was, not necessarily you
It's my phone which I carry with me and use for Android Auto navigation when driving.
I assume you mean the above... Isn't that just proof of where the GPS was, not necessarily you
The issues are (assuming various bits and pieces, which are the domain of evidence and burden of proof) as follows. This is also from a completely dispassionate point of view - I'm making no judgment on whether car park rates are reasonable or justified:
- The car park has evidence that the car was there.
- The car park has proof that you are the owner of the car.
- The car park doesn't need to prove that you parked the car there, just that your car was parked there.
- In the absence of a sustainable claim that you weren't in possession or control of the vehicle at the time, such as it having been stolen (and backed up by an appropriate police complaint), the car park is entitled to assume that either you or someone with your permission parked the car in the car park. And, by permission, that is permission to use the vehicle.
- It's your vehicle. If you can't control or regulate who uses it when, then you're going to be in the firing line (so to speak).
- So long as the car park's terms and conditions were clearly posted (often a sticking point), then whoever parked the car there did so in acknowledgment of those terms and conditions. Why should the car park lose out simply because you won't offer up who the driver was?