notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:11:56 PM

Title: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:11:56 PM
I am starting this thread with a view to gathering evidence that supports the Prankster's assertions (here: http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html (http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html)) that ANPR cameras in car parks have fundamental flaws that make them unfit for purpose.

If you find any similar articles (old or new) please resurrect this thread and put them up.

Here's a starter for 10 in which the operator openly admits that in some circumstances number plates can be missed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14022961.Dad_wrongly_fined_for__five_hour_McDonald_s_stay_/ (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14022961.Dad_wrongly_fined_for__five_hour_McDonald_s_stay_/)

Dad wrongly fined for 'five hour McDonald's stay'

(http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/resources/images/4449711.jpg?htype=312&display=1&type=mc3)
Ian Gibson, who was wrongly fined for parking at the Arnison Centre, Durham, with his penalty notice

 A FATHER who took his children for tea at McDonald’s was hit with a parking fine for having supposedly stayed for more than four hours.

In fact, Ian Gibson had visited the Arnison Centre retail park, near Durham City, twice during the same day – the first time to buy flowers for his mother-in-law.

Horizon Parking’s CCTV cameras apparently failed to spot him leaving – and sent him a £40 fine, rising to £80 if it was not paid within 28 days.

When the 60-year-old appealed, the Essex-based firm enraged him yet further: suggesting he may have been tailgating or speeding as he left.

“I just can’t understand it. They got a photo when I first went in. Surely they must have got one of me leaving,” he said.

Mr Gibson, who lives in Warrington, Greater Manchester, was visiting family in Durham on the day in question, Friday, October 9.

He visited Marks and Spencer in the morning and McDonald’s early in the evening. But, he says, he has a bank receipt proving he was in Chester-le-Street at lunchtime.

Horizon has agreed to cancel the fine, but in an email to Mr Gibson said: “Having checked our records, we can see no evidence of a multi visit on our system.

“There are occasionally instances, however, where the cameras may not capture a vehicle, such as tailgating, speeding or an obscured registration plate.”

Mr Gibson said: “I don’t tailgate or speed. I’ve written to them asking for £30 for my time.

“I’m happy I haven’t got to pay £40 but I don’t trust going in their twice in one day now.

“Lots of people must visit twice in a day on occasions. I often go in with the kids. I won’t go in there twice now.”

Horizon did not respond to The Northern Echo’s request for comment.

Parking rules at the Arnison Centre hit the headlines in 2013, when it emerged so-called shopping spies from another firm, UKCPS, were fining unknowing customers £100 a time for parking in one part of the car park and shopping in another.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:24:23 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/11/aldi-parking-fine-parking-eye-supermarket (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/11/aldi-parking-fine-parking-eye-supermarket)

This £70 Aldi supermarket fine is sending us off our trolley

We can’t convince ParkingEye that two separate visits don’t count as one!

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/10/9/1444385578470/Aldi-sign-009.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=13b78202f354eb4c70c8b548831a8807)
Aldi encourages shoppers to complain directly to ParkingEye

I was furious when separate visits in the same car on the same day to an Aldi store on Nantwich Road near Crewe, in Cheshire, led to a parking charge notice from ParkingEye for £70. The maximum stay there is one-and-a-half hours.

My wife arrived first at 10.39am and left at around 11.30am (after spending £19.14 on groceries). I drove the same vehicle into the car park at around 4pm and left 10 minutes later. No purchase was made at that point, as I only called in to inquire about a fridge. I returned at approximately 4.30pm in a campervan (a more suitable vehicle) and bought the fridge assisted by a member of staff. There is obviously an assumption that the vehicle leaving at 4.10pm had been there since 10.39am.

The charge has cost two hours of my time rummaging through a recycling bin to retrieve the relevant receipts to prove the times of the visits.

BD, Crewe

Aldi’s car parks throughout the UK are managed by ParkingEye, and although the retailer encourages its shoppers who have been slapped with what they consider to be an unfair charge to complain directly (customer-services@aldi.co.uk), talkboards have been full of complaints about the mailbox being full up.

The time limit for free parking has also gradually been reduced and an hour-and-a-half is not long, particularly for older and infirm shoppers.

In your case, Aldi and ParkingEye have acknowledged that there was clearly a mix-up. An Aldi spokesperson said: “Our car parking system is set up to ensure that we can offer customers maximum car parking space. This includes preventing non-customers from misusing spaces. Aldi does not make any revenue from parking notices.

“We acknowledge that BD was incorrectly charged and ParkingEye has consequently cancelled his charge. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused him.”
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:30:42 PM
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html)

ParkingEye subject to data protection complaint from Alexander Owens

Alexander John Owens LLB is an ex-senior investigating officer with the ICO (Information Commissioners Office), and is the same 'Alec' Owens who testified before the Lord Leveson inquiry on Operation Motorman. You would therefore expect him to be something of an expert on data protection.

Several months ago he helped a colleague who visited a service station twice but was issued a parking charge by ParkingEye for one long stay. He advised the colleague to write to ParkingEye, explain what happened and bring to their attention this obvious technical error with their system. He also expected ParkingEye to rectify the problem to ensure it could never happen to any other innocent motorist. The charge was duly withdrawn.

More recently his daughter experienced the same issue. She regularly travels past Welcome Break Charnock Richard-Chorley in the morning and often pulls in for a coffee or petrol. She was therefore distressed to receive a parking charge notice accusing her of staying for over 48 hours at the services. Obviously ParkingEye's systems had failed again.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rTf6REeq8_o/VhU_A7hFEqI/AAAAAAAAEAY/xrNV1pHVu5Y/s640/NTK%2Bpart.jpg)

This is a fundamental problem with ParkingEye's ANPR systems compounded by their failure to use industry available methods to prevent this happening. Numberplates can be misread for many reasons, including good weather, bad weather and ParkingEye's systems inability to cope with the position of numberplate fixings.  The most common reason for failure is a close following vehicle which obscures the numberplate.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-epOMNITPDD0/VhVBw1EzHaI/AAAAAAAAEAk/oI1mdHGHRJs/s640/obscure.png)

This example from a ParkingEye charge notice illustrates how it happens. If the following car was a bit closer, the numberplate would have been obscured and its entry missed out. The same would have happened if the car in front was a van or lorry - the straighter back would cut out the last few letters of the plate.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1ff6U31AjL0/VhVBxo2Dd3I/AAAAAAAAEAs/vn2xkMgg3vs/s640/example.png)

This is especially prevalent at service stations where vans and lorries are more common than at for instance retail shopping car parks.

Essentially the problem is caused because the cameras are not high enough, and are not pointed down at a steep enough an angle. The higher the camera, the less chance the vehicle will be obscured. Of course, it still could be obscured. The ultimate solution, as used at Bristol Airport drop off, is to use barriers on entry and exist that read the numberplate before the barrier raises. However, barriers are not practical in all situations. A cheap and easy alternative is to bury an induction coil in the road and take a series of photographs each time a vehicle passes, whether or not a numberplate has been read. This would provide a failsafe record so that parking company employees could check these photographs and not issue a charge if any doubt is present.

ParkingEye are of course well aware that their systems have a problem. They record instances of vehicles arriving without apparently leaving and leaving without arriving. These are caused by failing  to detect either an entry or exit. The number of these mismatches gives ParkingEye an estimate of how good or bad their system is at each site. Large numbers of mismatches mean the cameras are faulty or badly positioned.

The Prankster has previously reported on a victim accused of staying a long time in a car park. They withdrew the charge when the victim send them the tracker data from their vehicle, proving it had visited twice.

The Prankster has also reported on a victim issued a ticket for arriving at a service station on one side of the motorway and leaving on the other!

Despite knowing their systems are faulty ParkingEye continue to issue charges and even pursue victims to court. In their court documents they try and obfuscate matters and bamzoole the judge by referring to the accuracy of the timestamp.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oZZ4dBlOcTI/VhVHrCnF3DI/AAAAAAAAEA8/aEQ6AGKcgTM/s640/court.jpg)

Of course ParkingEye are well aware that the accuracy of the ANPR timestamp is not the issue.The problem is the missed numberplates. Although ParkingEye refer to 19 stages of checking not once have they explained exactly what these checks are, or how they help with the problem of missed numberplates.

The 19 checks do not appear to be particularly robust. The Prankster has helped with one case where ParkingEye told POPLA that a motorist had only visited once. POPLA believed ParkingEye and refused the appeal. However at the letter before claim stage they claimed the motorist had visited twice. After pointing out this failure in their 19 stages of checking, ParkingEye dropped the charge. No doubt many other innocent motorists without the Prankster's help would have caved in and paid the charge.


The situation therefore is that ParkingEye are both negligent and reckless when they apply for keeper data from the DVLA in the full knowledge that their systems are faulty and that they have done nothing to prevent these errors. These are offences against the data protection act.

Mr Owens therefore wrote to ParkingEye, and will be lodging complaints to the DVLA and ICO. His letter follows.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U5AtHFMZWNk/VhVJofD-0vI/AAAAAAAAEBI/5tGQKA1Nr6E/s640/let%2B1r.jpg)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vfuQcaXX_yo/VhVJuykPrFI/AAAAAAAAEBQ/5C8t9wszQJo/s640/let%2B2.JPG)

Mr Owens obviously knows a thing or two about data protection. The Prankster therefore advises other motorists whose data has been recklessly accessed when it should not have been to consider following his lead and complaining to the ICO and the DVLA. They should also consider requesting compensation from the operator under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1999.

Now that Mr Owens has informed the DVLA of the problem, they will be similarly negligent and reckless if they keep issuing keeper data for ParkingEye queries without putting checks and balances in place.

The problem is not confined to ParkingEye or to ANPR systems. ANPR Ltd, who have since been expelled from the British Parking Association, have been known to request keeper data and pursue the keeper even when the driver has previously written to them confirming they were the driver and giving their address.

In that circumstance there is no legal reason to request keeper data because the keeper is not liable for parking charges if the driver name and address is known before proceedings begin.

The problem is also not confined to BPA (or ex BPA) members. Parkshield Collection Ltd, an IPC member, also have form for pursuing the keeper when the driver is known to them. This is an offence under the IPC code of practice which can  result in 6-12 sanction points.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:52:04 PM
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Motorist-Amantha-Squire-given-100-parking-fine/story-27899382-detail/story.html (http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Motorist-Amantha-Squire-given-100-parking-fine/story-27899382-detail/story.html)

Motorist Amantha Squire given £100 parking fine in Gloucester - despite being in a different county

A motorist has been left furious after receiving a £100 car park fine in Gloucester when she wasn't even in the county at the time.

Amantha Squire, who works in Gloucester, has visited the Tesco store in St Oswalds Road several times after finishing work to buy a few things for dinner, staying no more than 30 minutes at a time.

Last month she received a penalty notice from the car park operators at the store claiming she had flouted the parking rules by staying almost 11 hours longer than the three-hour maximum.

The letter included pictures of Ms Squire's vehicle entering the car park at 6.01pm on Monday, July 6 and leaving it at 8.04am the following morning – a date when she claims she wasn't even in the county.

"I was actually at a work course in Warwickshire that week – having left my home in Bristol on that Monday – so there was no way my car could have been at Tesco let alone for 14 hours," said Ms Squire.

"There's clearly a glitch with the system but it could have been very problematic for me with my partner asking me why I was parked overnight in Gloucester when I had told him I was at a work course in a different county.

"It's absolutely appalling that this kind of mistake could have happened."

Ms Squire has had to go back to get evidence from her work and the hotel where she stayed that week in order to appeal the fine.

"It's outrageous that I have to do this when it was clearly their mistake," she added.

A Tesco spokesman said: "We apologise for the inconvenience that Ms Squire has experienced and we are investigating the matter."
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 12:55:25 PM
Woman fined [charged] £100 for parking in free car park

(http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/1.7479162.1443108927!/image/1700720301.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/1700720301.jpg)
Karen Slingo from Guiseley had a parking tricket cancelled with with a parking enforcement company over a £100 ticket she was given at Gusieley retail park, thanks to the YEP.

A PARKING enforcement company performed a sudden U-turn when the YEP questioned why a Leeds grandmother was handed a £100 fine for visiting a FREE car park.

Karen Slingo, 55, said she parked at Westside Retail Park on Leeds Road at Guiseley for around 20 minutes while shopping in the morning of July 3 and returned for a few minutes to buy a coffee at the McDonald’s drive through just before 5pm that afternoon. Mrs Slingo, of Guiseley, was shocked to receive a £100 parking ticket in the post five days later, which stated her car had been caught on camera breaching the three-hour limit for free parking at the retail park on July 3.

She wrote to parking enforcement company Parking Eye to explain they had made a mistake. Mrs Slingo received a letter back on August 6 saying there was no evidence to to substantiate her claim and that the parking fine still stood.

She contacted the YEP and Parking Eye agreed to cancel the ticket this week, shortly after being asked for a comment

Mrs Slingo, who works as a carer, said: “I was appalled. I don’t mind paying if I’ve done something wrong, but this could have been an old person they were chasing for payment of a wrongly-issued fine.

A Parking Eye spokesman said: “It appears that the vehicle registration was mismatched due to the position of one of the ‘bolts’ that affix the plate to the vehicle.


http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/woman-fined-100-for-parking-in-free-car-park-1-7479163 (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/woman-fined-100-for-parking-in-free-car-park-1-7479163)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Kill Switch on 15 November, 2015, 01:09:00 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4jKcc6g2sd9rqR9sFZKCBjQ/private-parking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4jKcc6g2sd9rqR9sFZKCBjQ/private-parking)


Private Parking

Break the rules in a council run car park, or on a public road, and you can be fined by the local authority or police.

Break them in one of the many car parks run by private companies, and you'll be hit with a charge – which can be for a higher sum.

They don't have any legal powers to prosecute - but a new legislation in England and Wales under the Protection of Freedoms Act which banned wheel clamping on private land, has also made it easier for them to pursue car owners for payment.

Those companies demand that we adhere to strict terms and conditions if we want to avoid their parking charges, so it’s a pity some of them seem to be ignoring their own industry rules.

Richard Couzens parked his car in a car park near Cavendish Retail Park on a shopping trip with the family. He purchased a ticked which would allow him to park for an hour. Although he returned to remove the car after 40 minutes, two weeks later he was surprised to receive a parking charge notice from Excel Parking.

Richard assumed there’d been a simple error with Excel’s automated systems. And as he’d kept the ticket which proved his case - he thought getting them to drop the charge would be just as simple.

“I sent them numerous emails, over the space of several weeks. And it wasn’t until about I think it was 106 days later they actually finally got in touch with me to say that the parking charge had been overturned.”

According to the Industry’s Code of Practice, issued by the British Parking Association (BPA) companies or landowners are required to acknowledge or reply to a motorist’s appeal within 14 days of getting it. If they send an acknowledgement, they must fully reply in writing within 35 days of getting the appeal.

And only companies who are signed up to that code can buy your details from the DVLA - Excel was in clear breach.

Last month the DVLA suspended Excel’s access to their database for three months because of another breach - issuing misleading information to drivers.

Luckily for Richard he had his parking ticket and could prove his innocence, but the situation could have been different, leaving him £40 out of pocket.

The DVLA has also suspended five other companies for issuing misleading information to drivers.

    Roxburghe Ltd
    MET Parking Ltd
    VP Parking solutions Ltd
    Combined Parking Solutions Ltd
    ANPR PC Ltd.

“We take the management and the control of our data extremely seriously. But we also have to strike a balance in terms of the data that we provide to organisations that have reasonable cause to have that data...” Says DVLA spokesperson Phil Bushby.

While the DVLA have taken action, these companies are still members of the British Parking Association – the body that’s in charge of the Code, and which is supposed to regulate the industry.

Premier Park Ltd is also a member of the BPA. They issued Ian Peat with a parking charge without him even parking.

Ian Peat had gone the wrong way on a holiday in Cornwall. The first port of call for him was to use the car park he saw on the side of the road to turn around. He was in and out of there in around 3 minutes - He received a ticket.

Despite the BPA code saying that parking companies should allow drivers a reasonable “grace” period to leave without actually parking – Ian received a £60 charge after just three minutes.

Premier Park said he’d entered a restricted area. And Ian noticed that the charge soon began to rise, with a threat of reaching £150 if he didn’t pay within 28 days. Ian says he thinks it is ridiculous. Ridiculous maybe, and arguably against the BPA Code.

So while the DVLA are finally starting to take action – when will the BPA?
Company Responses

 

A spokesperson for Excel says,

We haven't issued any misleading information to drivers that breaches the CoP, neither does our signage breach the CoP.

We are contesting the DVLA's suspension, as there has been no breach of the CoP or our agreement with the DVLA

Mr Couzens:

We can confirm that Mr Couzens was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to a visit he made to the Cavendish Park Retail Park on 29th April 2012. The PCN was issued because he did not purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket.

The Cavendish Retail Park Car Park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras (ANPR) linked to Pay and Display machines which match “in” and “out” images against the records of Pay & Display (P&D) tickets purchased using the Vehicle Registration (VR) Number. It is important that the full and accurate vehicle registration number is entered at the time the ticket is purchased. Instructions are detailed on the P&D machine and tariff sign.

Mr Couzens appealed against the PCN and produced copies of the 2 P&D tickets he had purchased; his appeal was received on 17th May at 21:00 hours via email. At the time of reviewing Mr Couzens appeal, we identified the reason why the PCN had been issued.

In effect, Mr Couzens inputted an ‘O’ (Oscar) as part of his registration plate upon the purchase of his first Pay and Display ticket when the actual reference was to a ‘0’ (Zero). The correct registration was inputted with the purchase of Mr Couzens second Pay and Display ticket.

In explaining the situation, it is appropriate to summarise the key facts which are as follows:

1. The ANPR cameras captured Mr Couzens vehicle entering and exiting the car park at the following times:

    Time Entered: 13:45
    Time Exited: 14:25
    Duration of Stay: 40 minutes
    VR Number: ***0 ***

2. The P&D ticket information:

Ticket 1: Time Purchased: 13:49

    Expiry Time: 14:49
    VR Number entered: ***O *** (Oscar)

Ticket 2: Time Purchased: 14:23

    Expiry Time: 15:23
    VR Number entered: ***0 *** (Zero)

The system processing matched the 2nd ticket only as this was an identical match to the correct VR number captured by the ANPR camera. In doing so, the (gap) between Mr Couzens entering the car park and purchasing this valid P&D ticket was 38 minutes, which significantly exceeded the grace period required to purchase a ticket and, hence, resulting in the issue of the PCN.

However, we do recognise that motorists may input an incorrect digit(s) of their VR number when purchasing a P&D ticket and as such our processing allows for a manual review/quality check of PCN’s before they are issued. Unfortunately, on this occasion our check failed to identify the 1st ticket. On further investigation Mr Couzens case raises an unusual set of circumstances, as Mr Couzens purchased a 2nd ticket and left the car park almost immediately, even though the 1st ticket was not due to expire for a further 26 minutes.

The issue was discovered at the point we reviewed Mr Couzens appeal and we duly placed the PCN on hold pending formal cancellation. The actual cancellation paperwork was drawn up on the 23rd of May for the cancellation of Mr Couzens PCN. On the same day incorrect correspondence was sent to Mr Couzens advising him that the PCN was being investigated. This correspondence should have stated that the PCN was being cancelled.

It is with regret that Mr Couzens was sent a standard acknowledgement letter rather than a cancellation letter explaining the position to him. Furthermore, we are embarrassed to find that despite further correspondence received from Mr Couzens, we did not process it in the manner that it should have been. Mr Couzens also states within his correspondence that he has incurred an administration fee by his company for the issue of the PCN. We will therefore be offering Mr Couzens the value of the £40.00 Parking Charge Notice to cover both his fee and out of pocket expenses.

We take customer complaints very seriously and have initiated an internal investigation and appropriate action will be taken to rectify the situation. Additionally, we are re-reviewing our complaints escalation procedure.

As established members of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, we are committed to delivering high levels of customer service and we can assure you that the instances of poor standards of service experienced by Mr Couzens are very rare indeed.

A spokesperson from Premier Park Ltd says,

Premier Park Limited complies fully with all current legal and voluntary requirements set out for the Private Parking Sector.

Mr Peat contacted us by telephone on the 27th September and he confirmed that he had entered the private land in question and that he was the driver. He also stated that he was unhappy to have received the Charge Notice regarding this. He was advised during this call that there are certain procedures we are required to follow and that he had the right to appeal the Parking Charge Notice and formally notify us that he was the driver at the time. In addition to this information being stated on the Charge Notice issued, he was further advised of the appeal process. To date we have not received any appeal or notification in writing or by email from Mr Peat regarding this matter.

A spokesperson from the BPA says,

The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice states that operators must allow the driver a ‘reasonable grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go and a ‘reasonable period’ in which to leave the car park.

The British Parking Association is now investigating the allegations made by Watchdog regarding Excel and Premier Park Ltd.

A spokesperson from Combined Parking Solutions says,

There was a concern raised by the DVLA in late August 2012 in respect to wording on signage in place at a very small number of the sites managed by Combined Parking Solutions and as a result, and in line with their rights as the data holder, our access to the DVLA database was suspended until the matter had been rectified to the satisfaction of the DVLA.

Combined Parking Solutions has never received any complaint or comment from any member of the public in relation to our signage which is very clear and sets out, in plain English, the terms and conditions for parking at any of our sites. This is evidenced by our high compliance rate and the fact that on each occasion we have taken unpaid charges to court, at the hearing, the wording, design and structure of our signage has been reviewed by the Judge and deemed to amount to a legally binding contract.

The issues that DVLA raised were solely around the possible interpretation of a keeper liability statement and once Combined Parking Solutions were informed of the wording issues we took immediate and appropriate action to resolve these concerns.

Following the matters raised by DVLA, Combined Parking Solutions have been audited by both the BPA and the DVLA and neither organisation have found issue with our amended practices and signage. In addition we even invited local trading standards to visit us and review all our documentation and procedures to which they did recently and no problems were identified.

Combined Parking Solutions do not request data via the electronic link and wait 28 days following the issue of a charge before making a manual request for keeper details from DVLA, we can confirm that we are able to request keeper details for all unpaid parking events from 2nd November 2012.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 04:40:30 PM
https://www.aspokesmansaid.com/complaint/559a8f112e12b21d28dcc206/hospital-headache (https://www.aspokesmansaid.com/complaint/559a8f112e12b21d28dcc206/hospital-headache)

Jacky Chambers

submitted 6 Jul 2015 3:22 PM

Highview Parking

Hospital Headache

My father received a letter from this company informing him that he had not paid for a parking ticket. My father had paid the maximum amount of £3.00 for his time at this Hospital. He also has the ticket which fortunately he had kept ! The ticket he purchased clearly states the date and time. The letter from Highview is totally unacceptable. My father has just started to drive after suffering a ruptured Abdominal Aortic Anueyrsym, he is lucky to have survived. To receive this demand when payment has been satisfied is totally unacceptable. I feel they should offer apologies and compensation as my father has been very upset over this.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 04:46:07 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/14858/Driver-slams--100-fine-for.html (http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/14858/Driver-slams--100-fine-for.html)

Driver slams £100 fine for 'parking in free car park'

(http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/resizer/680/-1/true/1434706442405.jpg--.jpg?1434706447000)



THIS is the controversdial fine notice sent to a Newbury shopper, demanding £100...supposedly for parking in a free car park.

The ticket was issued by a private parking enforcement firm, Sheffield-based Vehicle Control Services Ltd, and clearly states that Janis Clanchy, of Newtown Common, is being penalised for overstaying at “the privately-operated car park at London Road Retail Park, Newbury”.

There’s just one problem – the car park is free and there are no restrictions, signs or cameras.

Mrs Clanchy and her husband Doug initially assumed she had been fined because she visited several stores at the retail park on the day the fine was issued. But the lack of cameras and the fact the car park is unrestricted suggest otherwise.

Mrs Clanchy did, however, also shop at stores at the London Road junction with Faraday Road – where Vehicle Control Services Ltd does have enforcement signs and cameras.

The fine – which offers the inducement of a reduction to £60 if paid promptly – is accompanied by photographs of Mrs Clanchy’s car.

It claims she arrived at the retail park at 9.53am and did not leave until 1.18pm.

But, even if this refers to the stores near Faraday Road, the Clanchys say this is inaccurate.

Mr Clanchy said: “My wife briefly visited the shops by Faraday Road twice, so she should not have incurred any penalty for overstaying any two-hour limit.”

The Clanchys had been shopping that day at Dunelm Mill, at the retail park and initially felt that they had been misled about free parking advertised on its website.

A spokeswoman for Dunelm Mill, Heather Price, said: “The car park at our Newbury store at London Road Retail Park is free and we do not issue tickets.”

She said the firm was “very disappointed” to learn that customers were apparently being issued with tickets “from a car park down the road... being incorrectly referred to as London Road Retail Park.”

Ms Price added: “If any customers have any problems at our car park, they should get in touch with the store.”

Vehicle Control Services Ltd declined to discuss the matter, but asked for any queries to be put in writing.

Newburytoday.co.uk’s sister publication, the Newbury Weekly News, did so but the firm has not responded.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 04:50:42 PM
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/smart-parking-accused-of-thumbing-their-noses-at-perth-folk-1.883747 (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/smart-parking-accused-of-thumbing-their-noses-at-perth-folk-1.883747)

Smart Parking accused of ‘thumbing their noses’ at Perth folk

A controversial pay and display system that has caused chaos in Perth is to be installed in a second car park.

The Mill Street car park, near Marks and Spencer, is operated by Smart Parking, the same firm that runs the Kinnoull Street multi-storey.

This year the company changed its pay and display machines to a type requiring drivers to enter their vehicle registrations when buying a ticket.

However, dozens of motorists have been caught out by the system – with one motorist receiving a ticket after confusing the number 0 with the letter O and another penalised despite leaving 40 minutes early.

Councillor Alexander Stewart, who has received many complaints about the Kinnoull site, said the firm is failing to listen to users.

He said: “I am horrified that Smart Parking has paid no attention to the concerns that have been raised by numerous individuals, businesses and the council regarding this system, which was recently introduced at their Kinnoull Street facility.

“They now seem to be pushing forward to introduce this at another car park, which I expect will have similar consequences for their customers.

“The company has obviously learned nothing from the numerous complaints and seems to care even less.

“Despite numerous attempts to organise a meeting here in Perth with Smart Parking to discuss the problems, they ignored all approaches, and by introducing this system to Mill Street they are, to all intents and purposes, thumbing their nose at the citizens of Perth.”

However, a spokesman for Smart Parking said motorists are continuing to use the Kinnoull Street site and the system has prevented people parking without paying.

He said: “Smart Parking can confirm that it is upgrading the pay and display system used at the Mill Street car park.

“The new system is similar to the one that was recently installed at the Kinnoull Street car park, and which is widely used across Scotland and the rest of the UK.

“Since the new system was installed we have seen no decline in the number of motorists using the car park.

“Historically, at Kinnoull Street, there was a serious issue of people parking but not paying, which simply wasn’t fair on those people that did.

“We are pleased to say we have now seen a substantial increase in the number of people paying for their parking since the introduction of the new system.”



Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 04:57:07 PM
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Family-fined-100-pulling-Exeter-car-park-minutes/story-26612690-detail/story.html# (http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Family-fined-100-pulling-Exeter-car-park-minutes/story-26612690-detail/story.html#)

Family fined £100 after pulling into Exeter car park for six minutes

(http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/26612690/10187656-large.jpg)

A FAMILY who stopped for six minutes in an Exeter car park to ask for directions have been handed a £100 fine for failing to pay for parking, even though they say they weren’t stopping.

Paul and Samantha Jackson were on their way to catch a flight at Exeter Airport on April 24, at 5.45am when they drove their family car into a car park operated by Premier Park of Exeter.

Mr Jackson said: “On approaching Exeter Airport at 5.45am, I did not want to stop the car on the main road (which was heavy with traffic) to get paperwork out of the boot of the car pertaining to the booked car park, because of having two children in the back seats. I pulled into what I thought was the correct car park.

After my wife got the paperwork from the boot, I went to see the security guard in the car park to enquire if we were in the correct car park, and he told me I was in the wrong place and gave me directions to the correct car park.

“I pulled out of “PARK 2 FLY” ,I was actually booked in at “FLY PARK”), six minutes later. At no time did I park up and leave the car unattended or take out the suitcases, etc. At no time did we stop other cars from parking in this car park. The parking charges for Park 2 Fly is £15 per day, this works out 0.0625 for the 6 minutes we were in the car park for.”

“We had no intention of parking our car in FLY2PARK car park, as we were only trying to find where our booked car park was situated, and as you can imagine at that time of the morning, there are not many places open to enquire the whereabouts of FLY PARK.”

The couple from St Austell contacted the company in writing to point out why they briefly stopped at the car park but Premier Park rejected their reasons and insisted they pay the amount. However Mr Jackson has the option of making an appeal but he strongly feels that the fine is unjust and unnecessary.

When the Express and Echo contacted the parking firm they declined to give a written reply but instead suggested Mr Jackson appeal. They also indicated there are large signs at the car park warning motorists of their terms and conditions of entry. The company also rejected the idea Mr Jackson had stopped to ask for directions but did park for a short time as caught on their CCTV.








Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 04:58:45 PM
Motorist queues for three hours to leave busy car park - then is sent £70 parking ticket


Dionne Russell was hit with the fine when licence plate recognition cameras tracked her vehicle and the time it spent on the site

(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5798125.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Dionne-Russell.jpg)
Shocked: Dionne Russell could not believe she was hit with the parking charge

A motorist who was left queuing to get out of a car park for THREE HOURS was left fuming when she received a £70 parking ticket through the post days later.

Dionne Russell says she was trapped in Coventry's Central Six retail park because the traffic was gridlocked.

The 46-year-old spent 40 minutes shopping and then says it took her three hours to get out of the car park, the Coventry Telegraph reports.

That tipped her over the three hour limit for parking and meant she got an automatic fine through the post.

The good news is that millions of parking tickets are actually issued illegally, and you might be able to get yours cancelled. Failing that, if you think you've been ticketed unfairly, you can appeal - most are upheld - this is how.

Ms Russell, who lives in Radford, Coventry had gone to Central Six on her day off work on May 14 to get some last minute items before she went to visit her fiancee in Germany.

(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5800410.ece/BINARY/Driver-hit-with-%C2%A370-parking-ticket-after-being-stuck-in-car-park-traffic-queue-for-THREE-hours.jpg)

She said: "I had only gone to get some yarn for my crochet. I was going to be visiting my fiancee in Germany and wanted something to do for when he was working."

The finance manager, who works in Nottingham, said: "It took me longer to get home from there than from Nottingham."

Ms Russell was hit with the notice after licence plate recognition cameras used to police how long visitors to the retail park stay clocked her car stuck in traffic as she was leaving the site.

She said: "I actually spent around 40 minutes shopping. We were clearly queuing."

(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5800406.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Driver-hit-with-%C2%A370-parking-ticket-after-being-stuck-in-car-park-traffic-queue-for-THREE-hours.jpg)

The traffic was so bad because of a combination of nearby roadworks and a broken down vehicle on the ring road.

Dionne, who is in recovery from cancer, said she had been left stressed by her whole ordeal.

She said: "It was so stressful I'm in recovery from cancer and try to avoid stressful situations.

"People were really irate and shouting and it was unpleasant. In the queue people were trying to force themselves in front of me.

"In the end I let one in as it was really stressing me out. A lady was banging on people's windows and complaining to anyone letting anyone out and asking those pushing in to join the back of the queue.

"As I was feeling stressed I told her I didn't deliberately let anyone in just didn't want to become aggressive as it wouldn't help the situation."

(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5798124.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Central-Six.jpg)
Rush hour: It took the driver three hours to leave the Central Six retail park in Coventry

She described how it took police intervention to get the traffic moving again.

She said: "I would have been stuck for much longer had the police not took control of the traffic on the main road to let people out."

"I will be contesting the fine and definitely will not be paying it. I will never go back to that retail park again.

"There must be so many people in the same boat."

G24, the company which issued Ms Russell with her parking fine, were contacted about the case.

A spokesman for firm said: "We have no comment. We will have to wait for the appeal to come through so I couldn't pass comment yet."


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/motorist-queues-three-hours-leave-5798749 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/motorist-queues-three-hours-leave-5798749)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:03:31 PM
http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/ParkingEye-Yeovil-District-Hospital-performs-u/story-26523500-detail/story.html# (http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/ParkingEye-Yeovil-District-Hospital-performs-u/story-26523500-detail/story.html#)

ParkingEye: Yeovil District Hospital performs u-turn on car park payment system

(http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276414/Article/images/26523500/10088092-large.jpg)

YEOVIL District Hospital has done a U-turn on its unpopular car park payment system.

The new rules brought in earlier this year – requiring patients to remember what time they entered the car park when they pay – have now been scrapped.

Criticisms included accusations that the system installed by private company ParkingEye was expensive, confusing and likely to catch drivers out.

It has recently been replaced with a more familiar 'pay and display' set up.

A spokesman for the hospital said: "We implemented a simpler pay and display parking system at Yeovil District Hospital in response to public feedback that the new ParkingEye system was confusing and over-complicated.

"We also opened an additional car park, P2, earlier this year, to give people further options for parking, and removed the parking barriers to ease congestion for queuing traffic and emergency vehicle access."

ParkingEye said the system installed in January – which uses number plate recognition software to log customers on their way in, but requires them to remember the time – worked well at other hospitals.

But feedback the Western Gazette's social media pages suggested the system was very unpopular.

One man approached the Western Gazette after he was issued with a penalty notice after his car was seen arriving at the hospital and then leaving again 30 minutes later.

William Usher said he is a blue badge holder and was looking for a free space in one of the disabled bays.

But when he could not find a space he drove around the block again to see if one became free.

He did this a couple of times before a space became vacant, and parked in a free space, but was later slapped with a fine for failing to pay because his car had been clocked arriving and leaving by the ParkingEye cameras.

A spokesman for the hospital said: "We were sorry to learn of Mr Usher's parking fine. The two 20-minute drop-off zones, in front of the main entrance and the Women's Hospital, are monitored by ParkingEye, an automated number plate recognition system. Blue badge holders parking in these zones are required to register their badges at reception, which can be done at any time during their visit. Badge holders parking in P1 and P2 are not required to register their badges, provided they display them clearly in their vehicle.

"We would like to apologise to Mr Usher if it was unclear that he needed to register his badge to qualify for free parking in the drop-off zones and would invite him to contact our Patient Experience team who will be happy to cancel his fine with ParkingEye."

The spokesman added: "We are committed to continually improving and updating patient information about our hospital parking. To this end, we are actively seeking outdoor volunteers to join our team who will be on hand in the car parks to explain the parking system to those that need help.

"We are committed to providing an easily accessible, clear and fair parking system at our hospital and invite anyone experiencing any problems to get in touch with our Patient Experience team on 01935 384 706 or email pals@ydh.nhs.uk."
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:10:48 PM
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/how-a-drive-through-meal-cost-this-angry-driver-100-1-7261579 (http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/how-a-drive-through-meal-cost-this-angry-driver-100-1-7261579)

How a drive-through meal cost this angry driver £100

(http://www.sunderlandecho.com/webimage/1.7261576.1431619729!/image/4218136061.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/4218136061.jpg)
Robert Garwood with his parking ticket issued by Parking Eye after visiting Thomsen Retail Park, Wessington Way

AN ANGRY dad has hit out over a “ridiculous” parking fine he says was issued simply for spending “about 10 minutes” in a retail park.

Robert Garwood, 25, claims he visited Thomsen Retail Park, in Wessington Way, Sunderland, twice on December 30, last year.

Mr Garwood, from Pennymoor Square, Pennywell, Sunderland, says that on each visit he stayed for about five minutes as he picked up meals from two fast food drive-throughs.

However, within a week he received a letter from ParkingEye, who monitor the site, handing him a £100 parking fine.

The maximum stay on the site is one hour, and the letter from ParkingEye stated Mr Garwood had been there for four hours and 35 minutes, between 3.36pm and 8.11pm.

After refusing to pay the fine, Mr Garwood, who lives with girlfriend Rachel Spence, 23, and their son Jayden, two, faces the prospect of being taken to court.

He received another letter from ParkingEye in February stating that, if the £100 was not paid within two weeks, court proceedings would be issued, incurring further costs.

However, Mr Garwood is determined to continue to fight the action.

He said: “I went into McDonald’s at about 3.30pm to get my son some food, and then went home.

“I went back to the retail park just after 8pm to get food for me and my girlfriend from KFC, and again I used the drive-through, so went straight back home.

“I later received a letter from ParkingEye saying I was being given a £100 parking fine, which of course I contested, but the legal process is still continuing and they are trying to take me to court over it.

“I’ve responded to the court, telling them why I won’t pay the fine, and I was asked for proof I wasn’t there for that length of time.

“I sent them a receipt to prove when I went into KFC, but they say the case is still being pursued.

“I know it’s only £100, but I want to fight it as I don’t want it to happen to others as well.”

Mr Garwood has now called on ParkingEye to drop their case against him, and take note of the evidence available.

He added: “If they reviewed the CCTV footage, they would see me going in and out at the times I said I did.

“There would be no need for me to stay there for the length of time they say I did.

“They have pictured me going in at 3.36pm and leaving at 8.11pm, but haven’t taken into account the fact I wasn’t there all that time.”

ParkingEye did not wish to comment when contacted by the Echo.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:13:55 PM
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/letters/read/12942804.Beware_ASDA_parking_fines/ (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/letters/read/12942804.Beware_ASDA_parking_fines/)

Beware ASDA parking fines

(http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/resources/images/3633886.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3)

SIR - I should like to draw your attention to the 3 hour parking restriction enforced at the ASDAstore in Worcester city centre.

Do not rely on the time printed on your ticket purchased from the machine upon parking. I have learned to my cost that the 3 hour timescale commences upon driving into the car park entrance where your car registration is photographed and stored by computer system.

This fact is important if, like me, you often shop at the weekend where a large queue usually forms resulting in a delay between entering the car park and finding your eventual space on level 6. Relying upon the printed receipt time may result in a letter from Smart Parking and a demand for a £30 fine.

Mr K Kerry

Belbroughton
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
OAP’s warning after supermarket parking ticket error

(http://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/1.7252740.1431182895!/image/2445530329.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/2445530329.jpg)

Saturday 09 May 2015

A PENSIONER has issued a warning after winning his battle with a multi-national car parking firm over a trip to Preston’s Asda store.

Keith Prowse, 71, went to Fulwood Asda to do some shopping on March, 26 and returned later to get some petrol and pick up a prescription.

But to his horror he received a letter from Smart Parking Ltd two weeks later demanding £70 and accusing him of overstaying the supermarket car park’s three-hour parking limit by an hour.

He said: “It makes you not want to go to Asda twice in a day for fear of a fine. It is absolutely appalling.”

The fine has been overturned and Smart Parking said the reason for the letter was a security camera which misread Keith’s numberplate.

A Smart Parking spokesperson said: “Due to the placement of the registration fittings, the C in Mr Prowse’s vehicle registration plate was read as a G.

“Asda contacted us about this case and we have now cancelled Mr Prowse’s charge.

“Smart Parking abides by the British Parking Association Code of Conduct, and we operate a clear and fair appeals procedure, so we do encourage motorists to contact us if there are mitigating circumstances in their cases.”

But Keith said: “The machine has read my number plate four times.

“Where are the other two images? How can this ‘glitch’ happen just twice – if it is being misread why isn’t it always being misread?”

Fortunately for Keith he kept all of his receipts and could prove he had driven back to his house in Fulwood.

He said: “The CCTV image shows me entering the car park at 10.03am which I did and then the exit picture shows me leaving at 13:54 which I didn’t. After shopping I left at 10.30 and my phone records show I was at home at 10.53 because I made a call to my wife.

“I’d urge other shoppers to keep their receipts and a record just in case this happens again.”


http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/oap-s-warning-after-supermarket-parking-ticket-error-1-7252741 (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/oap-s-warning-after-supermarket-parking-ticket-error-1-7252741)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:26:03 PM
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/parkingeye-anpr-system-fatally-flawed.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/parkingeye-anpr-system-fatally-flawed.html)

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

ParkingEye ANPR system fatally flawed

ParkingEye recently issued a parking ticket to a motorist who they said had stayed almost 3 hours in a car park. They based this accusation on pictures their ANPR had taken of the vehicle arriving and leaving.

However, the motorist had visited the car park twice, once in the afternoon and then later in the early evening. ParkingEye’s system, being unfit for purpose, had failed to take pictures of the first exit and second entry.

The motorist appealed; ParkingEye responded with a threatening letter

Luckily for the motorist, they had a tracker device in their vehicle which showed their journey.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a-STumXY_bc/VSVzBEFC4FI/AAAAAAAADO4/Lcm0Qet37Uo/s1600/journey.jpg)

 They informed ParkingEye they had as evidence a vehicle tracker and two witness statements.

On receipt of this, ParkingEye had no option but to realise their system was fatally flawed and cancel the parking charge.

The Prankster wonders how many other motorists have been charged because bugs in ParkingEye’s system fail to record two visits. Most of these motorists will not be fortunate enough to have a tracker in their vehicle, and will then be up against the ParkingEye juggernaut. The Prankster has helped many motorists in court cases where ParkingEye falsely claimed the motorist had visited once where in fact they visited twice.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:37:33 PM
Web Admin note: Parking Collection Services (PCS) Ltd are members of the BPA Ltd and operates "in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice"

The Code of Practice states:

"21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order.

http://www.parkingcsl.co.uk/ (http://www.parkingcsl.co.uk/)


===================

Orchard Centre parking tickets cancelled after machine glitch

(http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/resources/images/3597614.jpg?htype=1319&display=1&type=mc2)
Andy Jarvis was incorrectly issued a parking ticket. Picture: David Fleming

MORE than 100 parking tickets issued over Christmas by Didcot’s Orchard Centre had to be cancelled after a technical glitch.

The centre’s parking contractors have written to residents to say they will cancel every ticket issued, correctly or not, between December 22 and January 7.

Parking Collection Services (PCS) said tickets were incorrectly issued because of a “technical problem”.

The Oxford Mail understands a total of 150 parking charge notices were incorrectly sent out.

Our top stories

Andy Jarvis, of Ladygrove, said the situation was “ridiculous”, calling PCS “amateur”.

Mr Jarvis received a letter on February 24 fining him £25, or £100 if not paid within 14 days, for a parking “incident” at 6.15pm – but there was no date given.

The letter said he had overstayed, but as he does not finish work at Cartridge UK in Botley Road, Oxford, until 5.30pm most nights, he said it would be difficult to get to the Orchard Centre by 6.15pm.

Mr Jarvis, 52, said: “I phoned the Orchard Centre first and they said they thought there had been a mistake with the parking system “They said ‘loads of people have rung us’.”

But when he called parking firm PCS, he was told he should pay up.

He said: “It’s amateur – they hadn’t passed the information on to their staff taking the calls.”

He put a message on the Spotted: Didcot Facebook page and said from the overwhelming response he got: “It seemed like just about everybody had got the same letter for various incidents, but none of them had a date.”

Last week, he and others received a letter from PCS saying it would cancel all tickets issued for the car park between December 22 and January 7.

The letter writer apologised for any inconvenience caused.

Hammerson, which runs the Orchard Centre, issued a statement blaming a technical fault with its ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) system and saying a “small number” of customers had been incorrectly issued with parking tickets.

It said all customers affected had been contacted to inform them of the mistake and issued with voided tickets or refunds.

Hammerson also apologised for any inconvenience caused and said anyone affected could call 0161 214 8058 for further assistance.

The company refused to say how many tickets were issued during the 16-day period, how many complaints it received, and how many refunds it was making.



http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/11848859.Machine_glitch_parking_tickets_are_cancelled/?ref=twtrec (http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/11848859.Machine_glitch_parking_tickets_are_cancelled/?ref=twtrec)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 05:44:30 PM
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/11825232.Driver_in_parking/ (http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/11825232.Driver_in_parking/)

Driver in parking penalty battle at Bradford retail park

 A DRIVER has been locked in a battle with a car parking company after being sent a penalty notice for a time when he claims his car was not there.

Garry Mahon refused to pay the £85 parking charge incurred at Forster Square Retail Park which he said was issued in error on February 5.

The company which issued the ticket, ParkingEye car park management, has insisted Mr Mahon was in the car park during the times stated, but said it had now cancelled the charge due to "extenuating circumstances".

Mr Mahon, of Sandholme Drive, Thorpe Edge, said he was dropping his 16 year-old daughter off at work at the retail park when his Citroen Xsara Picasso was caught on camera entering the car park at 4.58pm.

He said he then left the car park two minutes later, returning shortly after 9pm to pick his daughter up.

He was then again caught on camera leaving the car park at 9.20pm, and received a ticket saying he had spent four hours and 21 minutes there, longer than the three-hour limit.

Mr Mahon, who works at a petrol station in Wyke, said he had no idea why the cameras had not filmed him leaving and re-entering the car park while his daughter was at work.

"The car park was virtually empty at 9pm, so I can't understand why the cameras didn't pick me up coming back in," he said.

 "The cameras have either malfunctioned or they have selected the pictures they want to use."

Mr Mahon said in trying to contact ParkingEye, he had spoken to the deputy centre manager at Forster Square, Vanessa Lewis, who spoke to the company on his behalf.

He said he was told the matter would be dropped "as a gesture of good will" before he then received the reminder notice.

"Saying they would drop it as a gesture of good will is very patronising to say the least, it's as though they're the ones doing me a favour," Mr Mahon said.

"If they had admitted a mistake or a malfunction with the cameras and apologised, that would have been another thing.

"I am furious about it, as I have done nothing wrong.

"I even rang Asda to try to get a number for the company, and a member of staff there told me this had happened five times to him.

"I have to use the car park at least twice a week, and I'm not confident this won't happen again."

Mrs Lewis confirmed she had spoken to Mr Mahon to inform him the ticket had been cancelled, telling him to ignore the reminder letter as ParkingEye had said the matter had been dealt with.

A spokesman for ParkingEye, which is based in Chorley in Lancashire, said: "Car park users enter into a contract to pay the appropriate amount for the duration of their visit or to not exceed free parking limits.

"The motorist was parked in the car park for four hours and 21 minutes, and was therefore issued with a charge.

“We operate an audited appeals process which we encourage motorists to use.

 "In this case, due to extenuating circumstances, the charge has been cancelled."

The company would not explain what the "extenuating circumstances" were when questioned by the Telegraph & Argus.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 06:04:47 PM
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/education/driver-hit-with-100-fine-over-trips-to-kfc-and-mcdonalds-1-7066736 (http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/education/driver-hit-with-100-fine-over-trips-to-kfc-and-mcdonalds-1-7066736)

Driver hit with £100 fine over trips to KFC and McDonalds
Craig Newall, of Calthawite Close, Hylton Castle, Sunderland with notification of his £100 car parking fine from Hylton Riverside Retail Park

A DRIVER has slammed a parking firm after he was slapped with a fine despite spending just 15 minutes at a Sunderland retail park.

Craig Newell visited the Hylton Riverside Retail Park more than six hours after his girlfriend had done the same.

Both stayed for around 15 minutes as they went to a fast food restaurant, but Craig received a £100 fine after being told his car was parked there all day.

Parking at the retail park is free for people who stay for less than an hour.

Craig, 26, said: “I went to KFC at 7.45pm, got food and left straight away.

“It was the same for my girlfriend, she went to McDonald’s at 1.15pm and drove off.”

Craig, a bricklayer from Hylton Castle, routinely visits the same KFC, so he was shocked to receive a letter from ParkingEye, who monitor the car park.

He said: “The letter had a photograph of the car parked there in the afternoon and another of it leaving at night, nothing else.

“It says if I don’t pay the fine, then they’re liable to get the money.”

According to Craig, plenty of his friends have had similar problems.

He said: “I posted a status on Facebook and soon there was about 40 comments from people who’ve been fined at different places all over Sunderland.

“They say I should ignore it, but I don’t want to.”

Craig’s attempts to contact ParkingEye have been unsuccessful so far, including being left on hold for half an hour before being cut off.

Tiffany Stromsoe, media relations executive at ParkingEye, said: “We operate an audited appeals process and encourage people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.

“We would request in this instance that the motorist appeals to us, in writing, documenting these mitigating circumstances so that our dedicated appeals staff can look into it.”

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 06:10:06 PM
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/01/14/telford-shopper-left-reeling-after-asda-parking-fine-blunder/ (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/01/14/telford-shopper-left-reeling-after-asda-parking-fine-blunder/)

Telford shopper left reeling after Asda parking fine blunder

A shopper has hit out at a supermarket’s parking enforcement regime – after she was twice issued with parking fines by mistake.

(http://www.shropshirestar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/9064578.jpg)
Tracy Newdell with the two parking fines she was sent after visiting the Asda supermarket more than once in a day

In the latest incident, Tracy Newdell was accused of leaving her car at Asda in Malinsgate, Telford, for nearly eight hours after her car was photographed arriving at 9.37am and leaving at 5.26pm. However, the pictures related to two different visits, and the camera failed to register that she had left the store earlier in the morning.

The company has now apologised to Mrs Newdell and told her she would not be required to pay the £40 parking charge.

There is a three-hour limit for shoppers using the car park, and cameras monitor cars entering and leaving the car park.

However, the cameras have twice failed to pick her car as she left the car park.

Mrs Newdell, who lives in the Stirchley area of Telford, said it was quite common for her to visit the shop more than once a day as her daughter was a student at nearby Telford College.

“In the morning I sometimes pick up a few bits and pieces after I drop her off, and I might go back when I go to pick her up around 5.30pm,” she said.

“The first time this happened, I went to work in between, so my boss was able to provide proof  that I couldn’t possibly have been there.”

However, Mrs Newdell, who works in retail, said she did not receive the latest notice until three weeks after the alleged incident last month, and had since thrown away all her receipts.

She said she had spoken to staff members who worked at the store, who had told her that a number of people had experienced the same problem.

“It’s happening to a lot of people,” she said. “I would urge people to be careful and make sure they keep their receipts.”

Her husband Dave Newdell said people should challenge the charges if they felt they had been wrongly imposed.

“I’m concerned that some people may just be paying these fines without questioning the parking company,” he said.

Asda spokeswoman Natalie Cullington said the ticket had been cancelled and apologised to Mrs Newdell for any inconvenience caused.

She said: “The camera may have missed the registration number as the customer was going out of the car park. It may have been that there were two cars going out at the same time.

“We apologise for what has happened to our customer.”
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 06:12:38 PM
'I got a parking ticket because I was stuck in traffic outside Hull shops'

(http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276270/Article/images/25843805/9313256-large.jpg)

A WOMAN who was stuck in queuing traffic at Kingswood Retail Park while Christmas shopping has had a parking ticket overturned.

Sarah Campbell, 29, was one of dozens of motorists stuck in two-hour queues trying to get into and out of the retail park.

She received a parking ticket for going over the free limited parking time of three hours because she was unable to leave the car park queues.

"I was stuck in the queues getting out," she said. "Because I was in the queues, I went over the amount of time you are allowed in there.

"It is very hard to get in, find a space, get all your Christmas shopping, get food and then get out in three hours.

"They have not got any allowance for it.

"I was really annoyed about it.

"With so many people there in the same situation there must be more who have received tickets as well.

"Nobody realised that it could happen."

A spokesman for ParkingEye, which operates the car park, said: "ParkingEye operates an audited appeals process, encouraging motorists to appeal.

"In this case, the driver appealed and provided supporting evidence, so the parking charge has been cancelled."



http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/got-parking-ticket-stuck-traffic-outside-Hull/story-25843805-detail/story.html (http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/got-parking-ticket-stuck-traffic-outside-Hull/story-25843805-detail/story.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 06:25:15 PM
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/11713987.Grandfather_angry_after_recieving_parking_ticket___even_though_he_had_already_paid/ (http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/11713987.Grandfather_angry_after_recieving_parking_ticket___even_though_he_had_already_paid/)

Grandfather angry after receiving parking ticket at Barnet Hospital- even though he had already paid

A parking firm is reminding people of its rules after a man was ticketed because he failed to type in his full car number plate.

Peter Sherwood, of Crown Road, Borehamwood, took his wife, Linda, to an appointment in Barnet Hospital in November, where he paid £3 to park for an hour and a half.

Drivers must type their number plates into the parking meter to pay, which Mr Sherwood and his wife did.

But two weeks later, he was horrified to receive a letter instructing him to pay £60 for failing to pay, or face an increase to £100.

Fortunately, Mr Sherwood still had his receipt - with his correct number plate printed on the side - and sent it to Parking Eye.

However, he only typed in the first four digits instead of the standard seven, and the machine did not warn him he had done so.

Fortunately, Parking Eye waived the charge as a "gesture of goodwill".

Retired finance officer Mr Sherwood said: “Thousands of people use this car park daily and their systems clearly aren’t working. I’m glad I kept my receipt. Who knows what would have happened otherwise?

“It sounds like a scam and that they’re trying to catch people out. What else are you supposed to think?”

A statement from ParkingEye said:  “When an individual parks in a ParkingEye car park they must enter their registration details and pay for the amount of parking they use. If either of these are not done then a vehicle is liable for a parking charge notice. On this occasion the motorist entered an incorrect vehicle registration number.

 “We operate an industry-leading audited appeals process as detailed on the parking charge notice and encourage people to appeal if they feel there are extenuating circumstances. In this case the motorist did appeal and as a gesture of goodwill the charge was cancelled

“ParkingEye is a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator scheme and is required to follow a Code of Practice that is supported by motoring organisations, consumer groups and the DVLA.”
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:15:32 PM
'How stupid can you get?' asks Cambridgeshire couple after CCTV gaffe at Cambridge Retail Park

A couple were landed with the prospect of a £110 fine after being presented with CCTV evidence showing their white car entering a Cambridge car park and a black one leaving.

Malcolm and Julie Creek parked their white Ford Kuga for less than an hour at Cambridge Retail Park, but they have been issued with a penalty charge notice for staying more than five hours.

Total Parking Solutions (TPS) has relied on CCTV pictures that shows the Histon couple’s car arriving and a black Vauxhall with a similar number plate leaving. The couple say they have not heard back from the company since they pointed out the error on November 29.

Mr Creek said they arrived at about 1pm, went to an electrical shop before heading to Marks and Spencer for a coffee and then to Homebase and had driven out the park by 2pm.

The 69-year-old, who worked as Addenbrooke’s assistant estates manager until he retired, thinks many people will be so worried by how high the fines go, which starts at £45 and goes up to £110, at they would pay the fine.

The former Sawston Village College pupil said: “How stupid can you get? The car’s a different colour to start with. I worked at Addenbrooke’s and I worked with all the high voltage electrics and if I got it wrong I’d have killed someone.”

“I think it’s absolutely shocking. My mother would read that and be so scared about the escalation of fines she would pay it and I think a lot of people would. People are trying to go about their Christmas shopping and they get this sort of treatment. I’m sure the retail park will be cross about this. It’s going to put people off visiting. It’s put us off.”

“Total Parking Solutions? More like Total Parking Confusion.”

Mrs Creek, who works at the International Whaling Commission, which is based in Impington, got to the crux of the issue in her letter to TPS.

She said: “The picture of the car exiting the retail park is not my car as it appears a dark car whereas my car is white.”

A spokesman for TPS said: “It appears that in this instance the ANPR camera misread the exit plate by one letter due to the dirty condition of the plate. The two plates were almost identical, as a result of misreading a letter on exit, it was flagged as an overstay by the ANPR matching engine."

He added it was a “very uncommon occurrence” and said: “We are sending Julie and Malcolm Creek our sincere apologies coupled with a £20 high street voucher for them to spend at the retail site for the inconvenience caused in this instance.”



http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/stupid-asks-Cambridgeshire-motorist-CCTV-gaffe/story-25741123-detail/story.html (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/stupid-asks-Cambridgeshire-motorist-CCTV-gaffe/story-25741123-detail/story.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:25:27 PM
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-prankster-at-parking-world-end-of.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-prankster-at-parking-world-end-of.html)

Thursday, 13 November 2014

The Prankster at Parking World - the end of parking as we know it

The Prankster was recently invited to attend Parking World 2014 where he was able to mingle with industry names such as Patrick Troy, Chief Executive of the BPA, and Henry Greenslade, Lead Adjudicator of POPLA.

Among the many interesting presentations was one by John Siraut, technical director of economics at Jacobs. Mr Siraut predicted the end of parking charges due to self-driving cars. At the point when they become commonplace, predatory parking practices will no longer be possible. The car will avoid charges by not parking where it is not allowed, and will simply leave the car park when the time expires, returning later to pick up the passengers. Expensive car parks will become a thing of the past. Cars will either return home, or drive to a cheaper car park. The Prankster continues Mr Siraut's theme by predicting that car park management models will have to change from the predatory model adopted by companies like ParkingEye, where their only income is from parking charges. Instead, the car park company will charge a management fee. Luckily for Capita, who purchased ParkingEye for £57.5 million, Mr Siraut predicted that self-driving cars still have some way to go to become a reality, and we are perhaps 30 years away.

There were also several interesting exhibitors. The Prankster saw an innovative approach to community bicycles, whereby any bicycle can be converted to a community bike by providing a GPS enabled lock.

The Prankster also chatted about ANPR technology with several vendors. One problem with ANPR is that because it is not perfect, motorists can be charged for overstaying when in fact they made two visits. This occurs either when the numberplate is not read correctly, or when the system is misconfigured.

The vendors explained that there are no real civil standards for ANPR for car park enforcement. There is a police standard, NATIONAL ACPO ANPR STANDARDS (available here). This only requires accuracy of 91.1% for static cameras, which means almost 1 in 10 reads will be wrong. However, there is no way for officially getting any civil system certified to say it complies with this standard.

There are no civil standards for camera accuracy, so operators can say with a straight face that their cameras comply to the BPA standards, without this actually meaning anything.

In practice, it was explained to The Prankster, accuracy will also depend on conditions. On a sunny day, glare will heavily affect results, and even more so for infra-red cameras. Rear number plates are also more prone to read errors, as they are often dirtier.

Camera position is also important. The camera should not read vehicles as they come round a bend, but after they have straightened up. The camera should also be high enough to minimise blocked reads due to tailgating, while low enough not to get misreads from skew.

Cameras can also become misaligned, so they no longer cover the whole road, which means that some vehicles may be missed.

All in all it was an interesting conference, which The Prankster finished off by meeting Prankster Jr nearby, where he was featuring in a nearby art gallery.

Parking World is curated by Mark Moran of Parking Review

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Kill Switch on 15 November, 2015, 07:26:44 PM
Blimey, when you want to make a point, you don't mess around do you...
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:32:08 PM
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/couple-s-anger-over-40-hospital-parking-fine-1-6950343 (http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/couple-s-anger-over-40-hospital-parking-fine-1-6950343)

Couple’s anger over £40 hospital parking fine

AN angry South Tyneside couple claim they paid for a parking ticket - but were still hit with a fine by a controversial hospital parking system.

Carol Jackson had spent a fortnight visiting her sick mother at South Tyneside District Hospital in South Shields.

The 62–year–old from Marsden, South Shields, had been parking her car in the Harton Lane site’s car park which is monitored by ParkingEye, a numberplate recognition system.

On Sunday, November 2, she paid her £2.40, to cover her for two hours of visiting, but say they never received a ticket because, she says, the machine was broken.

However, last Wednesday, Mrs Jackson received a £40 fine, along with a letter stating she had not paid for her 2.01pm visit that day.

Husband Edward Jackson said: “My wife had been visiting her mother, as she had done for a number of days, and parked up and went to pay at the machine.

“This time it took the £2.40, but it never gave her a ticket.

“Three days later we received the fine.

“The machine is taking the money off people and then expecting them to pay a fine a few days later.”

Mrs Jackson wrote a letter to ParkingEye and sent it off last Thursday to contest the fine.

However, the company says it’s not yet received the appeal.

A spokesman said: “ParkingEye understands that genuine mistakes are sometimes made and operates an audited-appeals procedure, encouraging people to appeal if there are mitigating circumstances, such as an incorrect car registration number.

“Unfortunately, ParkingEye has received no appeal from Mrs Jackson, so cannot consider her circumstances.”

Read more: http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/couple-s-anger-over-40-hospital-parking-fine-1-6950343#ixzz3raerWOhq (http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/couple-s-anger-over-40-hospital-parking-fine-1-6950343#ixzz3raerWOhq)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:45:07 PM
http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local/couple-fuming-at-ridiculous-parking-charge-1-6267638#.VALGpszE3yM.twitter (http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local/couple-fuming-at-ridiculous-parking-charge-1-6267638#.VALGpszE3yM.twitter)

Couple fuming at ‘ridiculous’ parking charge

An Eastbourne couple have been left ‘fuming’ after receiving a parking charge from Lidl for the time between two separate visits to the store.

David and Sandra Hitchcock were shocked when they received a letter stating they must pay £90 for using the Seaside store’s car park for more than an hour on Tuesday, August 20, despite knowing they spent no longer than half-an-hour in the supermarket at one time.

On closer inspection of the letter, the couple realised they had been charged for the time between arriving on their first visit that day and leaving on the second visit – a total of almost five hours when actually, their car was parked on their drive for most of that time.

Mr Hitchcock said, “My wife and I visited the store in the morning, around 10.15, after an appointment at the hospital with her oncologist. We spent around 20-30 minutes in store before going home. I went back to the store at about 3pm in the afternoon with my grandson after an interview at the job centre and again, spent no longer than half an hour in the shop.

“We’ve been charged for parking at the store from 10.16am to 3.11pm when this is definitely not the case. We have witnesses to say our car was parked on the drive during the afternoon and there are different people in the car in each of the photos.

“My wife is absolutely furious. We made purchases both times we visited the store and we are very regular customers there, but this hassle has made us think twice about shopping at the store in the future.”

After contacting Lidl customer services, Mr Hitchcock was assured the parking charge would be dropped but he has yet to hear confirmation of this from Athena, the company that issued the parking charge. He added, “Even if the charge is wiped off, as it should be, we have not been offered any compensation for all our trouble.”

Lidl has been contacted for a comment but at the time of going to press, had not yet provided a response.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:45:49 PM
Blimey, when you want to make a point, you don't mess around do you...

If a job's worth doing.... ;)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Kill Switch on 15 November, 2015, 07:47:42 PM
Love it mate...
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 07:52:33 PM
http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Queen-s-patient-faces-parking-fine-ndash-despite/story-22737179-detail/story.html (http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Queen-s-patient-faces-parking-fine-ndash-despite/story-22737179-detail/story.html)

Queen's patient faces parking fine - despite buying £25 monthly ticket

AN outraged patient at Burton's Queen's Hospital has been fined for leaving her car at the site – despite buying a monthly ticket.

Colette Morley simply could not believe it when a £70 penalty notice from Parking Eye dropped onto the doormat at her home in Dove Side, Hatton, after she paid £25 for the pass to cover her for a month.

She was told by staff at the hospital that there had been a simple mistake in the way the ticket had been registered, but Mrs Morley said she thinks there may be something more behind it.

"If that was the case, why did they not charge me for the other days I went to the hospital. It doesn't make sense.

"There's obviously a flaw in the system,"
the 53-year-old told the Mail.

Mrs Morley visits Queen's three times a week for treatment, so decided it would be sensible to save money on the trip with a monthly ticket.

The ticket bought on July 18 – which should have covered her to park on July 30 – was the second she had purchased. There were no problems with the first.

When she tried to speak to somebody about the issue, she found there was nobody on site who could help her. She had to write to Parking Eye.

"I was extremely perturbed to be getting a ticket when I had paid, but to have not one single person from Parking Eye on the premises is ridiculous in my opinion.

"I did everything in my power to do it right, and then they made a mistake and I couldn't speak to somebody about it," she said.

She told the Mail she had no intention of paying the fine.

A spokesman for Parking Eye said: "Unfortunately, the monthly ticket that Ms Morley bought at the on-site Car Parking Office was registered incorrectly as a weekly ticket on the system. As soon as we became aware of the issue, the charge was cancelled."
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-targets-motorbike-riders.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-targets-motorbike-riders.html)

Thursday, 7 August 2014

ParkingEye targets motorbike riders

The Prankster has been given a copy of a Parking Charge from ParkingEye showing how they are targeting motorbike riders.

The motorist visited the car park twice, but received a ticket from ParkingEye for one long stay. This is a regular occurrence for long suffering motorists. ParkingEye are well aware that their system is deficient and can issue tickets for one visit when two visits occur. This does not stop them trying it on in court and claiming against motorists when this happens.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AIRZOr8Iluo/U-Pk8v8ajXI/AAAAAAAACkI/LgxDlTiub4Q/s1600/arrive.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zndb4KDwMLE/U-PlDuXybmI/AAAAAAAACkQ/63Kmsa00Y6Y/s1600/depart.jpg)

 The pictures show the vehicle is a motorbike. Now the thing about motorbikes are that a large number of them do not have front number plates, including the bike in question. Therefore, both pictures must be of the bike departing. ParkingEye will never detect these types of bike arriving because their arrival cameras will never detect a numberplate.

Some questions therefore arise as to the professionalism and integrity of ParkingEye.

Firstly, The Prankster questions the use of the arrival photograph, which only shows the number plate and is otherwise black. This was taken at 7:23 on a Summer morning, a day the motorist confirms was bright and sunny.

ANPR cameras have two components; a normal camera and an infra-red camera. This photograph therefore appears to be from the infra-red camera. The use of this picture is extremely dubious. The normal camera would have shown the motorbike departing and would have made it obvious the ticket should not have been issued as the pictures showed two departs, not an arrival and a depart. There appears to be no reason, such as poor light or bad weather, why the normal camera photograph could not be used.

If this picture was deliberately selected by ParkingEye then this throws their integrity into question. If this was not deliberately selected, then this throws their professionalism into question. If one photograph shows a motorbike rear plate then no ticket should be issued unless the other photograph shows a front plate. As motorbikes often only have one plate it is an unsafe and abusive practice to issue tickets with only one clear photograph which shows a rear plate.

ParkingEye regularly try and bluff courts into thinking their ANPR data is accurate by saying that 19 different checks are made. However, they clam up when asked exactly what these checks are, and how they are relevant. This incident shows their checks are clearly not up to the mark and cannot be relied on in court proceedings.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/mcdonald-s-cancel-100-disabled-parking-fine-thanks-to-the-milton-keynes-citizen-1-6211103 (http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/mcdonald-s-cancel-100-disabled-parking-fine-thanks-to-the-milton-keynes-citizen-1-6211103)

McDonald’s cancel £100 disabled parking fine - thanks to the Milton Keynes Citizen

McDonald’s have handed a £100 fine to a man parked in a disabled parking bay - because he spent too long in their restaurant.

Tim Daily was at the Portway McDonald’s with his family last week and parked in one of the two disabled bays for 111 minutes. Because Mr Daily had major bariatric surgery several years ago it takes him several hours to eat a meal, and he qualifies for a ‘blue badge’ for parking.

One week later he received a letter through the post from MET Parking Services, telling him the vehicle had outstayed the 90-minute free parking period and he had one month to pay a £100 fine.

Mr Daily said: “There were no signs giving a time limit in the disabled car park, no signs in the restaurant, and I didn’t see any signs going from the car park to the restaurant.

“The only signs are in the main car park, but what do they want disabled people to do - take a tour of the car park just to make sure?

“I am sure that McDonald’s might say they are technically correct to send out fines, but it’s not in the spirit of good customer care. People are hardly going to park there while going somewhere else - where the restaurant is located, you’re either going to McDonald’s or you’re going to McDonald’s.”

Mr Daily, who works as a financial adviser, visited the restaurant with his wife and daughter, and said that they usually visit the restaurant one or two times a week. Because of his condition he is often unable to eat with them.

He added: “I will not go to McDonald’s again.

“It is a shame because we enjoy going out as a family, and the staff are all really nice.”

After speaking to the Milton Keynes Citizen a spokesman for McDonald’s said the ticket would be cancelled.

They added: “In an effort to make sure there are always parking spaces available for our customers, we have had to introduce parking restrictions at a number of restaurants. These have proved necessary because of problems ranging from minicab drivers using our car parks as waiting bays between fares, to people leaving their cars for several hours while shopping or using nearby amenities.

“We work with industry-approved contractors to make the parking policy as fair and as clearly communicated as possible.

“We are sorry for the inconvenience that this incident has caused our customer. This ticket was issued using automatic number place recognition (ANPR) which does not distinguish between those with (or without) a blue badge. If Mr Daily appeals and provides a copy of his blue badge, his ticket will be cancelled.”
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:15:18 PM
Morrisons issue fake parking ticket

By Cat Dow
Thursday 17th July 2014


Supermarket fined a couple for excessive parking when vehicle wasn’t even in car park.

Morrison has been heavily criticised for issuing a false parking ticket. A couple from Oxfordshire received an £85 parking fine but couldn’t recall parking in the supermarket for over six hours. That's because they weren't there.

Morrisons use Parking Eye, an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology to monitor the time each vehicle spends in its car parks. It does this by recording the entry and exit time of each car.

Kenny Williams and Rebecca Foot received the penalty notice, stating their white camper van had been parked in the Banbury supermarket for over six hours. Mr Williams said, “When we got the letter we were racking our brains as to where we were that day and we had a Eureka moment and realised we were getting the MOT done.”

The local Kwik Fit corroborated Mr Williams’ account of his van’s whereabouts and the supermarket has since cancelled the fine. Morrisons issued a statement apologising, claiming there was a ‘technical error’ with the cameras. Mr Williams responded, “It’s wrong that if you go shopping there you get clobbered for a fine. Other people, like pensioners, might not question it and might be paying a charge for nothing.”

It’s worth noting that fines from private companies are not legally enforceable. Unless the police or a council issues the ticket, you don’t have to pay it. That’s not to say you can use private car parks in blatant ignorance to their rules. You’re under contract. You choose to park, you pay. But to uphold a fine from a private car park, the parking operator needs to take you to court. This can be significantly more costly if you choose not to pay the fine. Obviously, if the fine makes a false claim as in this situation, we'd recommend writing a strongly-worded letter of appeal before shelling out your dough.


http://recombu.com/cars/articles/news/morrisons-issue-fake-parking-ticket (http://recombu.com/cars/articles/news/morrisons-issue-fake-parking-ticket)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:27:56 PM
Daily hospital visitors hit with fine for false parking allegation

A COUPLE who have spent weeks visiting a poorly relative in Queen’s Hospital have been slapped with a parking fine for an offence they say they did not commit.

Roy Woolley and his wife Carol have spent around £100 on daily visits to the Belvedere Road site, and say they have become familiar with the system in that time.

So the pair, of Clay Mills Road, Stretton, said they were shocked when they received a £70 penalty charge notice saying they had stopped in the drop-off area for more than an hour – something both claim they did not do.

Mr Woolley, 78, said: “We couldn’t believe it. There is no way I would have driven in there, as we always park in the same place.

“We’ve never been in the drop-off area.”

The couple have been vigilant over parking since they received another fine five weeks ago. On that occasion Mrs Woolley was unable to find her ticket as proof against the fine, so they paid the fee.

However, they have been on their guard since then.

“We’re that annoyed, as this parking business at the hospital has been going on for some time.

“You don’t want it when you’re visiting somebody. It’s hard enough work when you’re going every day, without worrying if you’re going to get fined each time,” Mr Wolley added.

The pair have appealed against the fine, and won.

A spokesman for Parking Eye put the issue down to ‘an intermittent fault’, which affected the system around this time.

“Once it was identified, it was rectified and letters have been issued to the affected motorists confirming that any parking charge issued has been cancelled.”


http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Daily-hospital-visitors-hit-with-fine-for-false-parking-allegation-20140527130222.htm (http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Daily-hospital-visitors-hit-with-fine-for-false-parking-allegation-20140527130222.htm)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:45:50 PM
http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Couple-win-parking-fight/story-20849706-detail/story.html (http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Couple-win-parking-fight/story-20849706-detail/story.html)

Couple win their Fistral Beach car parking fight

A COUPLE are celebrating after winning a court case against a parking company who unfairly charged them for circling Fistral beach car park while they looked for a space.

Dave Hotchin, 49, and his wife, 45, who does not wish to be named, visited Newquay in May, and spent 31 minutes driving around the car park, managed by Parking Eye, before giving up and leaving.

But two months later the couple from Altrincham received a letter through the post, ordering them to pay a £100 charge for not buying a ticket.

"We were very surprised," said Mr Hotchin. "We thought it was unfair considering we'd never even parked up. We were just circling the car park looking for a space."

The couple said they received up to four warning letters from Parking Eye in the following weeks, demanding that they pay the charge.

"Parking Eye sent us loads of stuff. They questioned our integrity; they even questioned my wife's eye-sight. They said someone with standard eye-sight should be able to read the signs," said Mr Hotchin.

Mr and Mrs Hotchin tried mediation with the company, but failed to reach an agreement, and ended up in court this month.

"My wife didn't want to go to court and found it all very intimidating, but at this stage it wasn't really about the money, we felt like we were being bullied if anything, and the whole Parking Eye model relies on people just paying up," he said.

"The most vulnerable people in society just pay up, but we decided to stick it out because we felt we had a good case."

During the case the judge ruled that the 31 minutes Mrs Hotchin spent driving around the crowded car park did not classify as 'parking'.

And Parking Eye's automatic number plate recognition evidence only showed the Hotchin's time of entry and exit to the car park – not the time parked.

He added that the signage only required payment for times parked.

The couple, who usually enjoy holidaying in Cornwall every year, said their bad experience has made them think twice about re-visiting the county.

"It does put you off coming to Cornwall. We came back down this month to gather evidence for the case, but as the holiday season starts to build up, we'll probably look elsewhere – it's left a bad taste in our mouths," said Mr Hotchin.

A spokeswoman for Parking Eye said the company "wins the majority of legal actions it brings against car park users", but ignored the Cornish Guardian's request to provide proof.

If you feel you have been unfairly charged by Parking Eye, Mr Hotchin recommends you contact blogger, the Parking Prankster, for free advice. Visit http://parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html (http://parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 November, 2015, 08:54:04 PM
Annnnnddddd rest.... <Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: dangerous beanz on 17 November, 2015, 12:38:08 AM
"And Parking Eye's automatic number plate recognition evidence only showed the Hotchin's time of entry and exit to the car park – not the time parked".
"He added that the signage only required payment for times parked".

I don't suppose ANPR would any help in determining whether a victim was actually parked would it? :idea:

 :pmsl:
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 November, 2015, 04:41:25 PM
Here's the latest example from an article published 2 days ago.

And I'm really getting fed up with the phrase "ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances."

THESE ARE NOT "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES", THEY ARE A FAILURE OF YOUR ANPR SYSTEM!!!!! <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy:

========================================================

http://www.nottinghampost.com/U-turn-driver-gets-fine-overnight-parking/story-28179523-detail/story.html (http://www.nottinghampost.com/U-turn-driver-gets-fine-overnight-parking/story-28179523-detail/story.html)

Driver does two U-turns at Aldi in 24 hours - and gets fined for overnight parking

16 November 2015

(http://www.nottinghampost.com/images/localworld/ugc-images/276368/Article/images/28179523/11394116-large.jpg)

Driver Tim Woods was left confused and angry when he received a fine for leaving his £30,000 car overnight at a supermarket in the city – despite never parking there.

The retired teacher (pictured) used the entrance to the Woodborough Road Aldi to make a U-turn, carrying out the manoeuvre twice in the space of 24 hours.

Days later he was shocked to receive a £70 fine after the cameras on the site picked up the licence plate on his new Skoda Yeti both times.

Mr Woods, 63, who carried out the U-turns on October 29 and 30, said: "If their system cannot tell the difference between vehicles doing multiple U-turns and those left overnight, I pity the person who does the same manoeuvre a week later."

   After hearing his story, the Post stepped in, contacting both Aldi and the firm operating their parking cameras, ParkingEye.

His fine was overturned.

Mr Woods, of Mapperley, said common sense had prevailed.

He said: "Why would I leave a brand new, £30,000 car on a supermarket car park overnight?

"I'd turned around at the entrance because I was going to a computer shop nearby. I had tried getting in touch with Aldi and ParkingEye but they weren't helpful.

"You would have thought they would have CCTV that would show my car was not there."

He added: "I've had a camera fitted in my car since then, not because of this, but it will come in handy should it ever happen again.

"That way I could show them how I was somewhere else."

A spokeswoman for Aldi said: "The company that operates our car park, ParkingEye, has cancelled the fine.

"Therefore we would not make any further comment on the matter."

A ParkingEye spokeswoman added: "ParkingEye has received an appeal from the motorist and can confirm that the appeal has been accepted and the charge has been cancelled.

"ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances," she added.

The spokeswoman said they could not confirm that Mr Woods was turning around when his car was captured by their cameras, as they take a picture of the registration and not a recorded video of the vehicle.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 November, 2015, 05:11:20 PM
In his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s, English jurist William Blackstone wrote:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

However, as is demonstrated by the number of times their ANPR systems have been proved to fail, ParkingEye Ltd aren't bothered in the least with some (as they would term him) old fart's concept of justice, and I suggest that now they have been given the green light to rape and pillage motorists by the Lord Justices of the Supreme Court, they might want to change their current strap line from "Smart.Flexible.Integrated...Solutions" to one more fitting and honest.

I suggest "*#%@ THE INNOCENT, JUST GIVE US YOUR MONEY!" would be appropriate.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 November, 2015, 07:37:32 PM
And there's that phrase again. "ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances."

THESE ARE NOT "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES", THEY ARE A FAILURE OF YOUR ANPR SYSTEM!!!!! YOU DON'T NEED TO MITIGATE IF YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!


================================================

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315563/Couple-given-70-fine-saying-d-parked-Aldi-19-HOURS-really-d-visited-twice-different-days.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315563/Couple-given-70-fine-saying-d-parked-Aldi-19-HOURS-really-d-visited-twice-different-days.html)

Couple are given £70 fine saying they'd parked at Aldi for 19 HOURS when really they'd visited twice on different days

    Lee Sandow, 39, parked at store in Haverfordwest, Pembs, for 45 minutes
    He returned at 8am the next day to exchange wellies but was handed fine
    Aldi said fine was cancelled after being wrongly issued by private parking firm


Published: 14:43, 12 November 2015

A couple were given a £70 parking fine which claimed they had parked in Aldi for 19 hours when they had visited twice on separate days.

Lee and Christina Sandow received the penalty notice for apparently overstaying at the car park at Aldi in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire.

Mr Sandow, 39, from nearby Neyland, had initially visited the store in his Nissan Almera at 12.15pm on October 14 and stayed for 45 minutes to complete his weekly shop.

He then returned the next day at 8.05am to exchange a pair of wellies for his ten-year-old daughter .

But, days later, he received a fine through the post for Parking Eye - a private firm which runs the car park at the supermarket - claiming he had been on site for 19 hours.

His 38-year-old partner Christina said: 'It made me really angry. We shop there all the time but something has gone massively wrong here. There's no way we'll be paying it.

'How on earth they thought we'd stayed the whole time, I don't know. The car clearly leaves one afternoon and returns the next morning.

'They said our number plate was picked up entering and leaving more than 19 hours apart. But they've failed to notice that it's two totally different visits. It's incredible.'

The letter offered Mr Sandow the chance to pay a reduced fine of £40 - but the deadline had passed two days earlier. 

'I was angry when we got the letter and I was even angrier when I saw that it had arrived two days after the opportunity to pay the smaller costs,' Ms Sandow said.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/12/15/2E60FD1500000578-3315563-image-a-4_1447341273002.jpg)
Mr Sandow, 39, from nearby Neyland, had initially visited the store (pictured) for 45 minutes to complete his weekly shop. He returned the following day at 8am but was accused of staying for 19 hours

'It says it's a reminder but we had heard nothing before that. I'm really cross.' 

She added: 'We're not having it. I want to return to the shop but not if we're going to get treated like this.

'It's pretty stressful being told to cough up £70 before Christmas when you know you've done nothing wrong.'

An Aldi spokesman said: 'This parking ticket was issued in error. As soon as we were made aware of the situation, we contacted Parking Eye who cancelled the charge.

'We have contacted the customer to confirm this and to apologise.'

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: 'ParkingEye has received an appeal from the motorist and can confirm that the appeal has been accepted and the charge has been cancelled.

'ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.'
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 November, 2015, 07:54:42 PM
Man's shopping trolley gets £100 parking fine

(http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/resources/images/4396152.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3)
Parking campaigner Lynn Robson at the Asda store in Peterlee.

A PARKING ticket campaigner has been issued with a fine after leaving a car park with his number plate attached to a shopping trolley.

Lynn Robson, 69, from Peterlee, in County Durham, set up the stunt at the town’s Asda store where cameras enforce the supermarket’s three hours free parking.

He entered in his own car but then removed its number plate and returned later and attached it to the trolley.

Mr Robson said: “There's supposed to be a thorough check on all tickets and associated ‘evidence’ before the issue of a ticket and yet they still sent a ticket for payment of a fine for the shopping trolley.

“The pictures they sent were dark but that's something they can eliminate by using a proper illumination on the entry roads.”

Mr Robson, who works as an agent for ladies’ clothing companies, became a campaigner after he was given two tickets and clamped on the same day during a trip to London.

After his visit to Asda, where he deliberately overstayed by 45 minutes, he was issued with a fine for £100.

Photographic evidence attached shows his number plate but the trolley is unclear as it is dark.

Mr Robson, who campaigns on the motorists’ advice forum, Pepipoo, added: “An ANPR system only shows the time of arrival past the camera and then on the way out. It doesn't show the time of parking which may be a lot less.”


Asda uses a company called Smart Parking to monitor its car park at Peterlee.

Smart Parking made no comment when contacted by The Northern Echo and no-one was available to comment at Asda.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 26 November, 2015, 12:29:30 PM
My apologies then for putting this in the wrong thread. I don't know if any of the admins are able to deal with this appropriately?


See http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5787.0 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5787.0)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 01 December, 2015, 01:47:37 PM
This is either the PPC chancing its arm in the hope that motorists pay up, or it's a failure of its ANPR system. Either way it stinks, particularly because according to Trouser Fire the lady who got the two tickets for non payment, and the gentleman who got one for a similar alleged breach of contract are both irresponsible drivers.  <bashy2> :bashy:

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)

===================================================

Stafford motorists hit out at "unfair" parking charges

(http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276492/Article/images/28199902/11414729-large.jpg)

STAFFORD shoppers have hit out at a parking enforcement company which they claim is ripping people off with "unfair" charges.

The Newsletter has received several complaints regarding parking enforcement at the Stafford Sheridan Centre car park, which is managed by Britannia Parking.

Geraldine Sproston, 49, from Stone, contacted the paper after receiving two parking charge notices from the operator from two separate dates in September of this year. Each notice demanded £85 or £50 if paid within a shorter time.

She said: "One of our cars, the one in question for both notices, is a company lease vehicle hence the delay in the notices getting to us as they go via the lease company. I was aware that I had paid for the car park on both occasions and luckily still had the car park tickets in the side of my car door.

"It seems strange that this has happened on two separate occasions when it was obvious that I had paid for a ticket. I have just appealed both notices online with copies of the tickets with the car park company.

"My untidy habit paid off as I still had the tickets but most people would have disposed of their tickets leaving them having to pay the fines. It would be interesting to know how many other people parking at this car park in Stafford had been unfairly given a parking charge notice."

Christine Ball, 68, from Derrington, paid for parking twice in one day on September 25 but was sent a parking charge notice. Upon inspecting the parking slips she noticed she had entered her number plate slightly incorrectly on one of the tickets.

She said: "The ticket machine buttons are very small and it's hard for elderly people to see them properly. I accidently put in the wrong number plate but since it was very similar to my number plate you would think they would have realised what had happened. I have emailed the company to appeal as I did actually pay to park. This system is completely wrong for this car park."

On September 8 Arron Milsom, 35, from Stafford, paid to park on the car park. But the ticket machine gave him a slip without asking for his registration number. He received a parking charge notice a month later.

He said in a letter to Britannia Parking: "I think it is absolutely disgusting that you are trying to rip off members of the public in this way.

"I paid for a ticket and I received a ticket. It is very lucky that my ticket was still in the door compartment of my car today as most people would have thrown it away by now."

The Newsletter contacted Britannia Parking for a comment but had not received a response at the time of going to press. [Isn't it funny how they are never available for comment]

Britannia Parking is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which has given advice to motorists in the Q and A below…

What do people do if the ticket machine is not working and they are therefore unable to pay to park that day, and they receive a parking charge notice?

There is usually more than one machine, so if one isn't working then it is advised that the motorist find one that is.

What if someone is entering the car park to drop someone off and then leave? Britannia Parking uses an automatic number plate recognition system and has apparently tried to give people parking charge notices when they have not even parked in the car park.

This can happen and we would advise the motorist to appeal in the normal way, firstly to the operator and then to POPLA if the operator rejects their appeal.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)

Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA): This is the name of the independent appeals service set up by the BPA and operated by London Councils in 2012 to handle appeals by drivers and others wanting to challenge the issue of a parking charge notice. POPLA handles appeals after the recipient of the parking charge notice has been through the internal complaints procedures of the operator who issued the notice.

The ticket machine asks the user to input their number plate, but the numbers are so tiny, pensioners have not been able to read them and have got the odd letter of their number plate incorrect and incurred a fine, despite the fact they have paid to park. What happens in that instance?

Appeal. [and they will will knock you back every time because of the examples set by adjudicators at London Tribunals (formerly Patas) and the TPT]

Does this company have a legal right to fine car park users? Or does it just send out an invoice for breach of its service, which does not legally need to be paid?

Yes it does. For context please see the Supreme Court ruling ParkingEye v Beavis. Essentially the 'fine' was ruled as reasonable and contract law suitable for private parking enforcement.

Does this company have a legal right to charge people for 'paperwork' it has incurred when they attempt to appeal against the parking charge notice?

This is something I haven't heard of before. [Do you really expect us to believe that?!?! Are you telling us that nobody in your organisation has ever read the Prankster's blog?] If you have evidence of this can you please forward to aos@britishparking.co.uk This also applies to any BPA member that breaches the Code of Practice. We investigate all enquiries [and then dismiss them because we don't want to lose the membership fees].

I can confirm that we have only [Only!!!] received three complaints this year about Britannia Parking, not necessarily about the site you mention.


http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Stafford-motorists-hit-unfair-parking-charges/story-28199902-detail/story.html (http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Stafford-motorists-hit-unfair-parking-charges/story-28199902-detail/story.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 02 December, 2015, 12:48:33 AM
No parking thread is quite complete without Trouser-Fire's helpful advice. On the related subject, I had some evidence once and just for a laugh I sent it to alwaysobstructingscruples@bullshitpurveyors.notachancemate. This is what happened,

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4635.0 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=4635.0)

 <flyingpig>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 December, 2015, 11:49:34 AM
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/probe-after-claims-parking-eye-cameras-at-worksop-s-priory-centre-are-illegal-1-7592427 (http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/probe-after-claims-parking-eye-cameras-at-worksop-s-priory-centre-are-illegal-1-7592427)

PROBE after claims Parking Eye cameras at Worksop’s Priory Centre are ‘illegal’

-----------------------------------------

(http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/webimage/1.7592426.1448547300!/image/2014457323.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleMaxWidth_620/2014457323.jpg)

Freedom of Information request finds cameras that snap vehicles in shopping centre car park were erected without planning permission

Man who filed FOI request is calling for cameras to be removed and parking fines refunded

Bassetlaw Council investigating after man claims issue ‘makes a mockery of planning laws’

Motorists back campaign after being slapped with £100 fines after being captured on camera which they say is ‘invasive’ Shopping Centre manager defends parking management and says cameras are needed to keep facility safe and secure


---------------------------------------

An investigation is underway after claims the controversial cameras introduced at the Priory Shopping Centre are ‘illegal’.

The probe was launched by council chiefs this week after they confirmed that Parking Eye, which operates the Priory Shopping Centre car park on Bridge Place, had not obtained planning permission to erect ANPR cameras which snap vehicles entering and leaving the facility.

The problem, says Colin Tawn, who revealed the planning blunder after submitting an FOI request to Bassetlaw District Council, is that the pictures taken by the cameras do not ‘provide any evidence that a vehicle has even been parked there and for how long’.

He says this has resulted in motorists dropping people off at the shopping centre or even entering the car park with punctures being slapped with hefty fines of up to £100, stirring outrage amongst drivers.

But the manager of the Priory Shopping Centre, David Aunins, has defended Parking Eye’s car parking management, which he says is ‘safe and secure’ and offers excellent value with the lowest charges for parking in the town centre.

Mr Tawn, who is now heading a campaign to get the cameras removed and fines refunded, said: “This issue makes a mockery of planning laws and must be dealt with. Parking Eye is quite happy to ignore legitimate protests from motorists who have been snared by this scam.

“But I would urge anyone who has been issued an unfair fine to appeal against it. The more people we have on board, the quicker something can be done about the fact that motorists are being bullied into paying unfair fines.”

Karen Mudford, from Retford, said: “I used to park here to visit the M&S in Worksop but I wouldn’t risk it again after being fined. It’s not ideal for the town’s economy.”

A spokesman for Bassetlaw District Council confirmed that a planning enforcement officer was investigating the matter, but would not comment any further while the investigation was underway.

Mr Aunins added: “Car parking management at The Priory Shopping Centre is required to ensure the car park is kept safe and secure, and that there are spaces available for genuine customers.”

A Worksop woman, who did not wish to be named, said: “I don’t shop in Worksop any more after my family were hit by two £100 fines for picking someone up. We now go to Meadowhall where it’s free and we don’t get pictures taken of us.

“It’s invasive and you have to mess around inputing your registration into the machine, which you will get fined for again if you get it wrong.”
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 08 December, 2015, 02:32:57 AM
Loyal Aldi shoppers outraged at by parking fine claiming they were in store for 19 HOURS (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/475291/Aldi-Haverfordwest-parking-mistake)
A COUPLE who visited a supermarket on separate days were left furious after supermarket Aldi fined them £70 and claimed they had stayed for nineteen hours.   W:T:F:

(http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/161000/620x/car-park-475291.jpg)
NOT WELCOME: Aldi have hired a (BPA Ltd member) company to monitor their car parks



Lee Sandow, 39, visited Aldi’s store in Haverfordwest, Wales, with his wife Christina around midday on 14 October.

They did their weekly shop and parked for 45 minutes in the supermarket car park.

The following day he came back to the shop at 8am to return a pair of wellies which did not fit his daughter Jessica.

The Sandows were amazed when they got a letter from Aldi telling them they owed £70.

Christina, 38, said: "They said our number plate was picked up entering and leaving more than 19 hours apart. But they've failed to notice that it's two totally different visits. It's incredible."

(http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/135000/christina-sandow-330135.jpg)
LOYAL CUSTOMER: Christina Sandow may now not return to Aldi



She said: "It made me really angry. We shop there all the time but something has gone massively wrong here. There's no way we'll be paying it.

"How on earth they thought we'd stayed the whole time, I don't know. The car clearly leaves ones afternoon and returns the next morning.”

To rub salt into the wound the letter claimed they could pay a reduced fine - £40 - before 3 November but it arrived on 5 November.

Lee said: "I was angry when we got the letter and I was even angrier when I saw that it had arrived to days after the opportunity to pay the smaller costs. I'm really cross."

An Aldi spokesman said: "This parking ticket was issued in error. As soon as we were made aware of the situation, we contacted Parking Eye who cancelled the charge. We have contacted the customer to confirm this and to apologise."

In September it was reported that record numbers of customers were flocking to the budget supermarkets as households look to tighten the purse strings.

More than 56% of Brits bought groceries from Aldi or Lidl between July and September – up nearly 15% in five years.

----------------------------------

Ewan's interesting facts #38: Every BPA Ltd office contains a red bucket full of sand. The sand is not there to extinguish any trouser fires but is for AOS investigation staff to stick their heads in whenever a complaint comes in about a BPA Ltd member.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 08 December, 2015, 10:53:29 AM
Ewan's interesting facts #38: Every BPA Ltd office contains a red bucket full of sand. The sand is not there to extinguish any trouser fires but is for AOS investigation staff to stick their heads in whenever a complaint comes in about a BPA Ltd member.


Couldn't resist.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5768.0;attach=6185;image)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 16 December, 2015, 05:29:36 PM
Retired teacher is hit with parking ticket after he was captured on camera performing a u-turn outside Aldi (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320596/Retired-teacher-hit-parking-ticket-u-turn-Aldi-car-park.html)



(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/15/2E7E4BA900000578-0-Tim_Woods_63_pictured_was_slapped_with_a_70_parking_fine_after_c-a-34_1447686797936.jpg)
Tim Woods, 63, pictured, was slapped with a £70 parking fine after cameras caught him performing a u-turn in an Aldi car park in Mapperley, Nottingham


A retired teacher was left stunned when he was slapped with a parking ticket for performing a u-turn in an Aldi car park.

Tim Woods, 63, received a £70 fine after a parking enforcement firm claimed he left his new £30,000 Skoda Yeti in the supermarket car park in Nottingham overnight.

He was sent a letter after cameras at the supermarket captured him performing two U-turns on the premises last month.

Carpark operator ParkingEye believed the cameras proved he had left his vehicle overnight and sent him a parking fine.

Mr Woods, who carried out the manoeuvres at the Aldi near his home in Mapperley, Nottingham, said: 'If their system cannot tell the difference between vehicles doing multiple U-turns and those left overnight, I pity the person who does the same manoeuvre a week later.

'Why would I leave a brand new, £30,000 car on a supermarket car park overnight?

'I'd turned around at the entrance because I was going to a computer shop nearby.

'I had tried getting in touch with Aldi and ParkingEye but they weren't helpful.

'You would have thought they would have CCTV that would show my car was not there.

'I've had a camera fitted in my car since then, not because of this, but it will come in handy should it ever happen again.

'That way I could show them how I was somewhere else.'

Mr Woods' fine has now been cancelled after he appealed to the supermarket.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/15/2E7E4A1500000578-0-image-a-35_1447686809996.jpg)
Mr Woods' parking fine has since been cancelled after he lodged an appeal with ParkingEye


A spokeswoman for Aldi said: 'The company that operates our car park, ParkingEye, has cancelled the fine.
'Therefore we would not make any further comment on the matter.'

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said: 'ParkingEye has received an appeal from the motorist and can confirm that the appeal has been accepted and the charge has been cancelled.

'ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.'


Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Coco on 21 December, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
And another one! (http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/100-fine-MINUTES-Kingswood-car-park/story-28391642-detail/story.html)

(http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276270/Article/images/28391642/11655758-large.jpg)

A DRIVER has told of his anger after being fined £100 for visiting a retail park for just a few minutes.

Dave Ledger, 52, was sent the fine after visiting Kingswood Retail Park twice in two days.

Mr Ledger was sent a fine in the post accusing him of leaving his car in the car park overnight.

Instead of capturing him entering and leaving the car park on both occasions, the automated cameras, run by national firm G24 Ltd, failed to pick up on the vehicle leaving and re-entering the car park.

Mr Ledger, of Kingswood, said he was "fuming" to have received the fine.

"They said they saw me going in on the Friday night and coming out on the Saturday, but I was in completely different car parks," he said. "There is no direct road between them and they are separated by a roundabout, so there is no way I could have driven to the other side and left the following morning unless I had a drone and lifted my car over.

"You can see in the pictures it is two different sides of the car park, so the cameras must have completely missed me.

"It is a bit of a ridiculous situation to be in."

Mr Ledger had visited Argos in his Ford Focus at 7.23pm on Friday, December 4. He then drove to the nearby David Lloyd club for an event before heading home.

However, cameras at the site did not capture him leaving the car park until 11.43am the following day, after he had picked up a coffee from Costa on the way to watch Hull City. On that occasion, he parked in a different area to the previous day.

Mr Ledger has appealed the fine and says the system needs to be changed in the future.

Its not the first time the cameras have sparked controversy. Earlier this year, a 29-year-old woman complained when she received a ticket after being stuck in two-hour long queues of traffic leaving the retail park.

G24 Ltd, which took over car parking operations at the site in April and describe themselves as "pioneers in car park management technology", use cameras installed with automatic number plate recognition.

Mr Ledger said the systems need to be properly reviewed to avoid cases like his in the future.

"It just shows you the system isn't working correctly and there must be a glitch with it," he said.

"It hasn't seen me leave on the Friday or coming in on the morning.

"If I had just happened to have been in the same bit of the car park, I would have had no chance to successfully appeal.

"I have had to ring up a couple of shops to try and get their CCTV just to prove I was in the other side.

"You shouldn't have to do all this for a mistake they have made."

Mr Ledger said he was worried other motorists would have paid the fine, which reduces to £60 if it is paid within a set amount of days, straight away.

He said he was shocked to receive when it was posted to him earlier this week.

"I was absolutely fuming when it came through the door," he said. "I am just thinking how am I going to be expected to pay this for something I haven't even done in the first place. If I drove into the same car park that morning, I would have no chance of not having to pay the fine.

"Something needs to be done to change the cameras, because they just are not working at the moment."

G24 declined to comment when approached by the Mail




Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 21 December, 2015, 04:05:45 PM
The related article referred to in Coco's previous post is another fine example of how ANPR doesn't work. A camera on the entrance/exit cannot possibly tell how long you are parked for.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/got-parking-ticket-stuck-traffic-outside-Hull/story-25843805-detail/story.html (http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/got-parking-ticket-stuck-traffic-outside-Hull/story-25843805-detail/story.html)

'I got a parking ticket because I was stuck in traffic outside Hull shops'

(http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276270/Article/images/25843805/9313256-large.jpg)
Motorists queueing to get in and out of Kingswood Retail Park shortly before Christmas.

A WOMAN who was stuck in queuing traffic at Kingswood Retail Park while Christmas shopping has had a parking ticket overturned.

Sarah Campbell, 29, was one of dozens of motorists stuck in two-hour queues trying to get into and out of the retail park.

She received a parking ticket for going over the free limited parking time of three hours because she was unable to leave the car park queues.

"I was stuck in the queues getting out," she said. "Because I was in the queues, I went over the amount of time you are allowed in there.

"It is very hard to get in, find a space, get all your Christmas shopping, get food and then get out in three hours.

"They have not got any allowance for it.

"I was really annoyed about it.

"With so many people there in the same situation there must be more who have received tickets as well.

"Nobody realised that it could happen."

A spokesman for ParkingEye, which operates the car park, said: "ParkingEye operates an audited appeals process, encouraging motorists to appeal.

"In this case, the driver appealed and provided supporting evidence, so the parking charge has been cancelled."

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 29 December, 2015, 05:07:14 PM
Motorists overcharged 'because number plate recognition technology is flawed'

Thousands of motorists are charged too much for parking because cameras fail to accurately read number plates, it has been claimed

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03536/cctv_3536765b.jpg)
The automatic number plate recognition technology is supposed to capture details of when cars enter and leave car parks

 Thousands of motorists are charged too much for parking because cameras fail to accurately read number plates, it has been claimed.

An estimated one in 20 vehicles passing automatic number plate recognition cameras used by supermarkets and in private car parks are not read properly.

The figures prompted calls for better checks before penalties are issued, according to The Times.

In one case, cameras misread the plates of a shopper who visited a Morrison's supermarket in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, to withdraw cash on the way to work and returned again later that evening to shop.

Cameras in the car park, run by ParkingEye, the country's biggest operator, registered that his car had been there all day and consequently issued an £85 penalty.

When he refused to pay, he was forced into a county court claim.

 David Carrod, the head of Private Parking Appeals, which fights penalties on behalf of motorists, said it was a classic case of "double dipping".

A ParkingEye spokesman said: "We always actively encourage people who receive a parking charge to appeal if there are extenuating circumstances.

In May a pensioner had a penalty overturned after a similar incident, in which is made two separate trips to an Asda supermarket in Preston, resulted in a £70 fine.

It later emerged that a camera misread a letter C on his number plate for a G.

 Complaints by drivers stung by private parking charges have trebled this year, prompting fresh criticism of unfair and harsh ticketing practices by parking firms.

Paul Watters, the head of public affairs at the AA, said: "It's not so much the cameras as the quality of the back office processing systems and practices. We have raised this with the industry. There should be proper cross checks and auditing."

The number plate technology is supposed to capture details of when cars enter and leave car parks but when they are misread they can often make it appear that vehicles stayed longer than they did.

An estimated 3.47 million penalties are expected to be issued by parking companies in 2015-16, almost 500,000 more than in the year before.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/12072577/Motorists-overcharged-because-number-plate-recognition-technology-is-flawed.html#disqus_thread (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/12072577/Motorists-overcharged-because-number-plate-recognition-technology-is-flawed.html#disqus_thread)


Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 07 January, 2016, 01:09:03 PM
It appears that the BPA Ltd were fully aware that ANPR is far from being perfect. This advice however has mysteriously disappeared from its website.

====================================

ANPR

With the ever increasing numbers of vehicles using the roads in this country, and the corresponding congestion associated with the issue, more enforcement is becoming necessary both in the ‘on street’ (public highways and local authority car parks) and ‘off street’ (unregulated private car parks) environments.

In the off street environment, the main concerns of the private Landlord/Landowner are to:
a) Protect his property from unwanted trespass.
b) Ensure that in protecting his property, legitimate users of his facilities are able to park unhindered in his private car park.

There are a number of methods by which this can be enforced, but the newest of these is Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology (ANPR).

How does the system work?
The principle is as follows:
a) CCTV style cameras are placed at the entrance and exit to a car park.
b) Timed photographs are taken of the vehicle itself entering and leaving the car park, and also close ups of the vehicle’s number plate.
c) The duration of the stay of the vehicle is calculated from the times registered on the two sets of photographs.
d) If a vehicle has exceeded the duration of stay either mentioned on the parking ticket or on car park signage (eg. ‘Maximum 2 hour stay for customers only’), then the driver of the vehicle will be required to pay
an excess parking charge (which will also be mentioned in the car park’s signage).
e) If a driver does contravene any of the terms and conditions laid out in the signage, they should be aware that they will not receive a ticket at the car park site. Using the vehicle’s registration number, the operator will access the DVLA’s Vehicle Keepers’ details database (with the Reasonable Cause of pursuing a broken contract for parking on private land) and send a charge certificate to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

As with all methods of enforcement on private land, proper enforcement depends on clear signage that is visible from all over the car park. The BPA’s new Code of Practice contains recommendations for the size,
placement and wording for signage, including the fact that the car park is monitored by ANPR technology and that DVLA will be contacted to obtain keeper details in the event of a parking contravention occurring.

This is new technology: Is it working perfectly?

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a)Repeat users of a car park in a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are aware of this and are now checking all ANPR transactions to
ensure that this does not occur.
b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a ticket even though they have not parked. Reputable operators tend not to uphold tickets issued in this manner (unless advised differently by the Landowner/Landlord), but operators should also now be factoring in a small ‘grace period’ to allow a driver time either to find a parking space (and to leave if there is not one) or make a decision whether the tariff is appropriate for their use or not. This ‘grace period is however at the discretion of the Landlord/Landowner and will also vary in duration, dependant on the size/layout/circumstances of the car park.

I have a complaint about a ticketing operator: what can I do ?

You must go through the Appeals Process as set down by the operator on the signage in that car park. As a membership organisation, the BPA does not become involved in individual enforcement cases. However the Association does take a particular interest in promoting best practice in the parking industry and are concerned when our attention is drawn to incidents which may not reflect this.

At the present time, all complaints received by the BPA against its members are logged. (Complaints will only be dealt with in writing or by e-mail to the addresses below) If there is a breach of our Code of Practice, the complaint is passed to them for review, comment and further action where appropriate. Any action taken by the BPA against a member is based on facts relating to our Code of Professional Conduct and our Code of Practice (available on our website below). If there is a case to answer then a full investigation and appropriate action will be taken which may – in extreme cases result in suspension or termination of BPA Membership.

What if they aren’t members of BPA?

If the operator is not a member of the Association, then our influence is more limited. If it is pertinent, the Association will contact the operator and point out any activities that are in breach of the Code of Practice, and recommend that the operator joins the Association.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 08 January, 2016, 09:48:36 AM
They just keep on coming. And the cheeky bastards say that you have to prove your innocence before they will cancel any charge!

THE LAW DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY YOU MORONS!

And talk about convicting you without a fair trial! Customers who have overstayed in one of our car parks should then just provide us with proof of purchase and we will appeal the charge on their behalf.”

TWO SEPARATE VISITS IS NOT OVERSTAYING!

============================

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/confusion-leads-parking-fine-nick-10670187#ICID=sharebar_twitter (http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/confusion-leads-parking-fine-nick-10670187#ICID=sharebar_twitter)

Confusion leads to parking fine for Nick Price after visiting Holmfirth Lidl twice in one day

Dad's anger as 10-minute visits end in £90 fine

(http://i3.examiner.co.uk/incoming/article10671852.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Lid.jpg)
Nick Price with his car parking fine after using the Lidl car park in Holmfirth.

It was a typical Sunday for Nick Pice, running errands and making dashes to the local supermarket.

But the Holmfirth dad’s innocent calls to Lidl had a penalty to make your piggy-bank blush.

Nick was slapped with a £90 parking fine after making two separate ten-minute stops at the Huddersfield Road branch as he stocked up on items for Sunday lunch.

The calls were four hours apart but Nick, 51, of Highfields, was left dumbfounded when a letter through the post three days later accused him of overstaying his welcome for the entire period, and demanded he pay up.

He said: “I had popped out to pick my wife Penny and my mother-in-law up from church and stopped at Lidl on the way to buy a few bits.

“We had Sunday lunch and I was taking them to the carol service at Huddersfield Fellowship Church.

“On the way back I stopped in again. On both visits I was straight in and straight out again.”

Nick, who works at the Morrisons store in Meltham, was fined after the store’s CCTV took separate images hours apart, both of which was when he was visiting the store.

A letter sent to him explained he had incurred a £90 fine, which was halved to £45 if he paid within 14 days.

Nick said: “There is no way I will be paying the fine.

“I was a regular shopper at Lidl, but I won’t be going in again.

“I just want people to be aware of this so it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

Nick says he has contacted the store to explain his side of the story since the incident on December 13, but was told it was a matter to be taken up with the CCTV agency.

A spokesperson for Lidl said: “The vast majority of our store car parks do not have any car park management systems in place as there is no shortage of parking spaces at these locations.

“In a small number of our store car parks, we have different systems in place to manage the availability of car parking spaces to ensure that our customers take priority.

The spokesperson added: “However, we still encourage any genuine Lidl customers who have received a Parking Charge Notice to get in touch with us directly via our Customer Services hotline number.

“Customers who have overstayed in one of our car parks should then just provide us with proof of purchase and we will appeal the charge on their behalf.”



Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 08 January, 2016, 10:56:37 AM
And again

===================================

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/how-many-honest-drivers-were-fined-100-in-portsmouth-car-park-charges-error-1-7146065 (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/how-many-honest-drivers-were-fined-100-in-portsmouth-car-park-charges-error-1-7146065)

How many honest drivers were fined £100 in Portsmouth car park charges error?

AN unknown number of drivers were wrongly told to pay fines after buying tickets to park in Portsmouth.

But car park giant NCP is refusing to say how many motorists were incorrectly sent a £100 penalty or for how long the problem lasted.

(http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimage/1.7146064.1452075575!/image/1720151032.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleMaxWidth_620/1720151032.jpg)
Kate Watts wrongly received a �100 penalty notice after parking in the NCP Market Way car park in Portsmouth

It came to light after solicitor Kate Watts told of her anger at being issued with a penalty after using the NCP-owned car park in Market Way – despite paying the correct amount.

Kate, 33, left her car there for 48 minutes on November 27, went shopping and then paid the £2 fee before leaving.

So she was surprised three weeks later to receive a £100 parking charge notice for not paying.

Luckily Kate had kept the receipt and was able to send this to the firm and demand the charge be cancelled.

Kate, a mother-of-two, said: ‘It’s not acceptable for a big company like NCP.

‘They must make a small fortune in a year.

‘Something that’s so blatantly wrong should never have happened in the first place.’

The car park uses automatic number plate recognition cameras to monitor how long drivers stay and users pay when leaving.

Kate added: ‘It’s so important that other potential users of either that car park or other car parks that are introducing these ANPR cameras are just a little bit more cautious.

‘I just want to protect other people.’

After contacting the firm, she was told her appeal would take two months before it would be looked at.

But after persistently chasing the company she finally spoke to the car park manager and the charge was cancelled on Christmas Eve.

The firm told The News there was an error in the numbering of the machines and that led to data being mismatched.

A spokeswoman said it affected a ‘number of customer transactions’, but refused to say how many or over what period.

It said all notices issued in the affected period had been cancelled.

The spokeswoman added: ‘We do apologise for issuing a parking charge notice in error.’

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 January, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
“I said if you can show me CCTV of my car being in the car park during the day I’ll pay you £6,000 let alone £60.”

Says it all. <Thumbsup>

"New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments."

Says even more. <Piratetreasure>

======================================

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14198958.Taxi_driver_triumphs_in_six_month_battle_to_scrap_car_parking_fine/?ref=twtrec (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14198958.Taxi_driver_triumphs_in_six_month_battle_to_scrap_car_parking_fine/?ref=twtrec)

Oxford taxi driver Adi Sadiku wins six-month battle over car parking fine

(http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/4625091.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=mc3)
Taxi driver Adi Sadiku has finally got an Oxford Airport parking ticket cancelled after being threatened with court action

 A TAXI driver has won a six-month battle against Oxford Airport’s car park operator over a £60 parking ticket.

Adi Sadiku has had his parking fine, which eventually reached £220, cancelled after his daily drop-off was confused with a 10-hour car park stay.

The cabbie made the trip to the airport every morning and evening for two months in the summer driving a pilot friend to and from work.

Then one day in July he received a fine through the post for a 10-hour stay he claimed never happened.

New Generation Parking Management finally confirmed to the 28-year-old last month the ticket had been cancelled, but not before getting its solicitors involved and threatening court action.

Mr Sadiku, who lives in Jericho Street, Oxford, said CCTV footage failed to capture him leaving at 9am one morning so when he left again after his evening pick-up it seemed he had stayed for 10 hours.

 The taxi driver, who works for 001 Taxis but also has his own private clients, said: “It caused me a great deal of stress.

“These letters and threats of court went on until the end of December and it happened back in July.

 “I kept e-mailing them explaining what had happened and even showed them proof I did six other jobs that day.

“I’m annoyed that they didn’t believe me – it seemed like a big company just trying to bully me.

“I said if you can show me CCTV of my car being in the car park during the day I’ll pay you £6,000 let alone £60.”

Documents seen by the Oxford Mail revealed the company’s solicitors Wright Hassall threatened to take Mr Sadiku to court over the unpaid fine.

The firm said the outcome could affect his credit rating and his employment, and encouraged him to pay the £220 fine.

The father-of-one said: “I wasn’t just going to pay it when I had done nothing wrong.

“I finally spoke to someone at Oxford Airport and she was great. She got in touch with the company and they confirmed my ticket was cancelled.

“I want to thank her but I am considering taking legal action against New Generation Parking Management for the stress it has caused me and my family.”

New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Kill Switch on 18 January, 2016, 09:34:47 PM

New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments.

Now there's a shock!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 19 January, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
I can provide a stock parking weasel comment cobbled together from old Monday Musings if you like,

"Parking management is necessary to ensure that there are available spaces for genuine customers. We will of course threaten and bully genuine customers also because our terms and conditions apply to all car park users. If an appellant provides us with proof that they did not breach our terms and conditions, we will threaten and bully them also to demonstrate that we are completely fair and do not show any favouritism to a particular group."

That just about says it for me, you're welcome by the way.    <Hatoff>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 20 January, 2016, 11:30:56 AM
And the fraud continues, as reported here by the Prankster. We get an honourable mention for our efforts on this thread. ;)

===========================================

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/parkingeye-fraudulently-charging-yet.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/parkingeye-fraudulently-charging-yet.html)

18 January 2016
ParkingEye fraudulently charging yet again. Morrisons car park this time

ParkingEye continue to issue fraudulent charges from their flawed ANPR systems. This newpaper report details the story of a 78 year old pensioner who visited Morrisons in Chorlton twice in two days. He picked up some groceries in the afternoon of 4th November and returned next morning to do some more shopping. ParkingEye's blundering ANPR system sent him a bill for staying overnight.

Mr Bloohn appealed to ParkingEye who refused to accept his story.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lOhdRtaGCws/Vp0wLrhl56I/AAAAAAAAE60/iR2FZel6IZI/s640/JS80210532.jpg)

They only relented when CCTV pictures of his car parked overnight became available. However, many people will have fallen victim to this scam by ParkingEye, who continue to use ANPR when they are fully aware of its failings. Not everyone will have the luxury of CCTV images which can back up their story, and ParkingEye have hounded several people to court despite no contraventions actually occurring.

Here is the typical text ParkingEye use in such cases.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XpZtWkmK_Bs/Vp0wL-Bu6BI/AAAAAAAAE7E/tEZPH0P1nSg/s640/court.jpg)

As you can see, ParkingEye are masters of trying to deceive the court, wittering on about NTP and the mythical 19 stage checking process (which has never been detailed, despite multiple requests), when the nub of the matter, which they hope the court does not realise, is that ANPR does not have X-Ray vision so a failure will occur whenever two cars drive too close.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S7D9NjDdSQ4/Vp0wLpcm2OI/AAAAAAAAE68/jQmO6aOC0Mo/s640/obscure.png)

Prankster Note

The Prankster has many times shown proof that ParkingEye's ANPR is not accurate and issues tickets when no contraventions occur. A while back, ParkingEye tried to shut the Prankster up, threatening him with legal action for defamation for suggesting their ANPR is not fit for purpose.

The Prankster replied that truth is an absolute defence against defamation and ParkingEye shut up. Eventually.

The NoToMob have been collecting evidence about faulty ANPR on this thread. The Prankster suggests that anyone facing a court case where they visited twice but ParkingEye claim they visited once prints out the entire thread and files it as evidence.

Meanwhile, Barry Beavis's petition regarding the level of parking charges has hit 8,000 votes and needs another 2,000 to get a parliamentary response. Click on the link to read the petition and add your vote.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

===============================================

Here is the article the Prankster refers to:

================================================

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/morrisons-car-park-chorlton-cctv-10744845 (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/morrisons-car-park-chorlton-cctv-10744845)

Pensioner gets CCTV footage to prove his innocence after being wrongly fined for leaving car overnight at Morrisons in Chorlton

78-year-old fought back and proved to parking company that his car was at home in Whalley Range

(http://i3.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10747036.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/chorlton-car-park-montage.jpg)

A pensioner had to produce CCTV footage to prove his car was at home when a parking company fined him for leaving it a mile down the road outside a supermarket.

Lance Bloohn, 78, parked up at the Morrisons car park in Chorlton to pick up some groceries on the afternoon of November 27.

He was there for less than half an hour before driving back home to Whalley Range where he then parked his car overnight.

So he was shocked when he received a letter from ParkingEye asking him to pay a £85 fine for leaving his car at the supermarket overnight.

Mr Bloohn said he has shopped at the Chorlton branch of Morrisons for many years without incident and was baffled when he received a letter asking him to pay a fine.

(http://i3.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10747055.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS80210530.jpg)
Lance Bloohn was determined to prove his innocence after being asked to pay an £85 parking fine

He said he was there for less than half an hour before returning home to Withington Road where he parked up for the night.

He returned to the supermarket the following morning to pick up some more shopping and parked up there again.

Two weeks later Mr Bloohn received a letter from ParkingEye informing him that his car had been parked at the supermarket from 4pm on November 27 until 10am on November 28.

He said: “I sent them a letter telling them that they were wrong. I also included a disc of CCTV from the cameras outside my flat which shows my car parked there overnight and got the manager of the flats to send them something to say it had been parked here.

(http://i1.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10747019.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS80210532.jpg)
Lance Bloohn's letter from ParkingEye saying his initial appeal had been rejected

“On December 17 I got another letter saying that if I paid the fine by that day it would only be £50 and after that it would rise to £85.

“On January 9 I had a letter from the company’s legal department saying I owed £85.

“I’m lucky I have the CCTV cameras here at my flat to prove it was here. For once technology is working in my favour.

“It’s just ridiculous. It’s tantamount to fraud.”

A ParkingEye spokesman said the fine and letters were sent to Mr Bloohn before his appeal letter and CCTV footage was received.

ParkingEye have now said that Mr Bloohn’s fine will be cancelled.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 20 January, 2016, 12:34:37 PM
Photographs/videos taken on entry and exit ARE NOT PROOF OF PARKING!

===============================

Couple handed parking fine...for being stuck in traffic

(http://www.chad.co.uk/webimage/1.7684503.1453221364!/image/4252005098.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleMaxWidth_620/4252005098.jpg)
Bilsthorpe couple Angela and David Burditt were fined at St Peter's Retail Park when they were unable to get out of the car park because of traffic

A couple handed a parking fine after being held up in a traffic jam have vowed not to shop at a Mansfield retail park again.

Pensioners David Burditt, aged 76, and his wife Angela, 68, were left reeling after being sent the £50 fine by Parking Eye, which monitors parking at St Peter’s Retail Park, Mansfield town centre.

Motorists can park for 45 minutes for free at the site, with CCTV cameras monitoring when vehicles arrive and depart.

In December, the Bilsthorpe couple visited four shops on St Peter’s within their allotted 45-minute stay, but their Peugeot 206 became stuck in a huge queue of cars waiting to leave.

Mrs Burditt said: “We couldn’t believe it. Had we gone over the time because we were shopping then fair enough, but we were over by about 15 minutes because the car park was gridlocked.

“Everybody was Christmas shopping, so it was really busy.

“It would be interesting to see if anyone else was given a fine.

“I counted that we waited for the traffic lights leading onto the ring road changing four times before we were able to exit the park.

“We were sent the fine on Thursday, December 30, and had until Tuesday, January 5, to pay it or it would go up to £85 – and we panicked and paid it.

“It’s been a very costly lesson not to shop at this location again. We have shopped in Mansfield all our lives, spending thousands of pounds over the years.

“Mansfield repays us by allowing private car park firms to profit from this busy time of year by fining us.”

Mrs Burditt says she had written to a number of the shops on St Peter’s, but they had responded by saying they could not help.

She has also written to Mansfield District Council, but has not yet received a response.

A spokesman for Parking Eye said: “People using this car park have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable.

“If however, they feel they should not have received a charge due to mitigating circumstances, we encourage people to submit an appeal, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communication and on our website.”

Were you given a ticket in the run-up to Christmas at St Peter’s Retail Park because of traffic? Call reporter Nick Frame at the Chad on 01623 450283.

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/couple-handed-parking-fine-for-being-stuck-in-traffic-1-7684504 (http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/couple-handed-parking-fine-for-being-stuck-in-traffic-1-7684504)



Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 20 January, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
It's hard to imagine that Parking Eye Ltd were unaware that being in the car park is not the same as being parked. Especially as a District Judge has pointed it out to them before.

Case No: 3JD08399 in the Altrincham County Court before District Judge Hayes. Parking Eye Ltd -V- Mrs. XXXXXXX (http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)

The relevant points being,

36. The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was
parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities.

37. On that balance of probabilities, as I have indicated, I am satisfied the Defendant
was not parked and I am not satisfied that it was clear to the Defendants that by
parking or entering or remaining within the area covered by Parking Eye Ltd they
were liable for a charge, that the signage does not make that clear in my view
unless one gets out of the car, walks up to it, by which point it seems to me one
would be parked, and even if this was not the case, even if there were signs saying
that, I cannot see that a charge for driving around a car park can in any way be a
genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.

(Link shamelessly plagiarised from The Parking Prankster's impressive collection of case law (http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html))
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 31 January, 2016, 05:55:22 PM
The car park in the following story is, ahem, 'managed' by Civil Enforcement Ltd, who are members of The BPA Ltd, both of which are about as useful as a side-stand on a trike.

Truly epic ANPR failure at hospital car park,

----------------------------


(http://www.authenticake.co.uk/communities/5/004/005/157/335//images/4585197562.gif)

Parking fine errors for hospital’s visitors (http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Parking-fine-errors-hospital-8217-s-visitors/story-28615383-detail/story.html)

VISITORS to a mental health hospital are picking up parking fines even though they are registering with its new automatic number plate recognition technology.

The system was installed in July at the Harplands in Hartshill to stop drivers abusing free parking.

People need to log their details onto one of six touch screens each day they park there.

But the North Staffordshire Users Group charity has received complaints of penalties slapped on vehicles already registered.

Now it is to raise the issue with Combined Healthcare Trust which runs the hospital.

Hilda Johnson, the group's development worker, said: "It is causing distress to patients and visitors who have received a fine. We urge them to appeal the fine."

---------------------------

There you have it then boys and girls (and any visiting parking weasels). If you park responsibly, correctly within a marked bay and fully comply with any advertised conditions, it won't stop you being charged.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 February, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/206377599-ParkingEye-V-Mr-O-Double-Dip-at-Morrisons


ParkingEye V Mr O - Double Dip at Morrisons

BMPA Support Desk
December 10, 2015 15:55

Outline

A classic case of ParkingEye pursuing a "double dip" incident all the way to court, and discontinuing at the last minute. The defendant then pursued Morrisons for compensation, and they settled out of court.

Background

Mr O's was sent a claim by ParkingEye for apparently overstaying the maximum time allowed. What actually happened was he entered the car park at around 6:10am in October 2014 to make a withdrawal from the cash machine, only staying for a few minutes before driving to the railway station. He returned to the car park later in the evening, to purchase some groceries, a visit of no more than 20 minutes in total. At no time did he exceed any ‘max stay time’ advertised as ParkingEye claimed.

Ten weeks later in February 2015, ParkingEye sent their standard County Court claim for their parking charge plus the "legal" costs that never seem to be incurred but charge for them anyway. Mr O had ignored the ParkingEye letters and missed the opportunity to get the matter sorted at POPLA. But on the other hand, he knew he hadn't overstayed and was not frightened by the rather odd letters from companies like Debt Recovery Plus that ParkingEye arrange to be sent out.

With the help of BMPA members, Mr O completed all the key paperwork needed at the initial claim stage on time. They knew the Acknowledgement of Service had to be in within 14 days from the date on the claims, with an initial defence within 28 days - so in they both went. This was the opportunity for ParkingEye to read the facts presented and to check these with their own. However it is apparent that the company has no interest in admitting they or their systems fail, but will simply let the court process run on in the expectation of people folding through fear and the lack of familiarly with the court process. The courts are not some sort of ATM Cash Machine but ParkingEye think they are.

In June 2015, the Witness Statement served in preparation for the hearing was sent to the court to highlight the same issue - faulty ANPR system, failure to check facts, aggressive and vexatious use of the court system. ParkingEye not willing to risk paying a solicitor from LPC for a claim they knew to be baseless, sent Mr O a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance from ParkingEye, indicating that they were no longer proceeding with the claim. This was just over a week before the scheduled hearing, and 4 months after they had Mr O's defence.

Since there had been a lot of wasted time and effort dealing with the claim, Mr O wrote to Morrisons asking for compensation based on a liquidated damages, for the losses incurred in defending ParkingEye's claim. He saw it as only fair that given the work he had to do and he also knew Morrisons are well aware of the "double dip" issue but fail to act. A couple of weeks later when there was no reply or even acknowledgement, Mr O moved to the next stage of what is a fairly simple process and followed up with a Letter Before County Claim (LBCC) to Morrisons Company Secretary (CoSec). The CoSec is the most senior legal person in any organisation and claims should be sent there.

Morrisons recognising there had been an issue here and seeing that Mr O was serious offered and paid a reasonable amount towards Mr O's costs.

Key issues

1. At any stage you can get whoever hired them (principal) to cancel so it is important to identify them and get them to intervene.

2. ParkingEye appear to enjoy upsetting people by going to the wire with a court claim. You have to keep to the time scales, the first of which is to Acknowledge Service within 14 days.

3. At any stage you can get whoever hired them (principal) to cancel so it is important to identify them and get them to intervene.

4. Early action is preferable to leaving matters getting to court. The old advice to "ignore" is out of place in England and Wales, though it is still relevant to Scotland and Northern Ireland as their systems are different.

5. If you are out of pocket like Mr O, consider making an initial demand for recompense to whoever hired the parking contractor and if need be issue a formal letter before claim.

6. "Double Dip" is a well known flaw with ANPR that can lead to error rates of 10%.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 February, 2016, 12:08:09 PM
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207079665-Double-Dip


Double Dip Scam
Avatar
BMPA Support Desk
January 11, 2016 06:50

We were contacted with the following question.

parked briefly at 12:14 but left the car park soon after as I had a phone call and had to go elsewhere (a 2hr min round trip). I returned to the car park later in the day and did the shopping I needed. The second photo on my charge notice is taken at 18:08. So they are saying that I spent nearly 6 hours in that carpark and I know perfectly well that I didn't. I have never outstayed my welcome in that particular place anyway as I don't want the hassle of appealing.

Double Dip has been defined by the British Parking Association as "equipment failure". In their guide to ANPR which has mysteriously disappeared from their website - but we have a copy - it says:

Repeat users of a car park in a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are aware of this and are now checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a ticket even though they have not parked. Reputable operators tend not to uphold tickets issued in this manner (unless advised differently by the Landowner/Landlord), but operators should also now be factoring in a small ‘grace period*’ to allow a driver time either to find a parking space (and to leave if there is not one) or make a decision whether the tariff is appropriate for their use or not. This ‘grace period is however at the discretion of the Landlord/Landowner and will also vary in duration, dependant on the size/layout/circumstances of the car park.


*The "grace" period mentioned above is now up to 10 minutes on entry and a mandatory 10 minutes when leaving a parking space.

But what makes a simple equipment failure as scam? Simply put it is so well known (up to 10%) and so frequent that it generates a lot of income for the parking contractors to the extent they will

a) deny the equipment is faulty despite having maintenccae records to show this and

b) fail to follow the British Parking Association's advice to "check all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

 

If you suspect or even know there has been a "double dip" then challenge them asking them to check their records. The onus is on them to prove you were there for the period, not the other way around.

 

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/203483615/British_Parking_Associations_Guide_to_ANPR_Double_Dip.pdf (https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/203483615/British_Parking_Associations_Guide_to_ANPR_Double_Dip.pdf)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 February, 2016, 11:44:55 AM
Every time this topic starts to drop down the board the Parking($h)Eye($ter$) oblige us with yet more ammo that proves ANPR is not fit for purpose.

Nice one Parking($h)Eye($ter$) <Thumbsup>              (http://www.animated-gifs.eu/category_animals/avatars-100x100-big-cats/0036.gif)   It won't be dropping down the board anymore.     (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs105.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


 <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot>

==============================================

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oap-couple-hit-50-parking-7216480 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oap-couple-hit-50-parking-7216480)

OAP couple hit with £50 parking fine after getting stuck in traffic jam while leaving retail park

Pensioners David Burditt, 76, and his wife Angela, 68, had been
 shopping when they were hit with the fine

(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7215818.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/st-peters-retail-park-mansfield.jpg)
St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield

A couple have been landed with a £50 parking fine after being stuck in a
traffic jam as they tried to leave a retail park.


Pensioners David Burditt, aged 76, and his wife Angela, 68, had been
shopping at the outlet where motorists can park for 45 minutes for free
 with CCTV cameras monitoring when vehicles arrive and leave.


The couple called at four shops within their allotted 45-minute stay, but
 their Peugeot 206 became stuck in a huge queue of cars waiting to leave.


They were left reeling after being sent the £50 fine by Parking Eye, which
 monitors parking at St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire.

"We couldn't believe it. Had we gone over the time because we were shopping
 then fair enough, but we were over by about 15 minutes because the car park
was gridlocked," said Mrs Burditt , from Bilsthorpe, near Mansfield.

(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7215838.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/cctv-camera.jpg)

"It was really busy. I counted that while we waited the traffic lights
 leading onto the ring road changed four times before we were able to exit
 the park.

"We had finished shopping and we were just trying to leave.


"We were given just a few days to pay the fine or it would go up to £85 so
 we panicked and paid it.

"It's been a very costly lesson and we won't be
 shopping there again".


A spokesman for Parking Eye said: "People using this car park have a
 responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit
 otherwise a parking charge will become payable.


"If however, they feel they should not have received a charge due to
 mitigating circumstances, we encourage people to submit an appeal, and
 instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communication and on
 our website."

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 12 February, 2016, 07:48:47 PM
http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/march_woman_gobsmacked_by_90_parking_fine_for_just_over_30_minutes_in_lidl_car_park_1_4414024?platform=hootsuite (http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/march_woman_gobsmacked_by_90_parking_fine_for_just_over_30_minutes_in_lidl_car_park_1_4414024?platform=hootsuite)

March woman ‘gobsmacked’ by £90 parking fine for just over 30 minutes in Lidl car park

(http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4414023.1455122724!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Mrs Gray's parking fine letter implying she stayed in Lidl's car park for nearly five times over the free parking duration

A March woman is “absolutely gobsmacked” having wrongly received a £90 parking fine.

Patricia Gray was sent a civil parking charge notice insisting that her vehicle remained in the car park of Lidl on Dartford Road for nearly five times longer than the allowed stay of duration.

The fine says that Mrs Gray was in the car park for seven hours and 12 minutes last Thursday, however free parking lasts for 90 minutes.

Mrs Gray says she visited at 8.38am and was out by 9am, and returned to the shop at 3.50pm for 10 minutes.

“I picked up a £2.99 Disney puzzle for my daughter, went to work and then in the day thought ‘what a bargain’. So I went back in the afternoon to get some more.”

To complain, Mrs Gray was told to “put it in writing or email the complaints department.

“Surely the cameras should show when I entered and exited in the morning and the same in the afternoon. But I was told that’s not the case.

“It’s very misleading to a lot of people,” she added.

“I’m not going to pay the fine, I’m going to dispute it. But if it was my mum I know she would pay it because she doesn’t know any difference.

“I think a lot of older people would as well because they’re worried the cost would go up. It’s unfair making money from vulnerable people.”

Athena ANPR is unavailable for comment at this time.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 13 February, 2016, 05:55:52 PM
Ah well looky here. I've stumbled upon an ancient example dated 24th May 2011. That was back in the day before the Proliferation of Ferrets Act (PoFA 2012). This completely unfair skullduggery has been going on since long before that of course.

---------------------------

ParkingEye cancels Orpington parking fine after victim vows to challenge it in court and contacts News Shopper (http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9044602._Unfair__parking_fine_cancelled_after_victim_fights_back/)


(http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/resources/images/1663220.jpg?htype=100001&display=1&type=mc3)
Linsey Salter with the fine notices she was sent by ParkingEye


AN “UNFAIR” parking fine has been cancelled after the victim threatened to fight it in court and contacted News Shopper to report on her battle.

Linsey Salter, 34, was given a £50 fine after parking her Audi TT at the Nugent Shopping Park in Sevenoaks Way, Orpington, on March 26.

ParkingEye which monitors the car park, said its cameras showed Mrs Salter had parked there for more than the permitted three hours.

But Mrs Salter says she parked there for two separate periods of around 15 minutes, from 10.48am to 11.05am and 3.55pm to 4.06pm.

Mrs Salter, from Chislehurst, wrote to ParkingEye to explain this and ask staff to check the camera footage to see they had made a mistake.

She also told them she had been helping at a fair at Chelsfield School between her two visits to the shopping park, and the headteacher would verify her car was at the school during this period.

But Parking Eye responded with a letter saying the fine had risen to £80 because she had failed to pay it by a certain date.

Unable to reach ParkingEye by phone, wedding photographer Mrs Salter wrote to say she would fight them in court, and contacted to News Shopper to explain the situation.

News Shopper contacted ParkingEye on Friday (May 20) to ask for a comment for a story on the situation.

On Monday (May 23) ParkingEye contacted us to say Mrs Salter’s fine would be cancelled as a “gesture of goodwill”.

Mrs Salter said: “They have only cancelled the fine, which was obviously unfair, because I fought it and got News Shopper involved.

“It’s good for people to be aware about these goings on because lots of people would just pay the fine without questioning it.”

WATCHDOG

In October last year, ParkingEye was criticised on BBC’s Watchdog website after giving an 86-year-old woman a £40 fine when her car broke down at a supermarket.

Eileen Blackman was fined because she had overstayed the permitted parking time by three hours, despite her car being pictured leaving the car park on a tow truck.

Mrs Blackman’s first appeal was rejected, and she paid the fine. However, her second appeal was successful and ParkingEye refunded her money.

ParkingEye was established in 2002 and is based in Chorley.

It claims it has “rapidly become the number one technical solutions parking operator in the industry, through the quality of its product, service delivery and system integrity”.    :rotfl:     :rotfl:     :rotfl:

------------------------

Of course, that was back in 2011 and since then The BPA Ltd have been raising standards (so they tell me). I'm sure you can spot the huge differences between this older story and some of the more up to date ones on this thread. What? You can't see any differences? You know what, I think you're right. It is exactly the same old bollocks. Nothing's changed at all.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 29 February, 2016, 12:14:05 PM
The Prankster gets an honourable mention in this one. I thought Trouser Fire deserved a dishonourable one too. ;)

By the way, a link to this thread has been sent to the Grauniad.

======================================

Fined for parking at Aldi when I wasn’t there

Shopping at supermarket ended up with a demand for 16 hours’ stay

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/06163ba866337b1d5b8591e98ac4070c9ad1d16f/0_0_4132_2479/master/4132.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=32bc9d1b124ddac3b150fbc0b18392a8)
My receipt shows I was elsewhere

Rebecca Smithers
Tuesday 23 February 2016 07.00 GMT


I received a parking charge from Parking Eye for a visit to an Aldi store in Oldbury (near Birmingham), claiming I was there for 16 hours, which I can prove is incorrect. I’d gone to the store on 7 January to buy a fryer on offer. As there were none in stock, I left and was only in the car park a few minutes.

I went back the following evening (8 January) but, again, they were sold out. After leaving Oldbury I visited two Aldi stores in Netherton, finally getting the fryer from the store at Pear Tree Lane and (according to my receipt) paying at 20:13, so would have left that car park around 20:15.

However, the parking charge records say I was still at the Oldbury site and fails to pick me up leaving the store. I have appealed and am disgusted that this is how Aldi treats loyal customers. I also received the letter after the early payment date had passed. My receipt proves my vehicle was elsewhere. What do I do if they reject my appeal? PR, Rowley Regis, West Midlands



Aldi has confirmed the charge was incorrectly issued and has been cancelled, so there’s no need for an appeal. A spokesman said: “Our parking management provider has confirmed that the charge was incorrectly issued due to a technical error [The error being that they are only anywhere between 70% and 90% efficient in any one day]. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused PR.”

That said, we have seen many examples of supermarket visitors wrongly being caught out when making double visits, identified and explained by the Parking Prankster blogger and website.

This is down to automatic numberplate recognition technology, which records multiple short visits being shown as one long visit, typically leading, as in your case, to a parking charge notice being issued when it should not have been.

Parking Prankster explains: “ANPR technology is not the same as CCTV; it does not record a continuous stream of images. A photograph is only taken and recorded when a numberplate is detected.” Many operators, it adds, pretend the “double visit” problem does not occur.

But it seems to happen with such regularity it’s time major parking operators, linked up with supermarkets, take the necessary measures to ensure regular shoppers are not so unfairly penalised.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/23/fined-parking-shopping-aldi (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/23/fined-parking-shopping-aldi)

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)




Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 March, 2016, 11:14:20 AM
From the Prankster

==============================

Monday, 7 March 2016
ParkingEye lose in court - accuse driver's evidence of being unreliable, but their own evidence destroys their case
07/03/2016 Case B7FC00H1 – Parking Eye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell at St Albans


This was a Barnet Hospital case, where the defendant had gone to pick up her daughter, and spent 34 minutes driving around the access roads trying to find out which department her daughter was likely to be in. She had parked for a brief period in the 20 minute drop off zone, but never parked in any of the Patient & Visitor car parks. ParkingEye alleged that she did, and therefore owed the Hospital £2, which ParkingEye escalated to £100.

There was a previous hearing in December ,which was carried over to March. After this hearing, Mrs B contacted the Prankster, who enlisted the help of Barnet resident Mr Mustard, usually known for his expertise in Council tickets.

Some excellent detective work by Mr Mustard proved the ticket should never have been issued. Mr Mustard made a meticulous site visit, photographing and documenting all aspects of the car park.

This is the photograph ParkingEye filed as evidence claiming that it was of Mrs B leaving the Patient & Visitor Car park.

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uP3yDlsXMyQ/Vt31P8tE2VI/AAAAAAAAFNw/FysCykcwkE8/s1600/leaving.jpg)

Mr Mustard noticed the writing on the road. There is only one place in the hospital with writing like this - the 20 minute free stay car park.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sMSSyur88kE/Vt328-MzeuI/AAAAAAAAFOE/BLpIOMeyysc/s640/drop_off_zone_pic_1_edit.jpg)

 ParkingEye's own evidence was essentially worthless. Their pictures show the vehicle entering the Patient & Visitor Car Park but leaving a completely different car park!

Mr Mustard could not attend the hearing, so at short notice Bargepole offered to be Mrs B's lay representative. He took Mrs B's rather unstructured defence and prepared a concise summary for the judge, concentrating on the fact that no contravention occurred.

In court ParkingEye's representative Mr Harris, said that, as Mrs B’s initial defence on the MCOL form denied ever visiting Barnet Hospital, and then she changed it when she received the photos, her evidence should be treated as unreliable.

He cross-examined Mrs B, and tried to suggest that her subsequent witness statement, in which she denied ever parking, stating that she was driving around the entire time, was made up after discussing the case with her daughter, and 83-year old mother, who had been with her at the time, so it wasn’t a contemporaneous account. Mrs B stuck to her guns, and answered in a positive and assertive manner, to her credit.

Bargepole then pointed out that PE’s photos showed the vehicle entering from one part of the complex, and exiting from a different part, and did not provide any evidence that she had parked for any length of time, or at all.

The Judge sent the parties out for 20 minutes while she considered her verdict, and then went through the case in her judgment.

She found Mrs B to be a credible witness, and accepted her evidence that she never parked. ParkingEye had not made out their case to prove that she parked for 34 minutes, or at all, and the claim would fail on that basis. She also commented that ParkingEye's signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t claim that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

Costs were awarded to the defendant of £47.50 for a half day off work, plus £7.50 parking, total £55.

Bargepole's comment: the lesson to learn from this for anyone receiving a court claim, is don’t rush to put a load of rubbish down as your defence as soon as you receive the claim; acknowledge service and take the full 28 days.

Prankster Notes

Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5kDbkjcsK50/Vt38CVtsR-I/AAAAAAAAFOU/DsjmNqFdYg8/s640/detect.jpg)

 When Mrs B made a similar request ParkingEye stonewalled her and refused to supply the data. The Prankster believes the data would have backed up her claim to have been driving around the site and that ParkingEye  should therefore have vacated the claim.

Instead, they spent more than £500 pursuing a claim for an underpayment £2, which it turns out was never owed in the first place.

It is clear that the ParkingEye system at Barnet hospital is unreliable and is issuing tickets which it has no rights to issue. Moreover The Prankster believes that ParkingEye are, or should be, fully aware of this from analysing the camera tracks of Mrs B's journey.

It is also clear that the system at Barnet Hospital is in direct contravention of government guidelines, which state that:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’

 Hospital car parks are huge sources of revenue for ParkingEye, and The Prankster believes this is a serious abuse which needs rectifying. Alternative methods of fairly managing hospital car parks should be used instead, with parking companies getting a management fee only and not a fee based on issuing parking charges.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 March, 2016, 12:56:04 PM
Motorists fined for short Yeovil District Hospital drop-offs

By Western Gazette - Yeovil  |  Posted: March 08, 2016

(http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276414/Article/images/28883831/13258072-large.jpg)
Alastair Swinnerton was issued a penalty charge by Parking Eye for a "double visit" to drop off and pick up his father from the hospital

   Two Yeovil motorists who believe they have fallen foul of an apparent glitch in the parking system at Yeovil District Hospital are appealing for others who may have been affected to come forward.

Jane Jeffrey was hit with a penalty charge for staying in the drop-off bay for an hour and a half, despite leaving and then returning during this time.

She was taking her daughter and grand-daughter to the hospital on February 17, leaving them in the drop-off bay outside and returning later to pick them up.

She said: "My daughter said she would text me when she was done, so I went to my friend's house and came back when she was finished.

"Then a few weeks later we got this penalty charge saying that I had been parked in the drop-off area for an hour and a half.

"They had taken the photos from when I first went in and then when I went out the second time so it looked like I had been there for a long time."

Jane struggled to get through to anyone from the company who issues the fines, Parking Eye, and did not want anyone else to get hit with a penalty charge.

"You feel really under pressure to pay the fine because you can't get through to Parking Eye at all. If you challenge it the fine also goes up from £40 to £70.

"They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this and I feel sorry for anyone else that has been caught by them. It's really concerning and just makes you wonder how many times this has happened before.

"Luckily I went to the hospital and complained and they quashed the fine for me but I was very close to just paying it."

Alastair Swinnerton was issued with a similar charge by ParkingEye for a "double visit" to drop off and pick up his father from the hospital in January.

He says he pulled into the 20 minute drop off area at around 9am on January 29 so his father could go into the hospital for a scan.

   Since he only lives a short distance away, Mr Swinnerton drove home and came back around an hour and a half later to pick him up.

He later received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from ParkingEye, saying he had stayed in the short stay zone for the full hour and a half.

Mr Swinnerton appealed the charge, assuming the company had made a mistake, but was unsuccessful. He appealed again and, after contacting the Patient Experience Team at the hospital, his charge was rescinded.

He is now seeking other people who may have received a charge in similar circumstances, and is not going to give up easily.

He said: "A lot of the "advice" on the internet is to just ignore these kinds of tickets but the serious forums say the opposite.

"You should appeal as soon as you get the charge notice, and keep appealing. As long as you know you are in the right, and can prove it. Tell them you're happy to let them take you to court.

"From what I've seen in internet case studies, that usually gets the ticket cancelled. If you just ignore it they will start sending debt recovery letters, and ultimately obtain a county court judgement against you."

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: "People parking at Yeovil District Hospital have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable.

"In both of these cases, the parking system identified that Mr Swinnerton and Ms Jeffery overstayed by at least 80 minutes and so were issued with a charge.

"We encourage people to submit an appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website."

Yeovil District Hospital have been contacted for comment.

http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Motorists-fined-short-Yeovil-District-Hospital/story-28883831-detail/story.html (http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Motorists-fined-short-Yeovil-District-Hospital/story-28883831-detail/story.html)

=============================================


"People parking at Yeovil District Hospital have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable."

THESE PEOPLE ACTED ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLY YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON!

Now let's see if Mr Trouserfire has anything to say on the subject.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)


Oh dear! He seems to be siding with the moron.

But the Parking(sh)Eye(ster) Ltd moron doesn't finish there. He goes on to say:

"We encourage people to submit an appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances,"

So let's examine this little gem shall we. First let's examine the meaning of the word "mitigate".

mitigate
[ˈmɪtɪɡeɪt]
VERB

    make (something bad) less severe, serious, or painful:
    "drainage schemes have helped to mitigate this problem"
        synonyms: alleviate · reduce · diminish · lessen · weaken · lighten ·

    lessen the gravity of (an offence or mistake):
    "he would have faced a prison sentence but for mitigating circumstances"
        synonyms: extenuating · exonerative · justificatory · justifying ·

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that in order for there to be "mitigating circumstances" to be considered, it must have been established that "an offence or mistake" has already occurred. Put simply, you only need to mitigate against something if you have done something wrong.

Fortunately, in this country there remains the judicial presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty, but this doesn't seem to matter to the Parking(sh)Eye(ster) Ltd moron. Perhaps the Ltd in this case refers to his intellect?
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 March, 2016, 02:31:35 PM
Shoppers say they were wrongly fined for parking in Stafferton Way retail park

Hefty charges for extended parking stays at Stafferton Way retail park that have not been made are being issued by the car park company.

(http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/imagelibrary/Client_Images/Client00010/ResizeCache/02730000/02730074%20-%20610x408.jpg)

Users of the car park have reported receiving notices demanding £100 for overstaying from car park management firm G24.

The affected visitors are contesting the fines.

Laurie Dingwall regularly visits the retail park to use Pets at Home. On January 27 he visited the store to make an appointment with the in-house vet for his pet rabbit at 12.50pm. He says he left shortly afterwards and did not return until 5pm when he stayed for around half an hour. G24 says he stayed in the car park for the four hours.

Laurie, who lives in Holyport, is now wary of going again in case he is sent another fine.

He said: “It makes me reluctant to go there more than once in case something might happen. The staff at Pets at Home have said that it happens regularly.”

He has tried to appeal the notice with G24 and is now sending a written application to the management firm with a letter from Pets at Home clarifying the times he was in store.

Paul Allgood, owner of timber treatment company Allgood Treatments, was also sent a fine by G24 after visiting the car park twice on January 21.

Paul, who has been trading in Maidenhead for 30 years, said its van had been driven to Homebase in the morn-ing to buy work materials and then again in the afternoon to replace a light bulb at Halfords.

“They say we went in at 9am and left at 5pm but that is absolute nonsense,” he said.

“There is no way we would leave our working van in a place like that all day. There is something really weird going on.”

Paul is concerned that there may be others like him who have been wrongly fined, but who would have paid anyway.

He added: “For elderly people who go there it is frightening. I bet there are people who have paid the fine who shouldn’t have.”

Shoppers are allowed to park free for three hours.

G24 refused to comment when contacted by the Advertiser.


http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Shoppers-say-they-were-wrongly-fined-for-parking-in-Stafferton-Way-retail-park-10032016.htm (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Shoppers-say-they-were-wrongly-fined-for-parking-in-Stafferton-Way-retail-park-10032016.htm)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 March, 2016, 09:32:05 PM
Any system that allows you to put in the wrong registration number is not fit for purpose.

====================

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/couple-s-fury-over-south-shields-hospital-parking-fine-1-7783472 (http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/couple-s-fury-over-south-shields-hospital-parking-fine-1-7783472)

Couple’s fury over South Shields hospital parking fine

(http://www.shieldsgazette.com/webimage/1.7783471.1457458131!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleMaxWidth_620/image.jpg)
Ann Graves angry over parking issue at South Tyneside District Hospital.

A couple have called on hospital parking bosses in South Tyneside to make their complaints process clearer after they struggled to appeal against a fine.

Ann and Doug Graves, from Quarry Lane, South Shields, visited South Tyneside District Hospital to see their daughter Jacqueline, 29, who had just given birth, and Doug’s brother Dave, 59, who had suffered breathing difficulties.

The couple faced a fine after firm Parking Eye said they had keyed in the wrong registration number.

But the couple say they took extra care to key in their car’s registration number to the machine near the maternity unit, after Ann fell foul of the system and put in the wrong plate details twice when she went to Sunderland Royal Hospital, which has the same system.

ParkingEye says they keyed in the wrong number but has agreed to drop the fine of £55 if paid within a week, and £70 if paid beyond that.

Ann, 59, a domestic at Perth Green House, and Doug, 61, a minibus driver, say their issue is with how difficult it is to reach the company to raise a complaint. They say the email addresses on their ticket did not work and the telephone number given does not give the option to speak to a person and only gives automated responses.

Ann said: “We were totally shocked and fuming because I knew for a fact we’d put in the right reg. It’s only because we sent them a letter that we got a reply.”

A ParkingEye spokesman said: “Mr and Mrs Graves received a parking charge as they incorrectly entered their vehicle registration into the machine on site.

“As soon as they appealed and made us aware of the mistake, we cancelled the charge.”

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 April, 2016, 11:56:11 AM
Courtesy of the Prankster

=============================

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Bogus ParkingEye claim for Riverside Retail Park thrown out of court

ParkingEye's deficient ANPR technology was found wanting yet again in court.

In this latest case an unfortunate motorist found they had a CCJ registered against them when they attempted to make a purchase of a new car. On investigating, this turned out to be from a claim which ParkingEye had taken out against them. The lady had never received any court papers so applied for a set-aside, asking the British Motorist Protection Association for advice.

The parking event, which happened back in 2013, was in the same car park where Barry Beavis was charged in the ParkingEye v Beavis case. However, in this particular case the motorist visited the car park twice. In the first visit, she found she had forgotten her purse. She then returned home to get it, and visited one shop where she spent £61. She retained the receipt, which she was able to show the judge.

ParkingEye's ANPR system, which has been proved not fit for purpose in many court claims previous to this, was one again found wanting, recording just one long stay instead of the two visits. With the help of the BMPA the motorist filed a witness statement containing the following information.

    The alleged contravention never occurred. I visited the shops twice on that day. On the first visit I forgot my purse and had to return. I then only visited one shop where I still have my receipt for £61, which I will bring as evidence. ParkingEye's ANPR cameras incorrectly recorded my two short visits as one long stay.

    ANPR cameras are not 100% accurate and a large number of cases similar to this are documented on the internet. I have contacted the British Motorists Protection Association who inform me that one way ANPR cameras fail is when vehicles drive close to each other and block off the numberplate from the camera. Other errors are introduced if there is glare from sun or snow, if the camera angle is wrong, if the camera is misaligned with the road or if the road is too wide for the camera capabilities. Depending on the site, the camera accuracy will vary from as low as 70% to the high 90's. Normally this works to the benefit of the motorist, as the stay will not be recorded. However, in the case of double visits, this works against the motorist.

    This means that on the day of the incident I was one of the unfortunate victims of poor technology, with the cameras missing my first exit and second entrance.

    ParkingEye measure the accuracy of every site by recording the number of cars entering, but apparently never exiting, and also exiting, but apparently never entering.  To protect against issuing charges for double visits they cancel all charges when accuracy falls below 70%. This is far too low a percentage, and accounts for the large number of complaints against ParkingEye by motorists who have made double visits.

In the set-aside hearing, ParkingEye decided not to appear to contest the claim, but to send in papers only. After considering the papers and speaking to the motorist, the judge not only decided to grant the set-aside, but also decided that ParkingEye had no prospect of success in any future hearing. He therefore used his case management powers to dismiss the claim.

Prankster Note

It is fairly unusual to dismiss a claim during the set aside process. However judges do have wide reaching case management powers, and if the judge found that there was two visits then no contravention occurred and the sensible thing to do was to dismiss the claim. This saves time and money for both parties, as well as the court.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bogus-parkingeye-claim-for-riverside.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bogus-parkingeye-claim-for-riverside.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 29 April, 2016, 06:53:49 PM
(http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/resources/images/sitelogo/)

Man turns private investigator to win £100 parking fine battle (http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/14459592.Man_turns_private_investigator_to_win___100_parking_fine_battle/)



(http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/resources/images/5006196/?type=responsive-gallery)



A MAN spent two weeks gathering evidence to prove his innocence after being accused of parking his van in a private car park all day.

Workman Shaun D'Wit was sent a £100 fine after cameras apparently caught him entering the car park at The Range, in Cowdray Avenue, Colchester shortly before 10am and not leaving until 5.38pm.

But Mr D'Wit had in fact spent less than 15 minutes in the store in the morning of March 18 when he went looking for carpet fittings and had arrived briefly later the same day to buy on-offer sanding blocks.

Mr D'Wit, who lives in Elmstead Market, then spent two weeks after being sent the fine in the post "working as a private investigator" in a bid to prove his innocence and escape the £100 punishment.

He believes the car park's cameras are not equipped to clock cars going in and out, leaving every ticket open to a challenge.

The married dad-of-two said: "I can't believe what I've had to do just to clear my name - it's unreal.

"When I got it, I couldn't believe it. I've never spent more than an hour in The Range and I'd remember if I left my van there all day."

During the "investigation" he sought written evidence from Wickes, in Clarendon Way, to prove he had been shopping there during the time his van was meant to be parked less than a mile away at The Range.

He also dug out receipts from other places he had been during that day to add to his case.

The 56-year-old added: "The only reason I've got this done is because I ran around gathering up all the information like a blooming private investigator.

"They would have quite happily taken that money off me - no questions.

"My worry is this 'nastiness', which is what I call it, might have worked on someone else, perhaps a single mum or an older person who doesn't have the internet might have just paid up and never thought about it.

"That's why I want people to know what's happened - to let people know they don't have to just pay without thinking."


A spokesman for Parking Eye, which runs the car park, said: "“Unfortunately, Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error.

"The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation was sent to him."


------------------------------


A spokesmanwea$el for Parking(sh)Eye(sters) (Ltd, mustn't forget the Ltd), which ru(i)ns the car park, said: "Unfortunately, Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error."


(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky111.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)          Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error          (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky111.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 29 April, 2016, 07:29:15 PM

 Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error."



I wonder what Mr Trouserfire has to say on this subject? Let's ask him shall we?

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 29 April, 2016, 09:51:30 PM
We're all about the balance on here BE. If there's a story about someone called D'Wit then it's only fair that a f :o ckwit should be allowed to voice their opinion.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 20 May, 2016, 09:50:35 AM
We've got the trifecta up here.

1) Proof that anpr is fatally flawed

2) A council issuing private parking tickets on public land

3) An admission that they have no idea how much damage has been done to footfall, they only know some damage has been done.

==========================================


Bridgnorth council ends contract with car park firm

A Bridgnorth car park which has caused anger and controversy with visitors to a town will have its charging contract changed.

(http://www.shropshirestar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20836173.jpg)
Severn Park car park in Bridgnorth will be monitored by Shropshire Council

Severn Park car park in Bridgnorth has been run by Creative Parking Solutions but the town council activated the break clause in that contract and has now brought the agreement to an end.

Councillor David Cooper, the town’s mayor, said: “The town council has reviewed the car park management arrangements for Severn Park and decided to change from the automatic number plate recognition system operated by Creative Car Parking to a pay and display system, with the car park monitored by Shropshire Council’s enforcement officers.

“It will then be operated on a basis consistent with the way Shropshire Council public car parks are managed in Bridgnorth and elsewhere in Shropshire, and we feel that will be better for car park users.”

He added: “At the moment we are not intending to change the cost of parking.”

The news delighted Steve Robbins, chairman of Bridgnorth Chamber of Commerce, who said: “We have been pressing councillors to terminate the contract with the current company following numerous complaints from visitors to the town who were caught out by the system.

“While we are extremely happy that they have now agreed to do this, we do not know how much damage the system used on Severn Park has caused to our tourism industry. Many people have vowed never to return to the town having been unfairly charged by it.”

The chamber of commerce was instrumental in helping one visitor get her money back last month following an incorrect charge triggered by the ANPR system.

Mr Robbins said: “The lady arrived at the car park and correctly paid for two hours’ parking. She then realised there were no catering facilities at the park and drove out to get fish and chips, returning a few minutes later.

“The ANPR system registered the vehicle as re-entering the car park.”

He said: “However the lady did not buy another ticket as the one she had was still valid, and as a consequence an invoice was automatically generated.

“The invoices are made to look like a parking fine, and the lady already paid it before contacting us.

“We assisted her with legal advice and she wrote to us a few weeks ago thanking us as she had finally got the money refunded.”


Creative Parking Solutions was unavailable for comment.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2016/05/12/bridgnorth-council-ends-contract-with-car-park-firm/ (http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2016/05/12/bridgnorth-council-ends-contract-with-car-park-firm/)








Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 31 May, 2016, 11:57:37 PM
(http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/resources/images/sitelogo/)


Couple to fight £100 parking fine - thanks to smart Land Rover GPS gadget (http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/14482749.Couple_to_fight___100_parking_fine___thanks_to_smart_Land_Rover_GPS_gadget/)

11 May 2016 / Ryan Jennings


A COUPLE who claim to have wrongly been given a £100 parking fine say they are prepared to fight it in court.

Steve and Rebecca Bozier were sent the penalty after cameras apparently spotted their Land Rover Discovery Sport parked in McDonald's, in Cowdray Avenue, Colchester, for three-and-a-half hours - 90 minutes over the parking limit.

But instead of shelling out the cash, the pair set about disproving Met Parking Services, by using the vehicle's in-built GPS - a gadget which shows when and where the vehicle has been.

The pair, who live off Braiswick, in Colchester have now submitted their evidence to the London-based company and their case is being reviewed.

Mrs Bozier, 43, said: "When the letter came in the post, I thought I'd done it and I was thinking, 'right, how am I going to explain this?'

"I wasn't sure about it but then Steve said about the GPS thing in the car and when he looked, it showed I had been there in the morning, for a few minutes, and again in the afternoon, just for a few minutes.

"It looks like the cameras caught one entrance and one exit but missed one exit and one entrance. What a mess."      :bashy:

The mum-of-three initially arrived at the McDonald's to drop off her daughter Romy, 13, at 10.52am, on Sunday, April 10.

But when they arrived there, Romy realised her meeting point had changed to the Odeon, in Head Street, and the pair left the car park at 10.58am.

Mrs Bozier then returned to the car park at 2.22pm to drop off her youngest daughter Claudia, ten, and left at 2.25pm.

She added: "I keep a diary every day and when I saw the date, I checked the diary and sure enough I'd written about dropping off the girls in town and doing a few other bits, so I knew the GPS was right."

Husband Steve added: "It raises the question, 'are these cameras patrolling car parks fit for purpose?'      <Whistle>

"We were able to do this because the Land Rover has GPS built into it but other people might not have the ability or the time to do it and just pay the £100, which is unfair.     :bashy:

"The cameras are unreliable."      :bashy:

The 43-year-old added: "I'm happy to go all the way to magistrates' court. There is no way we're going to that fine, we are absolutely in the right here."

Met Parking Services have not officially comment on the case except to say the case is in the "review process".
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 August, 2016, 12:59:38 PM
Grandmother fined £70 for going to car park twice

(http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimage/1.4655824.1357634259!/image/1934202967.jpg)
DOUBLE PARKED? Heather Taw was fined after visiting Aldi's car park twice in one day.

Grandmother Heather Taw was given a £70 parking charge for using a supermarket in the morning – and then dropping her sister off there in the evening.

The 62-year-old visited Aldi on West Street, Fareham, on Thursday, December 17.

(http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimage/1.4655825.1357634265!/image/4216671621.jpg)

Mrs Taw, a care home chef, had popped in to the supermarket to go shopping in the morning and left around half an hour later.

She later pulled in to the car park to drop her sister off in the evening.

Unfortunately for Mrs Taw, the supermarket uses ParkingEye, an automatic camera system, to enforce its strict 90-minute parking limit. Even though Mrs Taw simply pulled in to the car park to drop her sister off and pulled out again a few minutes later, the camera clocked her number plate on her initial entry in the morning and on her last exit in the evening.

This meant the automatic system generated a £70 fine which Mrs Taw received on Christmas Eve.

Mrs Taw said: ‘It’s caused me a lot of stress. I’m a very honest person and this scared me. I am a natural worrier and this really set me off.’

When Mrs Taw went on to the ParkingEye website she found that the only way to contact the firm was via email. She sent five emails to explain but received no response.

When ParkingEye was contacted by The News, a spokesman claimed that the firm had already cancelled Mrs Taw’s charge after looking in to her case.

The spokesman said a letter was on its way to Mrs Taw.

A statement from the company said: ‘ParkingEye was engaged by Aldi at Fareham because its car park was suffering from parking abuse, meaning genuine customers couldn’t find parking spaces. However we operate a clear and fair appeals procedure for anyone who feels that there are mitigating circumstances in their case. Discretion will be used in the case of genuine customers.

‘In Mrs Taw’s case, she followed our appeals process and we can confirm that the charge has been cancelled.’

Mrs Taw, of Nashe Way, Fareham, said: ‘Why didn’t they just email me back? It would have saved me so much worry over Christmas.

‘Sounds like they have just cancelled the charge because I contacted the newspaper.

‘If I had been old and frail, the letter would have scared me into paying.

‘If nothing else, I’d like to let people know what’s going on down there.’

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/grandmother-fined-70-for-going-to-car-park-twice-1-4655826 (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/grandmother-fined-70-for-going-to-car-park-twice-1-4655826)





Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 August, 2016, 01:06:17 PM
Driver slams parking enforcers after he is fined £100 for visiting shop twice in a day - now cancelled after Gazette inquiry

(http://www.echo-news.co.uk/resources/images/3880467.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)



A CAFE owner ended up with a £100 parking fine for visiting a shop in Clacton twice in one day.

Darren Hennessey, who runs the Sailor Boy Cafe in St Osyth, was stunned to receive the fine after visiting the Range to buy paint on April 15.

Mr Hennessey first visited the store at 9am before leaving a few minutes later.

He returned briefly to the Valleybridge Road store in the afternoon after running out of paint, but said he was there less than half an hour.

A month later Parking Eye, which manages parking on the site, sent him a letter demanding a £60 fine by May 22, whichhas nowshot up to to £100. It said he was caught on camera entering the store at 9.01am and leaving at 3.26pm.

Mr Hennessey said: “The camera only registered the car the first time and the last time.

“That could happen to anyone and six weeks later you could have a fine."

Mr Hennessey said he did not want other people to get caught out and feel pressured into paying any fine.

He added: “I phoned the manager of the Clacton store he said there was nothing they can do and I have got to take it up with Parking Eye.

“I phoned up the Range customer services and they said that is the chance you take if you visit the Range twice.”

A Parking Eye spokesman said: “We operate an industry-leading audited appeals process, as detailed on the parking charge notice, and encourage individuals to appeal.

“We are yet to receive an appeal in relation to this case, but, based on the information provided by the Gazette, the charge has been cancelled.”

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/13313234.Driver_slams_parking_enforcers_after_he_is_fined___100_for_visiting_shop_twice_in_a_day___now_cancelled_after_Gazette_inquiry/ (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/13313234.Driver_slams_parking_enforcers_after_he_is_fined___100_for_visiting_shop_twice_in_a_day___now_cancelled_after_Gazette_inquiry/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 August, 2016, 01:13:51 PM
Driver in row over parking fine at Focus in Dorchester

(http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/resources/images/1273200.jpg?display=1&htype=100000&type=responsive-gallery)
Rob Gale was fined £60 for using the Focus car park twice in one day



A COMPANY director has set up an online group urging drivers to boycott a DIY store after he was stung with a £60 fine for using the shop twice in one day.

Rob Gale started the group when he received the fine for Parking at Focus in Dorchester once in the afternoon to pick up a pedestal trap for a sink, and then returned for a second time at 6.30pm to get more DIY equipment.

An enforcement notice sent to Mr Gale’s home said he had parked at the Dorchester shop for three hours.

Crossways dad-of-two Mr Gale, 41, refuses to pay the fine and will produce his store receipts to appeal the decision.

He said: “I felt absolutely devastated when I opened the parking fine.

“They thought I’d been there for over three hours but I was only there for 20 minutes each time.

“If they’ve got the technology to read your number plate going in and out, then why are they not able to do it for someone twice?

“They’ve given me an appeals address, but I’m not optimistic that I’ll get anywhere with it.”

Cameras in the car park of Focus photograph number plates when vehicles enter and exit the site.

A week after his visit to Focus, Mr Gale was sent a parking charge notice by Gerrards Cross-based G24 Parking Solutions.

It shows photographs of Mr Gale’s red Nissan Almera arriving at the Great Western Square car park at 3.23pm and leaving at 6.45pm.

Mr Gale, who oversees Winfrith-based Burn Technology, says he has receipts from Focus to show he visited on two separate occasions.

He is now urging people to boycott Focus in Dorchester. Mr Gale says similar problems have happened at B&Q in Weymouth which uses a similar camera system and is managed by ParkingEye.

“I’ve set up a Facebook group to make people aware of what could happen using the car parks of these DIY stores.

“A lot of people must have experienced this – you go home, try and fix something and run out of what you bought so you need to go back for more,” Mr Gale added.

A spokeswoman from Focus said that the store manager has the discretion to waive car-parking fines upon production of relevant receipts.

She added: “The car parking facility put in there has been put in for a reason.

“If it’s in the town centre or there’s a railway station nearby, the car park gets abused.

“Fines have been put in place to make sure customers can park and shop within our site.”

When asked by the Echo why the automated fines system doesn’t detect situations when cars leave the car park and return for a second time, she said: “That’s something you would have to take up with G24.”

The department manager was not available for comment when the Dorset Echo contacted G24 Parking Solutions.

* Similar problems were experienced at Weymouth’s B&Q earlier this year, where shoppers who visited the DIY store twice in the same day received £80 fines.

Chickerell resident Lee Spalding visited the store once at 8am and eight hours later.

He then received an £80 parking ticket saying he had been parked in the same spot all day.

Paul Nibbs, of Weymouth, also received an £80 fine after borrowing his girlfriend’s car to visit B&Q later in the day after she had already visited.

A spokesman for Parking Eye, which manages the B&Q car park, refused to comment.

A B&Q spokesman said: “We definitely do not have a policy where customers should be told they cannot return twice in one day.”

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8112840.Driver_in_row_over_parking_fine_at_Focus_in_Dorchester/ (http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/8112840.Driver_in_row_over_parking_fine_at_Focus_in_Dorchester/)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 August, 2016, 01:17:15 PM
Ban lifted on car park company in fines row

A parking company convicted of misleading motorists has been given permission to access the personal details of drivers again, it emerged today.

(http://www.expressandstar.com/wpmvc/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/WD3985529@JOHNS-1-GD-04.jpg)

A parking company convicted of misleading motorists has been given permission to access the personal details of drivers again, it emerged today.

The DVLA banned Observices Parking Consultancy from acquiring the addresses of motorists after the company and its director were fined almost £30,000 by magistrates in

Wolverhampton. The ban prevented the firm from fining drivers caught flouting parking restrictions by the company's camera system at St John's Retail Park in Snow Hill.

Despite receiving a hefty fine, OPC is continuing to enforce parking restrictions at the retail park.

DVLA spokeswoman Karen Joseph revealed today the ban imposed by the organisation had been lifted, saying: "Following our investigation, OPC is now allowed to access details.

"Investigations like this are carried out on a case-by-case basis before a decision is made. Companies that have acted out of the norm will be monitored very closely in the future."

The DVLA imposed the ban after the firm and its director Douglas Harris, of  Hertfordshire, admitted 36 offences in court on the basis of neglect rather than connivance.

Magistrates were told shoppers can leave their vehicles on the St John's car park for two hours for free, but are fined £100 if they stayed longer.

Drivers are also warned the bill can rise to £400 if the ticket is challenged. But several drivers alleged that, after making two visits to the site, they received a fine despite never staying more than two hours.

The car park was monitored by cameras taking timed photographs but there was confusion involving cars visiting twice in one day.

Semi-retired driver salesman Chris Edwards, aged 66, off Jeffcock Road, was one of those who received a parking fine after visiting the retail park twice on the same day. He said of the DVLA's decision to remove the ban: "It's a disgrace.

"The DVLA should not have made a decision like this and I am surprised OPC is allowed to continue operating at the site.

"If I ever have to do shopping there again I will do it on foot knowing that that company are running the parking there." OPC declined to comment.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/05/04/ban-lifted-on-car-park-company-in-fines-row/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/05/04/ban-lifted-on-car-park-company-in-fines-row/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 August, 2016, 01:29:39 PM
Asda Altrincham car park: 'How many others are getting unjustified fines?'

(http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/resources/images/4613889.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)



On the January 9 2016, I received a car parking ticket from Smart Parking.

The fine was £40 for parking in the new ASDA store in Altrincham’s car park for over six hours.

The ticket was issued via a camera outside of the store that takes footage of you entering and exiting. Without going into details the fine was not correct or justified.

Over the next three weeks, I had to speak to many people and stay on hold on a 0845 chargeable number for a considerable amount of time, until ASDA themselves eventually cancelled the fine.

My reason for writing this letter is to inform ASDA that, as a customer, if I visit their store twice in one day I should not be fined £40 for it until I prove my innocence and that as their customer I have the choice of other local supermarkets without this new breed of car park cameras.

How many other people has this happened too?

David Cox

Hyde

http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/yoursay/letters/14244822.Asda_Altrincham_car_park___How_many_others_are_getting_unjustified_fines__/ (http://www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/yoursay/letters/14244822.Asda_Altrincham_car_park___How_many_others_are_getting_unjustified_fines__/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 30 August, 2016, 01:15:01 PM
I know it's not an ANPR $camera in a car park but, I think you will agree the question of whether these cameras are fit for purpose is the same?

==============================================

Van driver who was fined for doing 70 in a 50mph zone gets the penalty quashed after it emerged average speed cameras couldn't tell the difference between his vehicle and another on the same stretch of road

Paul Clamp, 61, was awarded £400 fine when a van with a similar number plate to his was caught exiting a stretch of road in Corby, as he entered it

Combined speed of vehicles was believed to be 77mph in 50mph zone

Mr Clamp received apology and claims police say it was a 'common error'


A man has had his speeding ticket overturned after it was revealed this his vehicle was confused with another.

Paul Clamp, 61, received a summons threatening a months' driving ban and a £400 fine after it was believed that he had been doing 77mph in a 50 mph zone.

However, after requesting documentation of the event, Mr Clamp noticed that the cameras on the A14 in Corby, leicestershire, had combined the speeds of his van and another with a similar registration plate.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/21/18/03C9A09A000005DC-3751816-image-a-34_1471802346612.jpg)

For, as Mr Clamp was pictured entering the stretch of road, the other vehicle was snapped leaving it.

As a result, the automated system logged the two vehicles as one and averaged their speed at 77mph.

Following the revelation, Mr Clamp contacted the police who dropped the case and apologised for the misunderstanding.

Mr Clamp also claims that they said that errors like this were often made, despite neither the drivers nor vehicles looking alike.

However, he coincidentally knew the other driver. 

Mr Clamp told the Sunday Mirror: It was like a game of spot the difference. The other lad is small - I'm twice as big. He had a hi-vis vest, I didn't.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/21/18/10AC1A8200000514-3751816-image-m-37_1471802367572.jpg)
The automated system logged the two vehicles as one and averaged their speed at 77mph (stock image)

'The number plates are similar but there is one character difference. Even the graphics are different. 
'A blind man on a galloping horse could see it was two different vans. This needs looking at. How many people are being wrongly prosecuted?'

Jonathan Clarkson, safety camera partnership spokesperson, told MailOnline: 'This was an isolated error and we sincerely apologise for any inconvenience we have caused Mr Clamp.

'We took no further action once the mistake was highlighted and, in all cases, if our camera images are poor we will not proceed with prosecution.

'Drivers can request copies of our photographic evidence after receiving a notice of intended prosecution to confirm the identity of the vehicle.

'Over 51.8 million vehicles pass through these particular road works every year, since the average speed cameras were installed in March 2014 a total 24,375 drivers have been prosecuted for excessive speeding either by a fine, a court summons or by attending a driver education workshop.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751816/Van-driver-fined-doing-70-50mph-zone-gets-penalty-quashed-emerged-average-speed-cameras-couldn-t-tell-difference-vehicle-stretch-road.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751816/Van-driver-fined-doing-70-50mph-zone-gets-penalty-quashed-emerged-average-speed-cameras-couldn-t-tell-difference-vehicle-stretch-road.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 12 September, 2016, 02:54:38 PM
There is no reason I can think of as to why the system cannot be configured so that it would not accept a number plate that the anpr cameras have not picked up.

Strike that!

Silly me. I've missed the obvious one haven't I.

CA$H FOR MI$MATCH

=========================================



Pensioner is fined £100 after he mistyped his number plate into a car park payment machine by two digits because he wasn't wearing his glasses

Brian Hewlett was shocked to receive a penalty notice after paying £3
He paid before driving his Volkswagen Passat away with time to spare
But he had entered registration as ‘EK002EEUV’ instead of ‘EK02EEU’
Ombudsman dismissed his appeal but company then cancelled fine


A pensioner was fined £100 after he mistyped his car number plate into a car park payment machine by two digits because he wasn't wearing his glasses.
Brian Hewlett, 69, of Yeovil, Somerset, was shocked to receive the penalty notice one month after paying £3 to park for two hours at the car park in Poole, Dorset.
He paid before driving his Volkswagen Passat away with time to spare, but had mistakenly entered his registration as ‘EK002EEUV’ and not the correct ‘EK02EEU’.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/08/12/380E1E8A00000578-0-image-m-2_1473333761216.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/08/12/380E23F200000578-0-image-m-10_1473333938016.jpg)
Error: He paid before driving his Volkswagen Passat away from the car park in Poole (above) with time to spare, but had entered his registration as ‘EK002EEUV’ instead of ‘EK02EEU’

The retired lorry driver said he made the error he was not wearing his glasses as he typed, but it still should have been valid as his number plate was included.

He wrote to car park owners Britannia Parking to explain without success before his appeal was dismissed by ombudsman Parking on Private Land Appeals (Popla).

Popla said that this was in part because the unmanned car park uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras.

The ombudsman added that there is sufficient signage explaining that fines will be issued if mistakes are made.
Mr Hewlett’s refusal to pay prompted Britannia to now hire debt collectors to pursue him for £160, an increased fee to include their administrative costs.
But after being contacted by MailOnline, the company's managing director Brian Parker said the firm had 'reviewed our procedures and also cancelled the notice'.
Mr Hewlett said: ‘I couldn’t believe it when I saw I was being fined because I remembered asking my wife for the number plate as I typed it in and paid the £3.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/08/12/380E2B9400000578-0-image-m-5_1473333828747.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/08/12/380E36F700000578-0-image-m-9_1473333920218.jpg)

‘I thought it must have been a mistake and asked for photographic evidence, which they couldn’t supply. But they did have video of my car entering and leaving the car park.
‘I wasn’t wearing my glasses, which was my mistake, but when you look at the number I entered and the number plate of my car you don’t have to be Einstein to work out what I have done.

‘They initially offered to reduce the fine to £20, which they said was needed to cover their administrative costs.
‘But I had already paid for the parking so why should I have to pay more? I just feel they are nit-picking, and it made me want to dig my heels in.
‘It is intimidating getting letters from debt collectors telling me they are going to take me to court. It is just ridiculous.’
Britannia appeared to accept that he had entered an incorrect number plate by accident when Mr Hewlett made the initial appeal, offering to let him pay a reduced £20 if received within 14 days.
The Popla ruling said: ‘The operator has provided a system print out, which does not show the appellant’s vehicle registration EK02 EEU has been entered.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/09/08/12/380E48F000000578-0-image-m-8_1473333898632.jpg)

‘I do note, however, that a similar vehicle registration has been entered, which was EK002EEUV, which corroborates with the appellant’s version of events.’
But the ruling concluded that the signs warning of such fines complied with the standards required by the British Parking Association.
Brian Parker, managing director of Britannia Parking, told MailOnline today: ‘At the site in question, automatic number plate recognition technology is in place, providing security and evidence should there be any parking enforcement issues.
‘Although we have tried to make the system as user-friendly as possible, we do have problems from time to time with motorists wrongly typing in their vehicle’s registration number.
‘In this case, the ombudsman found in our favour following the appeal; we had acted with complete propriety.
‘Refusal to pay a parking charge generates a debt recovery process, as it does with non-payment of debts in other areas of life.
‘However in the light of this case, given that the motorist concerned had paid the correct parking amount, we have reviewed our procedures and also cancelled the notice.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3779661/Pensioner-fined-100-mistyped-number-plate-car-park-payment-machine-two-digits-wasn-t-wearing-glasses.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3779661/Pensioner-fined-100-mistyped-number-plate-car-park-payment-machine-two-digits-wasn-t-wearing-glasses.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DastardlyDick on 12 September, 2016, 05:31:23 PM
Nice to see the wea$els acting with some compassion and indeed common sense - one for the history books I think!
Shame on PoPLA for not doing the same, though.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: BGB on 14 September, 2016, 08:48:34 PM
'TAKE ME TO COURT THEN' Driver with two near identical personalised number plates keeps getting fines for the car parked in his garage.

The dad has racked up nearly £500 in fines from the Dartford Tunnel

A DRIVER has racked up almost £500 in fines using the Dartford Tunnel because of a computer mix up.

Bob Long, 63, owns a fleet of vehicles with personalised number plates and regularly uses his Jeep, which has the reg ‘1 ONG’, to travel on business using the automatic Dart Charge.

But ANPR cameras on the Dartford Tunnel are mistaking the licence plate for his rarely-used classic car which he keeps in the garage.

The 1959-era Fiat 500 has the plates ’10 NG’ and isn’t registered to the automatic £2.50 charge – meaning Bob is getting stung with a £70 penalty notice every time he uses the tunnel.

Jeweller Bob, from Bungay in Suffolk, said: “Ever since I set up an automatic payment system on my jeep to make my life easier I’ve been getting these charges.”

He added: “They (courts) can’t find against me, my case is one million percent water tight, I wouldn’t let it get go to court otherwise, in fact I’m quite looking forward to getting the next ticket, to make them look such bloody idiots.”

If he were to take an alternative and not use the Dartford Crossing, by travelling through North London, it would add at least an hour to his journey.

The Dart Charge system has been beset with a number of issues since the introduction of the remote payment system in April 2014.

A Highways England spokesperson has since said: “We are aware of Mr Long’s situation.

“Our review team did check each of his crossings at the time and ensured that they were allocated to the correct vehicle.

“Unfortunately, a technical fault occurred which meant that the penalty charge notices were still generated in error.

“We have investigated the error, the notices have now been cancelled, and an apology is on its way to Mr Long.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1730953/driver-with-two-near-identical-personalised-number-plates-keeps-getting-fines-for-the-car-parked-in-his-garage/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1730953/driver-with-two-near-identical-personalised-number-plates-keeps-getting-fines-for-the-car-parked-in-his-garage/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 19 September, 2016, 03:07:57 PM
From the Prankster. I added the emphasis.

==============================

All Park With Ease ANPR tickets suspect

Park With Ease this week confirmed they are not competent to run a parking management company as they are issuing tickets even when motorists have paid the correct amount.

This is occurring at least at Brockholes Nature Reserve in Preston but may well be happening at all of theor car parks.

On the 2nd September 2016 a motorist received a charge from PWE (dated 24th August) for non payment of parking at Brockholes Nature Reserve Preston on 9th August:

The motorist appealed on the grounds she had paid her £6 charge. On the 4th September she received a reply stating that PWE had checked their records and that no record of her registration was found.

The motorist then contacted Brockholes who checked their records and found someone had paid £6 for a very similar registration at the time in question. The motorist contacted PWE again on 5th September who stated the number was not similar but as a gesture of goodwill they would cancel the charge anyway.

On the 12 September PWE contacted the motorist again and stated that having checked the payments made again they found the payment of the correct amount against the right registration. They blamed the problem on a system communication error.

Prankster Note

How many other motorists have paid the correct amount and still been charged? This problem is not limited to Park With Ease and The Prankster has received large numbers of similar complaints from motorists who say they have paid their charge at the time. A sizable number of these complaints come from car parks run by Excel/Vehicle Control Services, but companies such as ParkingEye are involved as well.

Excel refuse to accept there is any fault with their machines and have started several court claims despite being informed the motorist paid.

The Prankster is aware of a number of faults with the Metric Parking ticket machines used by Excel and ParkingEye.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SixsBGvmmZo/V90Xi511pCI/AAAAAAAAF5E/zV17XXQbHPoe-NhhzjioWeLL8ULIBJ_XQCLcB/s320/ticket%2Bmachine.jpg)

a. If a motorist pays but the machine failed to issue the ticket due to a fault, or thought it had failed to issue a ticket (even if it had) the machine would not refund the amount paid and would remove the transaction from the local store. Thus, the motorist has paid, but the operator has no record of this .

b. Another problem occurs if there is a communication fault when the machine tries to send data back to the central office. In this case the machine sometimes overwrites all or part of the data. This means it is never sent back to the operator, who therefore record one or more motorists as not having paid.

In addition to these known flaws with Metric Parking machines there may also be unknown flaws in Metric Parking’s machines, as well as flaws in the operators back-office software.

Sadly operators stick their head in the sand and refuse to admit these errors. ParkingEye, for instance, are well aware of both of these flaws with the Metric Parking machines but still continue to use them and refuse to declare these problems in relevant POPLA appeals or court claims.

The Prankster calls on companies like Metric Parking to make publically available any known faults with their machines so that motorists are fully informed, and for operators to declare these faults in appeals and court claims.

The Prankster has contacted Metric Parking and awaits their response.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/all-park-with-ease-anpr-tickets-suspect.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/all-park-with-ease-anpr-tickets-suspect.html)


Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 October, 2016, 04:05:29 PM
Nice to see this thread get a mention on Pranky's blog.  ;D

=================================================

ParkingEye scammers caught out by canny motorist using dashcam

Long-time scammers ParkingEye have been caught out trying to charge a motorist for a 5 hour stay when in fact they made 3 visits to the car park in question.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wgKNArEP7cI/V-ghbiUmAEI/AAAAAAAAF7I/H-GXF9HHJi0rhJbYlTR6KmLBj5YfvaTawCLcB/s1600/times%2BCharge%2BNotice.jpg)

ParkingEye use ANPR cameras to monitor car parks and this technology has proved time and again to be unreliable and issue charges when no contravention occurs. The Government has wisely banned Councils from the general use of ANPR, but has not yet extended the ban to private parking companies.

The notomob keep a record of ANPR fails.
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768)

It can therefore be said with some certainty that parking companies are well aware that their ANPR is flawed, and that they therefore knowing scam large numbers of motorists a year by issuing invoices which they have failed in their duty of care to check are valid.

Luckily the motorist in question uses a dashcam. ParkingEye claim the vehicle was parked at ASDA from 14:22 to 19:28. However the dashcam proves the vehicle was outside their home at 19:25, which was just before they set off for ASDA for the third time.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7bBgYxRB2_4/V_JxzT7ERdI/AAAAAAAAF8A/2cDV61hYa-8_3dLhp6hyUGLD1CDRPu5LgCLcB/s640/Starting%2BJourney%2Bfrom%2Bhome.png)


This article from Parking Trend International magazine (2008) http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-scammers-caught-out-by-canny.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-scammers-caught-out-by-canny.html) explains that ANPR is 90% to 94% accurate in ideal conditions and may fall to 60%-80% with older systems.

The Prankster considers it is time that either parking companies got their act in order, or the government ban the use of flawed ANPR system for control of private parking.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-scammers-caught-out-by-canny.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-scammers-caught-out-by-canny.html)



Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 October, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
ParkWithEase - ANPR Seriously flawed

Guest Report from Clive Elsdon

I went into one of their car parks in the lakes, and for a system that should be so simple (pay on exit only needs a barrier system, the same as apparently a time limit only needs a watch...) they have made it almost impossible to understand. We saw lots of people scratching their head trying to pay on arrival... but at least I had been forewarned of that issue.

That didn't help me much when I came to pay as I left though... You see, as I typed my reg number in, it kept asking me if a slightly different number was mine.. I correctly kept saying no to this, as it differed by one digit and I know how pedantic parking companies can be if you get one digit wrong. So unfortunately I could not pay.

Knowing what crooks parking companies are I went to the visitors centre at the location. When I said what had happened, they pulled out a long list of vehicle registration numbers and added my REAL number to the end. I paid them an estimate of what was owed and left... Still half expecting to get an NTK in the post.

I'm pleased to say that didn't happen... But perhaps some other poor soul with a registration number one digit different to mine had that pleasure? Luckily, despite there being 3 other registration plates in the family with the same position digit being different to the one in their system... they managed to misread it as one we didn't own! We had *2* ***, *3* ***, *4* *** and *8* ***. They read it as *9* ***, where the letters / numbers represented by * remain the same on all plates...

ANPR is seriously flawed. I think that's why councils are discouraged from using it... but also perhaps why PPC's like it... I guess some will see it as a "fine", perhaps not have kept evidence and just pay up... After all, it looks bloody official when it lands through the door....

Prankster Note

Despite ParkWithWEase operating a known flawed system they are more than happy to take motorists to court for imagined transgressions.

ANPR can be used in a constructive and fair way, but companies such as ParkingWithEase are obviously just out to abuse the motorist, and are one of the bottom-feeders who have joined the cynical ATA run by Will Hurley and John Davies of the IPC.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 15 October, 2016, 03:43:36 PM
More proof courtesy of Pranky

===========================================


Saturday, 15 October 2016

POPLA competence continues on downhill slide. Charge upheld for car which was never inside the car park.

The competence of POPLA sadly continues to decline as this latest judgment shows.

In this case the motorist never entered the car park, but turned around in the entrance once in the afternoon, and then again early the next morning. Here is a picture of the entrance.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BuvMB98-eKc/WAH5dLKNkdI/AAAAAAAAF_E/6b1t4gxYV5UPBRN8FWsH9dgJp1i7aTm8gCLcB/s640/canons_park_lu_cp_entry_%2526_exit.png)

Here is a picture of the car reversing into the entrance in the afternoon. The motorist gets no points for reversing style, as they are positioned in the middle of the road. Their reversing light can be seen to be on.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dm9PuNR4WNs/WAH5YwVNJAI/AAAAAAAAF-8/i6g2dlMJaBotPsiBk4J9q2PxRk4dGK-LQCLcB/s640/gc1%2Bredacted.jpg)

Here is the picture of the motorist reversing into the entrance in the morning. Once again, the reversing lights are on.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hjc__HMZQII/WAH5ZZSHOHI/AAAAAAAAF_A/v2X79hphjD8wxunNdT_D7jDTgBQkqPZPQCLcB/s640/gc2%2Bredacted.jpg)

It is clear from both pictures that the vehicle is still on the public land, level with the double yellow lines, and has not entered the car park. Additionally the number plate is not visible and there is therefore no evidence that this is the car in question.

Here is the assessors verdict, which in The Prankster's opinion is completely incompetent and fuels the argument that the appeals body should by run by an independent body.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-coq7UQOrz04/WAH7bhJzlSI/AAAAAAAAF_Q/EvEB_yRBUWo2ySVLuf2y5nCcUiWGKaL7gCLcB/s640/popla_decision_r.png)

Prankster Note

The public should expect higher standards of POPLA assessors than this. The assessor is asking us to believe that the vehicle reversed into the car park in the afternoon, and then drove out at night, hot-wiring their reverse lights so it appears that they were reversing rather than driving forwards.

Frankly, The Prankster considers it more likely that the Consumer Ombudsman under-quoted for the POPLA contract, and as a result assessors are under too much time pressure to churn out template responses without properly considering the evidence before them. This of course does not excuse the assessor missing the obvious elephant in the room which is that the car is going out when it should be coming in. It also does not excuse the assessor ruling that the exit photograph is valid when the number plate cannot be read.

However, it does reinforce the Prankster's belief that ANPR is not fit for purpose to control car parks, and that the control of POPLA should be taken away from the BPA, where normal commercial pressures will naturally force them to accept a low bid, and given to government control where the service can be funded by an increase in keeper detail charges from say £2.50 to £5.00.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/popla-competence-continues-on-downhill.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/popla-competence-continues-on-downhill.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 30 October, 2016, 10:29:20 AM
Another one from Pranky

=========================

Saturday, 29 October 2016

ParkingEye lose in court - unsolved mystery with ticket machine was not defendant's fault

Claim No C0FC15W4, ParkingEye v Ms G. Judge Middleton, County Court at Bodmin. 2pm, 26 October 2016

In this case Ms G paid for a parking ticket at Tower Road Newquay, but due to a machine malfunction the registration number was not printed on the ticket. ParkingEye therefore claimed that a breach of contract had occurred.

Ms G didn't reply to ParkingEyes initial charge on April 4th, which accused her of getting a parking charge either because she either hadn't paid for enough parking time or had overstayed. This, together with photos and times of her going in and out was the only data given. There were no other explanations or evidence and as Ms G knew she had paid and left within time she treated it as 'spam'.

Eventually ParkingEye filed a court claim in June. Ms G had to file a defence not knowing what she had done wrong, and asked ParkingEye several times for information without reply. On August 20 they replied to her defence sending a printout which proved, linked with the entry & exit times that she had paid after all but there was a blank space where the VRN should have been.

ParkingEye therefore added a new particular of claim to their reply to defence that the defendant had paid after all, but had breached the contract by not entering a correct VRN.

However, it is not possible to get a ticket without entering a VRN. Ms G went back to the car park prepared to invest £1.50 to prove this. The machines would not issue a ticket unless a VRN was entered.

The Hearing

In court, Ms G was ready to resort to the fact that they had neglected to accuse her of the missing VRN in the first place. (Prankster Note - claimants are not allowed to change the particulars of claim without filing a form and paying a fee. ParkingEye are well aware of this because they include this information in their reply to defence)

However, the judge knew you couldn't get a ticket without entering a VRN and that some blip had occurred. He could see Ms G had stayed for less time than she had paid.

He first asked their representative to explain why this had come to court when Ms G had clearly paid. The guy said something to the effect that 'I think PE were saying it was breach of contract by not putting the number in...'

The hearing was over in 10 minutes and the judge dismissed the claim. The exact reason for machine failure remained an unsolved mystery not central to the judgment.

Prankster Note

Although this wa a good win for Ms G, she still felt truly intimidated and bullied by the things ParkingEye wrote - as if she set out to cheat them when the most she could have done was have made an unintentional mistake, and in all probability this was a machine failure.

Modern ticket machines do not let you enter a registration unless the ANPR detects that the vehicle is in the car park. ParkingEye could enable this on their systems, but this would cut down on the number of parking charges they could issue, because relying on mistakes is the central core of their business.

There are a number of known errors with the parking machines ParkingEye and Excel parking use and several recent cases have been dismissed due to machine errors.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 30 October, 2016, 11:38:07 PM
Once again courtesy of the Prankster

====================================

Sunday, 30 October 2016

ParkingEye ANPR flaw at M40 Oxford Services

ParkingEye have yet again failed to cancel a parking charge wrongly issued by their flawed ANPR.

In this case the vehicle keeper (Stan) visited a friend for her 50th birthday party in Oxford, travelling in convoy with another vehicle. They stopped at the M40 Oxford Services between 13.55 and 14.10 for 15 minutes. On the way back, they popped in to fill up with petrol, stopping from around 18:35 to 18:45.

Some days later Stan received a parking charge from ParkingEye accusing him of staying in the car park for 4 hours and 52 minutes.

Stan appealed, explaining that he visited the car park twice on his way to and from a party.

ParkingEye requested proof.

Stan sent them 3 witness statements confirming he was at the party.

ParkingEye ignored this, and sent a letter asking Stan who the driver was.

Stan sent another letter, telling them to read his previous two letters and witness statements

ParkingEye told Stan he had reached the end of their internal appeal process and gave him a POPLA code

Stan appealed to POPLA, including as evidence the witness statements and also a photo he took at the party.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gfgUuIZpC9s/WBY50e5c9QI/AAAAAAAAGDo/xBHVqbeUR3cTADzROFyEBISRT7PVNPYVgCLcB/s640/Party_pic_censored.jpg)

ParkingEye submitted a 93 page evidence pack, including 40 pages listing the last 3 digits of all the vehicles that had entered and exited the services that day.

The registration details of Stan's friend's car was not listed amongst all these numbers, despite the fact that he, too, had also visited the service station twice.

Stan sent an email to POPLA pointing this out, along with a signed statement from his friend including his registration number.

POPLA upheld the appeal

Prankster Note

It is clear that ParkingEyes ANPR is fatally flawed. Stan's friend passed the entrance/exit four times, yet his registration was not listed even once in ParkingEye's printout.

Stan also passed four times and his registration was only listed twice.

ParkingEye are fully aware their ANPR is not fit for purpose yet their appeals service fail to cancel charges even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

This situation is not healthy and need to be addressed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-anpr-flaw-at-m40-oxford.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-anpr-flaw-at-m40-oxford.html)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DastardlyDick on 31 October, 2016, 09:58:11 AM
Having been to Oxford MWSA on a number of occasions, I know that the fuel area and the car parking area are totally separate - to get to the fuel, you turn right, to park you go left. It would appear that PE have positioned the ANPR so that it captures every vehicle going into the Services regardless of whether they park or not. Revenue maximising? Surely not!!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 November, 2016, 01:33:56 PM
Driver, 23, is fined £100 for a seven hour stay in a car park but he claims all he did was two different three-point turns at the entrance

A driver has been fined £100 for a seven-hour stay in a car park he claims he never even entered.
George Chihaia, 23, has been embroiled in a four-month battle to clear his name after being hit with the charge for an apparent stay at the National Car Parks site.

But the groundworker from Edgware, north London, insists his Chevrolet Aveo did not access the car park at Canons Park Underground station.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2165800000578-0-image-m-2_1477993548259.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2143700000578-0-image-a-3_1477993579386.jpg)
On camera: The groundworker from Edgware, North London, insists his Chevrolet Aveo did not access the car park at Canons Park Underground station (pictured at 5.30pm on July 9, when it is claimed he entered the car park)

He also claims number plate recognition cameras have wrongly clocked his registration while he did two separate three-point turns outside the entrance.

NCP claims its cameras show the Chevrolet entering the Donnefield Avenue car park at 5.30pm on July 9, then exiting at 12.16am the following day.

But Mr Chihaia rubbished the supposed evidence and said he was doing a turn in the road and used on-street parking while he visited a friend’s house nearby.
He said: ‘I am so angry and confused. They say there is clear photographic evidence of me coming and going, but none of their pictures show me in the car park.
‘That is because I never even went in the car park. I did a turn in the road while I looked for a space on the street. Then I did the same when leaving.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2169400000578-0-image-a-5_1477993618007.jpg)
In the dark: Mr Chihaia claims cameras have wrongly clocked his registration while he did two separate three-point turns outside the entrance (pictured on July 10 at 12.16am, when it is claimed he left)


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F214FE00000578-0-image-a-6_1477993627148.jpg)
Night vision: NCP claims its cameras show the Chevrolet entering the Donnefield Avenue car park at 5.30pm on July 9, then exiting at 12.16am the following day

‘Then I get this letter saying I have been in the tube station car park for almost seven hours. It is not true. My immediate reaction was one of shock.

‘I never even entered the car park, so why should I pay a fine? Their cameras are wrong. The picture taken when it was light is supposed to show me going in to the car park.

‘Why would I be reversing in? It makes no sense. I won’t be paying it and I’ve told them that. They should cancel my ticket.’

In a letter from NCP on July 20, the operator said he was being fined for a ‘failure to make payment upon exit from an ANPR Approved Device controlled car park’.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2150B00000578-0-image-a-4_1477993602200.jpg)
Appeal response: In a letter submitted to the Parking on Private Land Appeals on October 3, NCP wrote that the ANPR technology picked up the vehicle movements

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2155300000578-0-image-a-8_1477993662062.jpg)
Letter: Mr Chihaia rubbished the supposed evidence and said he was doing a turn in the road and used on-street parking while he visited a friend’s house nearby

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/01/09/39F2152700000578-0-image-a-9_1477993666606.jpg)
Site: The NCP site at Canons Park Underground station on the Jubilee line in North London

NCP rejected his appeal on August 12, which prompted Mr Chihaia and parking campaigner Derek Dishman - known as Mr Mustard - to present his case to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (Popla) ombudsman service.

In a letter submitted to Popla on October 3, NCP wrote: ‘The appellant has appealed on the basis that they did not park within the operator’s car park and therefore no parking session fee was due.

‘They state they were not parked at the location where the PCN (parking charge notice) had stated and it was for NCP to prove where they had parked.

‘We note the appellant’s comment, however, if the appellant’s vehicle had not entered the operator’s location, the ANPR technology would not have picked up their vehicle movements as shown in the evidence photos.’

NCP also stated that independent research has found Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to be ’99 per cent accurate’.

Mr Chihaia said: ‘I wrote to them July 29 saying I wouldn’t be paying because I wasn’t there.
‘I can’t believe it’s gone this far. Nearly four months later there is no evidence showing my car in the car park. It’s simple.’

An NCP spokesman said: ‘NCP will be happy to speak to Mr Chihaia so that we can understand what has occurred in order to address the situation appropriately.

‘If Mr Chihaia has not in fact used the car park, although his vehicle registration has been identified on our automatic number plate recognition system, then he will not be liable for the PCN. NCP will be contacting Mr Chihaia directly.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892978/Driver-23-fined-100-seven-hour-stay-car-park-says-never-entered.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892978/Driver-23-fined-100-seven-hour-stay-car-park-says-never-entered.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 November, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
Excel ANPR flawed. Car was having MOT at the time. Costs awarded to defendant for unreasonableness under 27.14.2.g

C8DP13F2 Excel Parking v Ms S Manchester Court 3/11/2016

In this case Ms S drive through a car park on her way to an MOT, in order to avoid a blocked junction, then drove back again afterwards. Excel's ANPR being flawed, she was issued a parking charge for one long stay. This was disputed, but Excel refused to see sense and dismissed the appeal, then eventually filed a claim through BW Legal.

The Hearing

In the red corner, Mr Pickup of LPC Law; in the Blue corner, Mr Wilkie of PPA.

The claimant claimed, and was supported by both the witness statement and photograph evidence, that the car, driven by the Defendant, entered the Square, Chorlton-Cum-Hardy at 9.51 on 23 Feb 2015, and stayed for 351 minutes. The statement covers the usual issues of Contract, Signage and Pay and Display terms, all of which were fully conceded by the defendant. There was no issue over who was driving, no denial that the car entered at the time stated, or left at the time stated.

The only problem is, the car park, which has two entrances and exits was being "cut through" to avoid a blocked junction, and the driver was taking her car to a garage for an MOT.

Despite this, Excel's ANPR didn't detect her first exit and second entrance, and so an NTK was raised for the full 351 minutes. The Defendant appealed, supplying a copy of the MOT, proving the car could not have been there at the time. This was, as is par for the course, rejected, and the Defendant elected not to ask Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and his joke "Independent" Appeals Service to give an opinion.

BW Legal sued on behalf of Excel. The Defence was the same as the appeal, and again supplied a copy of the MOT. In fact, the Defence and the MOT were the only documents supplied.

It was suggested by Mr Pickup that maybe the car was parked in the car park while it was being MOT'd half a mile away. The judge discounted this, stating that there was no evidence to rebut the timing on the certificate as being a time the car was present at the test centre.

The judge, in summing up, made the point that the Defendant's defence has been consistent throughout, and,given the status of an MOT certificate, this is compelling evidence that the Defendant's car was not present for the entire time.

The judge did point out that signage states the car park is not a right of way, but nothing in the terms deals with trespass and trespass was not pleaded. As such, since the claimant could not rebut the compelling evidence that the car was 1/2  mile away when they claim it was parked, the claim
failed.

Additionally, since the evidence of this had been provided long before proceedings were commenced, this meant the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge therefore found that the claimant had acted unreasonably, and so made an award of punitive costs against the claimant in the sum of £160.95 using CPR 27.14(2)g.

Prankster Note

Parking Companies have a duty to properly consider appeals. ParkingEye, a BPA member, claim that they allow about 60% of appeals, and have a further 45% cancelled at POPLA. Excel are IPC members, and as such do not have a fair and open appeals process. Simon Renshaw-Smith, Excel's main shareholder, stated that the main reason he moved to the IPC was so that he would not lose so many appeals.

It is clear this decision has come to bite him in the foot. There is really no justification for a parking company or an Associated Trade Association to run a sham appeals service.

Mr Pickup was reported to have stormed out following the hearing. The Prankster can sympathise as he had just lost 2 cases on consecutive days; however, he was handed hospital passes by both clients. Mr Pickup can take heart by remembering that his duty as an advocate is to help the courts reach the correct decision, which is not the same as ensuring his clients win. As the correct decision was reached both times, Mr Pickup can sleep soundly in his bed tonight.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/excel-anpr-flawed-car-was-having-mot-at.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/excel-anpr-flawed-car-was-having-mot-at.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 11 November, 2016, 01:00:15 AM
Pensioner fined £100 despite having bought a parking ticket at Aldershot Centre for Health (http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/pensioner-fined-100-despite-having-12155487)


(http://i1.gethampshire.co.uk/incoming/article12155535.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/JS104388791.jpg)
Unhappy motorist Keith Ayer has been issued with a fine despite having bought a valid ticket at the Aldershot Centre for Health


A pensioner is being told to cough up a £100 parking fine despite having paid for a ticket at Aldershot Centre for Health.

Keith Ayer, of Freshwood Drive in Yateley, said he paid £1.20 for two hours of parking on Wednesday October 26, but has since been slapped with the fine despite telling Smart Parking, the operator, he had paid.

The 67-year-old also said the times on the fine letter do not match up to when he parked there.

“I went in at 11.09am and came out at 11.56am,” he said. “They’re conning people. I’m not paying it.

“I would never not pay for parking because there’s no point. I paid for a parking service, I had a ticket and it was on the vehicle.”


(http://i3.gethampshire.co.uk/incoming/article12155534.ece/ALTERNATES/s615d/JS104388776.jpg)
Keith Ayer paid for parking, yet has still been fined


My Ayer said he has been told to send his ticket to Smart Parking, but he ‘doesn’t trust them not to lose it’.

The wrangle is the latest in a long list of complaints about the new automatic number plate recognition system at the centre, introduced at the end of August.

NHS Property Services has advised people to email info@smartparking.com with any queries about fines.


(http://i4.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/article11946503.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Centre-for-Health.jpg)
Aldershot Centre for Health, Hospital Hill, Aldershot


A spokesman said last month: “We will continue to review the scheme with Smart Parking and our tenants, Aldershot Centre for Health, and would like to apologise for any confusion or inconvenience the new system has caused.”

Smart Parking has not responded to request for a comment.

--------------------------------------

In other news, Patrick Trouserfire of the Bullshit Purveyors Association is so pleased about the number of innocent motorists being caught out by this flawed technology that he is lobbying government to allow the use of ANPR in council car parks so that even more innocent motorists can be unfairly pursued by unscrupulous BPA Ltd members.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 11 November, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
Another one courtesy of Pranky.

===================================

Picture of the week - ANPR error

This picture shows how some types of ANPR errors occur. This occurred at the CitiPark Gade car park in Watford.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PmdnV_muQ5U/WB7oRvbHd2I/AAAAAAAAGFw/olB6BQgQ4okQ1gcLpceCMVqrcinkpvpkwCLcB/s320/anpr_error.jpg)

The second letter 'L' has been misinterpreted as an 'E', possibly because of the faint smear of dirt on the plate. This is a barrier controlled car park, so this could cause a minor problem on exit if the misread does not happen a second time, and different lighting conditions cause the ANPR software to correctly recognise the 'L'.

In an ANPR only car ark where there are no barriers, this could cause the software to record a car which entered but never exited. Normally this would be to the benefit of the motorist, as if they overstayed the ANPR would not know, and no ticket would be issued.

Problems occur if the motorist visits twice, and only the first entrance and second exit are detect. In that case the keeper would be issued a ticket for an overstay, when actually they only made two hort visit.

Although car park operators like to give out the aura that ANPR is infallible, it does actually have a high percentage of errors. This article from Parking Trend International (http://nebula.wsimg.com/496959ac4558db3f7dddddc81ee2f8a6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 (http://nebula.wsimg.com/496959ac4558db3f7dddddc81ee2f8a6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)) reveals that although manufacturers claim 98% reliability, operators find they only get 90%-94% accuracy in real conditions, so as many as 1 in 10 plates are misread. In non-ideal conditions accuracy can fall as low as 60%.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/picture-of-week-anpr-error.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/picture-of-week-anpr-error.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 21 November, 2016, 05:08:53 PM
Another one courtesy of Pranky

==============================================

BW Legal incompetence in pursuing double dip case

C8DP22F0 Excel Parking v Mr Bush 16/11/2016 Wakefield, in front of DJ Dodd

In 2014 Mr Bush briefly visited an Excel car park (Providence Street Wakefield) to drop off his friend. He stayed only long enough to do this, and then drove to another car park (Trinity Walk) where he parked up, ran some errands and ate some food. He then returned to pick up his friend, reversing in the car park entrance (but not actually entering the car park), and left.

He was therefore a little surprised ten days later to receive a parking charge for staying two hours in Excel's car park, from 18:12 to 20:15.

He appealed to Excel, but they turned this down and then harassed him for two years before eventually filing a claim.

Mr Bush did not retain his ticket, but did pay by card. His bank sent him a letter timing the purchase at 20:05

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wjqoaxQZLGA/WC3OpV-WCCI/AAAAAAAAGJQ/AK26n86k-8A-bSnJ6lOSbkYzbyJNv7ebgCLcB/s640/E10%2Bexit%2Btrinity.jpg)

The important point to note is that Trinity Walk is a barrier controlled car park. The only way you can get a ticket is by driving a vehicle up to the barrier. The only way you can get your vehicle out is by putting the ticket in a pay machine.

This is therefore pretty conclusive proof that Mr Bush was parked in Trinity Walk, and was not parked in Providence Street.

Mr Bush made many efforts to get Excel to drop the case, but all these fell on deaf ears.

The Hearing

Excel Parking handed the claim management to BW Legal, who used Elms Legal to provide an advocate for the claim. They in turn used a free agent, Miss Devans-Tamakloe, a barrister in search of chambers.

Miss DT was handed a bit of a hospital pass by BW Legal, as they did not give her Mr Bush's witness statements and only gave 1 piece of the 19 pieces of his evidence. Nevertheless, she managed a creditable performance.

Mr Bush had a lay representative from the British Motorists Protection Association, Mr PP.

The hearing was in front of DJ Dodd, a former associate of LPC Law. Ms Dodd explained the procedures for the benefit of the lay representative, arranged for photocopies of the witness statement to be provided for Miss DT and agreed with both parties there were no legal issues to consider. The claim was purely on the facts.

Miss DT then took the floor, working through the witness statement of Sohail Ismail, a litigation executive employed by BW Legal. Most of M. Ismail's statement was not relevant, being a BW Legal template witness statement. There was a section attaching Mr Bush's defence but sadly most of that had been copied and pasted from another claim, and therefore was entirely irrelevant. The only statement addressing the actual defence accused Mr Bush of lying using fact his brake lights were on.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fSa08Xf9wMs/WC3-diYrqkI/AAAAAAAAGJg/s2f-PPtwU3obABQW4WaTIMx6ukl36Lj4gCLcB/s640/brake.png)

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QXBAgXTxl8I/WC4EryCvR9I/AAAAAAAAGJw/oVcNAz_Ld9ojXPK2i63AKdmsBXwz7nTNwCLcB/s640/rplate.jpg)

All parties scrutinised the picture of the car exit for some time, looking for the brake lights, but were unsuccessful. Miss DT hazarded a guess that there was a white spot which might have been a brake light. DJ Dodd was not convinced.

Miss DT then explained that what the witness actually meant to say was not that the brake light was on, but that the reversing light was off. Mr PP objected that as the witness was not there they should go with what they had said, not what they might have meant to say.

Miss DT rested her case.

Mr PP asked if could point out several other anomalies in the witness statement but DJ Dodd refused. As there was no witness present, there was nobody to cross-examine.

Mr PP then took Mr Bush through his witness statement. DJ Dodd was critical about the presentation of the evidence as it was not numbered and therefore very hard to find. Additionally, some had suffered in the printing process and was not readable, as the court had printed the emailed evidence pack in black and white.

A key moment occurred when Mr PP whipped out the picture of the car park Mr Bush had actually parked in. DJ Dodd asked what the relevance was. Mr Bush, under questioning, explained the picture showed this was a barrier car park and you could not get in unless you took a ticket to raise the barrier, and could not get out unless you put the same ticket in the payment machine, and paid the due amount. The due amount matched the amount confirmed by the bank.

Mr Bush's evidence contained a lot of information regarding ANPR inaccuracy and DJ Dodd ruled Mr Bush could not be questioned on this as he was not an expert witness.

Mr PP then summed up by stating Mr Bush had produced a credible and consistent version  of events backed up by evidence and that Excel had produced nothing to address the accuracy of their ANPR and it was up to the claimant to prove their claim. DJ Dodd stated that was up to her to decide.

She then made her judgment.

She stated the claimant's witness statement apparently showed the car exiting and leaving. However, it was signed not by an employee of the parking company but by an employee of their solicitor and so she would give it due weight on that basis. Moreover, Mr Bush had made ANPR accuracy his only defence from day, and the witness statement did not address this in the slightest.

Mr Bush on the other hand, was a credible and honest witness, and claimant had done nothing to address the purchase of a ticket in another car park. Mr Bush had also put a huge amount of work into his bundle.

She therefore preferred Mr Bush's version of accounts and the claim was dismissed.

Costs

Mr Bush asked for his lay representatives travel costs based on unreasonableness. DJ Dodd refused to accept Excel were unreasonable in pursuing the claim.

Mr Bush asked for a day's lost wages as he had to take a holiday. DJ Dodd replied that if he took a holiday there were no lost wages, that he had not brought along any proof of what he earned and in any case only needed a half day off. Lost wages therefore were refused.

Printing costs were refused.

Mr Bush's travel and parking costs of £5.25 were allowed, to be paid by 30th November.

After the hearing DJ Dodd commended Mr Bush on the quality of his evidence, stating that that was the only case she had seen today where the defendant even bothered with a witness statement.

She also mentioned she had found for the defendant in a similar claim the previous week where Excel had claimed the defendant has parked while they were actually in a restaurant several miles away - the car park has two exits and is used as a rat-rn to cut off a corner.

Mr Bush stated he would now never use Excel's car park and would always use Trinity Walk, which was cheaper, safer, well-lit and more reliable.

Prankster Note

Lessons to be learned

1. Number the pages of your evidence and provide a contents page
2. Bring along a wages slip to show proof of wages
3. Send a schedule of costs to the court ahead of time
4. If your claim is block-listed then this would be a good reason to take a whole day off

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-buZgmallwqM/WC4GPylCTuI/AAAAAAAAGJ4/bzR-Axc2nAUoq280OTkpPRqzXp90aMJRACLcB/s640/blk.jpg)

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/bw-legal-incompetence-in-pursuing.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/bw-legal-incompetence-in-pursuing.html)



Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 29 November, 2016, 09:23:28 AM
Have checked out this location on Googlemaps and you can see the ANPR camera high up on the wall of the pub, facing the only entrance to the car park.

Looks like they were down on their targets so decided to target genuine customers.

=========================================

Apology after Hemel Hempstead Harvester cars slapped with mystery £100 parking tickets

(http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/webimage/1.7692685.1479835687!/image/image.jpg)

A Harvester restaurant has been forced to apologise after thousands of pounds worth of parking tickets were issued to unsuspecting customers. The Mallard, next to Hemel Hempstead Station, has long been a free-parking restaurant as long as drivers enter their details into a machine and leave within four hours.

But scores of punters have been left horrified in recent months after receiving an invoice of £100 for using the restaurant-owned car park – despite keying in their details correctly. It turns out that The Mallard had struck a deal with private parking company Absolute Parking Management (APM) and letters were sent out automatically.

“I was very upset,” said Valerie Marsdon, 82, who was enjoying a wedding anniversary meal with some friends when she was stung. “I was already upset because my cat was poorly and then this – it seems like a scam. “I don’t want my money back, I just want things to be right. It shouldn’t happen like this.”

Kelly Sleigh, whose husband was hit with the fine, described it as “horrendous”, Kim Wilson said it is “unbelievable.” A spokesman for the restaurant chain said: “We apologise for any upset this has caused any of our guests. “We are both concerned and disappointed at the number of guests who have been affected by the car parking fines. “Unfortunately, this car parking arrangement was previously agreed at a local level and is not standard practice across Harvester restaurants.

We would like to reassure our guests that we are working as quickly as we can to resolve this situation.” Anyone who has been affected is asked to appeal the decision with APM or to call 0121 498 7098 to make a complaint.

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/apology-after-hemel-hempstead-harvester-cars-slapped-with-mystery-100-parking-tickets-1-7692686 (http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/apology-after-hemel-hempstead-harvester-cars-slapped-with-mystery-100-parking-tickets-1-7692686)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 05 December, 2016, 10:56:02 AM
Another one courtesy of Pranky.  :aplude:

===============================

Excel lose double dip case at Peel Centre. BW Legal rival Gladstones for incompetence

Excel v Moyle  02/12/16

Guest report

Just thought I'd let you know how I beat BW Legal yesterday.

I was in the court waiting area when this BW Legal chap started talking to me, asking "Had I sent my court file to them?", "Did I have any other evidence?" e.t.c. He had nothing! I thought 'what a joke', so I asked him if he was actually a solicitor, and he then proceeded to act in a flustered manner and didn't actually answer me...so I informed him that all my paperwork had been sent to BW Legal via recorded delivery and had been received and signed for; it had clearly not been passed on to him! And yes, I did have some additional evidence.

The guy came across as an imbecile.....!

In the courtroom, the Judge was not impressed that his court pack had arrived two days late; my pack was also received two days late. BW's guy went through his patter blah, blah -  I then delivered my killer extra written statement to the Judge...I claimed that I had left the car park within the fifteen minute grace period, and returned half an hour later (it's the Peel Centre Stockport, where I clean windows).  Mr BW Legal protested, so I therefore produced all my signed work dockets. He went into a flap and was lost for words...I was reprimanded by the judge for not including this extra evidence in my court pack, whereas I replied that I was very sorry, but these people do not play fair.

I did have a strong case anyway i.e. the usual stuff - the pants signage.  Anyway, the judge summed up that because his papers were late, if she permitted the case to continue, she would have to accept my new evidence, so she then dismissed the case.  I personally thought that she was amused, as after her decision, she made light of the subject.

Great result after only half an hour! BW guy looked visibly deflated.

Prankster Note

The Prankster does not recommend trying to ambush the other side. This can go horribly wrong and a cast iron defence can vanish at the whim of the judge.

The Prankster has seen many hearings where parking company representatives forget vital evidence and get the case adjourned, but not many when a judge will adjourn on behalf of a motorist. This may not be fair, but this is the reality.

If the other side asks for an adjournment due to their error The Prankster suggests that the motorist asks the judge not to do this on the grounds of proportionality. The claim is for £100 yet the other side is using a solicitor at a cost of around £200. It does not make sense financially to adjourn the case as the other side will incur another £200 in the next hearing.

Additionally the other side have professional representation against an unrepresented defendant and therefore ought to know full well what will be expected evidence in a parking claim.

Lastly, if the claim is adjourned ask for a wasted costs order and your full costs for the day. Point out that the other side are quite happy to spend large amounts of money on the claim which bears no relation to the amount at stake.

Take a wage slip to prove your salary. If you had to take leave this is an allowable cost under 27.14.2.e.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14 (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14)

27.14.2(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 19 December, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
Athena said Mr Davies received the charge because the "incorrect car registration number was either given or inputted."

Any system that allows you to input a number plate that doesn't tally with one picked up by the ANPR cameras is not fit for purpose.

===========================================

Outraged Lidl shopper gets £90 fine for parking in space 'free-of-charge for customers'

Aneurin Davies, 68, was shocked at getting the fine for stopping in the free car park outside a Lidl store with his wife

(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9444000.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/PAY-WNS_121216_Lidl_Parking_02JPG.jpg)

A man was fined £90 for parking outside a supermarket for 20 minutes, despite doing his weekly shop in the store.

Aneurin Davies was shocked to receive a notice in the post which ordered that he pay the fine after he used the free parking space outside Lidl.

Mr Davies and his wife were customers at the store in Carmarthen, Wales.

They had parked outside the store and proceeded to spend a total of 22 minutes inside, before supplying the cashier with their number plate when asked to do so.

"We gave our number plate and the cashier said everything was OK so we went on our way," said Mr Davies.

"So, you can imagine our surprise when we received the notice in the post demanding that we pay £90. The reason given was that we had outstayed our 'Allowed Duration of Stay'

"This made no sense to me at all so I called the number on the charge notice but they wouldn't help me."

South Wales Evening Post got in contact with Lidl to express Mr Davies' concerns, to which they replied: "In a small number of our store car parks, we have systems in place to manage the availability of car parking spaces to ensure that our customers take priority. Some of these car parks are managed by ourselves or accredited contractors."

The parking notice received by Mr Davies was issued by a company called Athena ANPR Ltd, who said that "failure to pay the parking charge within the time period described may result in Athena ANPR transferring your case to a debt collection company or to further legal proceedings where additional costs could be incurred."

They made it clear that the £90 fine would be reduced to £45 if it was paid within 14 days of the issue date, and invited Mr Davies to call them to make immediate payment over the phone.


Mr Davies was not prepared to do this, adamant that he had not done anything that would contradict the notices on display at Lidl.

Athena themselves state on the charge notice that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed on signs in prominent places."

There are indeed prominent signs outside the Lidl store, but they merely state that parking is free of charge for customers for a period of up to 90 minutes.

Lidl said that "any genuine customers" who have received a parking charge notice should get in touch via their customer services hotline.

(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9443999.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/PAY-WNS_121216_Lidl_Parking_04.jpg)
Lidl said it was part of a new fines system to stop non-customers parking

Mr Davies did just that, and he was told over the phone that the charge would be dropped and confirmation of this has since been sent to him in the post, along with an apology.

"I was adamant that I wasn't going to pay it because I hadn't done anything wrong," said Mr Davies.

"But the point is – is it right that people have to go through such worry and stress through no fault of their own?

"And, more worryingly, how many people have paid the 'early fine' of £45, just to avoid the hassle? A lot of people may have thought it easier to just phone up and pay there and then, especially when the notice mentions legal proceedings."

Athena said Mr Davies received the charge because the "incorrect car registration number was either given or inputted."

They also confirmed that they have now changed this system so that customers can input their registration themselves at a terminal placed behind the tills.

"It just goes to show, if you think you haven't done anything to warrant a fine, it's worth fighting it. People need to know that this sort of thing can happen and to be wary of it."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outraged-lidl-shopper-gets-90-9441941 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outraged-lidl-shopper-gets-90-9441941)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 24 December, 2016, 02:55:18 PM
Another one courtesy of Pranky.  <Thumbsup>

======================================

Excel Parking Services ticket machine failure explained

The Prankster has received significant numbers of complaints from motorists who received parking charges from Excel Parking even though they purchased tickets. When they appeal, Excel claim to have no record of their purchase and therefore dismiss the appeal.

Today, at least one of the reasons why their machines fail has become apparent.

A motorist visited the Peel Centre for a KFC. Although the Peel Centre is one of the worst signed car parks in the country, his years as a Fast Jet pilot allowed him to take in large amounts of poorly presented yet critical data (their signage).  HI therefore bought a ticket. Although he checked that his registration was correctly entered, he did not check the rest.

This is what he received. Pay attention to the date of issue.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Orga1YWvoeY/WF5uRN0Oq7I/AAAAAAAAGTw/ovsWW_8TnRQ8_514xt-m77cV2ctcOzp5wCLcB/s320/1998%2Bredacted.jpg)

Excel Parking were only awarded the contract to manage the car park on 1st October 2012, so issuing a ticket in 1998 is obviously impossible.

The Prankster therefore thinks the following is happening.

On occasion, a pay machine will encounter an error and reset itself. When this happens, the date resets to 1 Jan 1998 00:00. The machines should synchronise themselves using NTP or some other method, but this obviously does not always happen. From the time on the ticket it appear the machine has failed to synchronise for a considerable period - 49 minutes.

The ANPR cameras are not synchronised correctly with the time on the pay machines. So when Excel download the data from both ANPR and pay machines they find a vehicle which parked in 2016, but no matching payment; the payment of course, according to them, happened in 1998, which is before their contract even started.

What Happened Next

Excel issued the motorist with a parking charge. Luckily the motorist had kept the ticket, and was surprised to find the error. The motorist appealed to Excel, sending a copy of the ticket. Any reasonable person would now expect Excel to cancel; however this does not take into account the greed and lack of morality of their owner, Simon Renshaw-Smith.

Excel refused the appeal on the grounds that the motorist ‘did not comply with the Terms and Conditions of parking by failing to purchase a valid P&D ticket’.

Excel's view is that if their machines issue faulty tickets then it is the motorist's fault and not theirs. The motorist should minutely scrutinise their ticket and if there is any mistake they should accept the loss of their money and leave the car park.

The Prankster's view is that this would lead to the absurd situation where Excel make more money when their machines have faults than when they are operating properly. Given the frequency which the machines are out of operation at the Peel centre it appears that Simon Renshaw-Smith has come to the same conclusion and he prefers to rake money in by running poorly maintained and/or out of date systems than by running a proper parking operation.

According to a security guard at the Peel Centre, the machines are 'always breaking down'

The Options

As the IAS is to all intents a kangaroo court and is staffed in The Pranksters opinion, by assessors who are either corrupt or incompetent, led by the inept and bungling Bryn Holloway there seems little point in appealing to them.

Instead, The Prankster suggests contacting the manager of the Peel Centre, Adam Jolley, and ask him to get the charge cancelled. His email address is a.jolley@peel.co.uk.

Alternatively his colleague Nicola Dearden may also cancel the ticket.

Data Protection Breach

Excel think that motorists should pay when Excel's payment systems fail.

The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 ( http://nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b82bcc6b68408a75d23021?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 (http://nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b82bcc6b68408a75d23021?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) ), which also concerns a ticket failure at the Peel Centre, suggests the judiciary think otherwise.

Given this state of affairs, there was no just cause for Excel to have applied for keeper data from the DVLA. Their machine failure is their own responsibility and does not excuse them. There has therefore been a possible breach of the Data Protection Act, and the motorist can potentially sue Excel for this. An amount of £250 would normally seem to be appropriate. However Excel have compounded this by continuing even when their own mistake is pointed out, which means a larger amount would not seem amiss.

The Prankster suggests considering banging out a letter before claim at the appropriate time.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/excel-parking-services-ticket-machine.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/excel-parking-services-ticket-machine.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 11 January, 2017, 11:26:07 AM
Another system not fit for purpose.

=======================================

Watch as dodgy parking meter tricks drivers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuIJtBVrZmg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuIJtBVrZmg)

This video appears to show why scores of people have received fines after parking at a car park near Plymouth.

Adam Godfrey filmed the parking meter at Keaton Road Car Park in Ivybridge, operated by Premier Parking Solutions (PPS), to highlight what he describes as a "design fault" with the machine.

As previously reported by the Plymouth Herald, more than 100 complaints about the car park have been referred to Devon and Somerset Trading Standards Service (http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/parking-firm-pps-refunds-fines-after-trading-standards-steps-in/story-29994346-detail/story.html (http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/parking-firm-pps-refunds-fines-after-trading-standards-steps-in/story-29994346-detail/story.html)).

(http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276351/binaries/PPSIvybridge.Penny1212.jpg)

The video shows that as Mr Godfrey presses the first digit of the registration plate, the machine beeps but does not register the letter.

Explaining the process, he said: "This gives people so-called invalid tickets, which means they get sent a fine".

Mr Godfrey added that he would be sending the video to trading standards.

Roger Croad, Devon County Councillor for Ivybridge, said he was inundated with complaints from people who received penalty charges, which he referred to Devon and Somerset Trading Standards Service.

Following negotiations with trading standard officers, PPS agreed to refund drivers, minus an administration fee of £18.

But the agreement was only applicable to drivers that had already lodged a complaint.

Mary Rogers, from Torpoint, is among several motorists who have contacted the Herald after receiving hefty fines in the post.

She said it was unfair the agreement was only applicable to people who had already complained to trading standards and that all customers affected should receive refunds.

She said: "PPS have accepted that their machines presented incorrectly and have agreed to change them. They have offered some customers a discount but not others.

"It would be instructive to know what moral distinction PPS draw between people who complained or, like me, simply followed their appeal process in the naive belief that the mistake would be corrected."

"Meanwhile the elderly lady, who was having a lift with me and kindly, paid for my ticket and operated the machine, is being made ill with guilt over the whole matter."

She welcomed the company's threat of legal action, adding: "For myself, a meeting in court will furnish a chance to give further attention to the whole rotten business."

When the Herald brought the video to the attention of PPS, the a spokesman declined the opportunity to comment.

Following the negotiations with trading standards, PPS agreed to adjust its ticket machines, signs and ticketing procedures to help minimise any future errors.

The company declined to say whether the parking meter has or will be changed.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/watch-as-dodgy-parking-meter-tricks-drivers-scores-of-people-have-been-fined/story-30043104-detail/story.html (http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/watch-as-dodgy-parking-meter-tricks-drivers-scores-of-people-have-been-fined/story-30043104-detail/story.html)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DastardlyDick on 11 January, 2017, 11:54:02 AM
Words (almost) fail me. These cheeky f***ers use machines which are obviously not fit for purpose, then when they're caught out charge their victims £18 to refund money that they were never entitled to in the first place!!! I'm shocked that Trading Standards actually brokered this "deal".
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 11 January, 2017, 03:12:35 PM
Private Parking Solutions are a bunch of effing con merchants and if Trading Standards are in on it too, what can you do!  :idea:
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 13 January, 2017, 10:35:05 AM
Porsche man’s fury at fine for vehicle mix-up

(http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/webimage/1.8327172.1484065225!/image/image.jpg)

A Porsche driver who was fined £70 after his silver car was mistaken for a Renault van with a company logo in a Hucknall car park, is furious because he has never visited the town in his life! Hedley Riches received the fine, along with images which show the van entering and leaving the Aldi carpark on December 21.

He said his Porsche 911 Carrera 4 is “neither taxed or insured and permanently remains under wraps as a long-term investment in my home garage at Ellington, Northumberland. Furthermore I have never been to Hucknall in my life. “Any idiot can see that the vehicle clearly displayed in the photograph is a Renault commercial vehicle with the company name displayed on the rear doors. In any event it is clearly not a silver Porsche 911 Cerrera 4.”

Mr Riches replied to ParkingEye, the Chorley-based firm which issued the notice and suggested the culprit be “dismissed on the grounds of total and utter unacceptable incompetence.” He said: “No doubt the matter will be attributed to a computer error. In this case the accuracy of visual recognition and powers of logical and reasoned deduction are clearly inadequate and the programme must be called into question. I wonder how many elderly or infirm people may have been bullied and harassed by the tone of your notice and have simply “coughed up the cash”.”

He told the firm he was not appealing and had “no intention of paying this spurious fine.” A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances. Upon assessment of his case, ParkingEye has cancelled the parking charge.”

http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/porsche-man-s-fury-at-fine-for-vehicle-mix-up-1-8327173 (http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/porsche-man-s-fury-at-fine-for-vehicle-mix-up-1-8327173)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 January, 2017, 10:56:47 AM
A story like the one above is never complete without Mr Trouserfire's wise words being added.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)

By the way, this is the 89th article in this thread and as of today it just passed the 27,000 views mark. I consider this a sign of the scale of the abuse being suffered at the hands of parking wea$el's.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Coco on 13 January, 2017, 03:26:25 PM
And I'm certain that these reports represent only a small number of cases that occur around the country!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 24 January, 2017, 05:15:12 PM
Another case where the system lets you input data it does not recognise.

====================================

Car registration space on Parkmobile app cost me £100

We paid the parking charge and got confirmation, but UK Parking Control won’t budge on the fine

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d04b68f4fb9fdc5740223ecd5b8fabd2c4f5da47/0_171_5315_3190/master/5315.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=284061527791a86b3f2e9bd4f01ceb1e)
Clear signs to pay and display … only problem, we paid by the app.

Can you help me with a £100 fine levied by UK Parking Control? In October my partner parked in Cheltenham and paid via the mobile app promoted by signs in the car park – Parkmobile.

She entered the registration of the hire car she was in, paid the £4.10 charge and received confirmation messages, leaving her confident that all was as it should be.

However, it appears the app has not been designed around user behaviour. She inputted the registration number with a space in it, as it appears on a car. As a result we were sent a £100 fine.

Attempts to appeal, both through UKPC and the ombudsman, have been met with a blanket response that the need to pay and display was “clearly displayed”, without any reference to the fact we had paid via the app.
JP, Cheltenham

---------------------------------------

Using a mobile phone app to pay parking charges is becoming ubiquitous, but this letter also shows the perils involved, as if there is even the tiniest of mistakes the user can end up with a fine.

It also shows up how useless the parking appeals service has become. I asked Parkmobile about your case and, following discussions with UKPC, the fine has been cancelled as “a gesture of goodwill”.

Other users of these apps should take note and check that the car registration details are correct at each stage. Paying cash must be easier.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/23/parkmobile-app-fine-car-registration-space-uk-parking-control (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/23/parkmobile-app-fine-car-registration-space-uk-parking-control)

-------------------------------------------------------------

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4918.0;attach=5389;image)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 February, 2017, 11:29:33 AM
‘Considering these timings were on entering and leaving the car park no consideration is being given by the company that in between those timings I had to obtain a ticket allowing me two hours of parking.

==============================================

Pensioner facing court for overstaying time in car park by one minute

(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ad_234189633.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all)

An 81-year-old pensioner who overstayed his time in a Sports Direct car park by one minute is being threatened with court.

Rod Wilson parked his vehicle in the car park on September 19 and two weeks later, he received a £45 fine from Smart Parking, who lease the site.

He appealed – but the fine has since been increased to £160, and debt collectors are now threatening to take him to court.

Mr Wilson said: ‘Considering these timings were on entering and leaving the car park no consideration is being given by the company that in between those timings I had to obtain a ticket allowing me two hours of parking.

‘I have been driving for over 60 years and never once have entered and left a car park without paying.
‘I am 81 years of age and utterly disgusted that a company can operate in this way.’
Smart Parking have been contacted for a comment, but did not respond.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/08/pensioner-facing-court-for-overstaying-time-in-car-park-by-one-minute-6434809/ (http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/08/pensioner-facing-court-for-overstaying-time-in-car-park-by-one-minute-6434809/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 February, 2017, 11:33:40 AM
Disabled driver's fury over second wrong parking ticket this year

Driver says some motorists will pay because they are 'scared' by parking charge notice

(http://i3.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/article12647021.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/Parking-eye.jpg)
A copy of the parking charge notice Diane Kinvig, 64, of Summer Close, Runcorn, received in the post from ParkingEye

A disabled shopper has slammed a parking firm over a wrongly issued £40 parking ticket after a trip to a Runcorn supermarket visit – for the second time this year.

Diane Kinvig, 64, who has rheumatoid arthritis, received the first ticket in the post from ParkingEye in January, accusing her of parking at Asda for four hours when in fact she had made two journeys.

The second was issued on February 11 and although it shows an ANPR image of her car entering the car park, it clearly shows a different vehicle with a different number plate leaving and claimed she had parked overnight between 8.15pm and 7.07am.

Mrs Kinvig, of Summer Close, had the first ticket quashed and, in reply to a query from the

Weekly News, ParkingEye said it had issued a cancellation letter in the post.

However, Mrs Kinvig said shoppers should not be receiving tickets in the first place and can do without the alarm of receiving a notice that threatens a £70 fine, discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days.

Her call follows the similar plight of Mike Holden, of Halton Lodge, who had his ticket cancelled in-store in December.

In relation to the second ticket, Mrs Kinvig asked why she would have parked overnight.

She said; “That wasn’t me going out at that time in the morning. They said I stayed there for 10 hours.

“How many people are they doing this to? What do they think they’re playing at? Some people get scared and just pay it.

“You can’t email them, you can’t phone them.

“By the time you’ve written to them your fine could have gone up to £70 and by the time you’ve got a response back you could end up in court.”

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said: “Unfortunately, Ms Kinvig was issued a parking charge in error.

“The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation has been issued.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-drivers-fury-over-second-12641083 (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-drivers-fury-over-second-12641083)

#92

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 February, 2017, 11:44:21 AM
From the Prankster

=================================

ParkingEye scam fails. Car parked elsewhere
[Due to some unspecified google error The Prankster had to rewrite this blog]

ParkingEye attempted to scam a driver out of £85 by claiming they were parked in a car park for 18 hours.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sX4Dwn_eVI0/WLFNIt2tjTI/AAAAAAAAH-w/tauYyXHmHEAwEOatBCuKsoK6HdaCnK2iQCLcB/s640/fail.jpg)

The scam only failed when the driver proved they were parked over 15 miles away in a secure car park at work at the time.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-48oeR2Lvc-M/WLFNIaBcb7I/AAAAAAAAH-s/0vYp7j8rnHAVNdeNDpdpVv_MVgeQ1WYGgCLcB/s640/unfail.jpg)

In an amusing twist to the tale, the ANPR at the works site misread the registration, interpreting a 'F' as a '6'. Perhaps this gives a clue as to why ParkingEye's system also failed.

Prankster Note

Parking companies like to maintain the fiction that ANPR is an infallible technology, when the reality is that it is anything but.

Not all drivers have a secure car park they can use to prove they were not in a ParkingEye car park. ParkingEye play on this, and sadly have even won court cases where their clever advocates persuaded judges that ANPR technology is infallible. It is of course, not fair or just that drivers then have to pay several hundred pounds for a contravention that never even occurred.

Parking companies use ANPR to save costs of parking wardens. It is not right that they use a minimum cost solution which does not work properly and issues bogus charges. Technological solutions and failsafes do exist, and create a much fairer environment. The Marlborough Hill site in Bristol ( http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/model-hospital-car-park-shows-how-it.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/model-hospital-car-park-shows-how-it.html) ) is one such example - freedom of information requests reveal that the number of charges for overstays are minimal.

Sadly, such technology is rarely used. The Prankster believes this is because it would cut down ParkingEye's income to a point where they would not be financially viable. The Prankster is of the same mind of the Government and believes it is not fair to deliberately run a car park in a way to maximise the chances of issuing a parking charge:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles) )

The Prankster calls for a change to the code of practice to ban the use of ANPR except on sites where a failsafe is in place.

Data Protection

It is likely that the driver, now has a valid data protection claim against ParkingEye. They have used their data in a way which is clearly not fair or lawful, which violates data principle 1.

A valid claim would appear to be in the range £250-£600.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

#93
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 26 February, 2017, 11:32:55 AM
Pay-by-phone car park fiasco for driver in Derby

Click link below to see video:

<iframe src='http://players.brightcove.net/1275380505001/rJjlPOKH_default/index.html?videoId=5325614480001?wmode=transparent' (http://players.brightcove.net/1275380505001/rJjlPOKH_default/index.html?videoId=5325614480001?wmode=transparent') allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>

Another Derby resident has been left disgusted by a private car parking firm after he was fined when he took 11 minutes to try to pay by phone.

Matt Simper becomes the latest name in the city to have fallen victim to bizarre parking fines as reported in the Derby Telegraph in recent months.

Mr Simper, of Chaddesden, was left in disbelief after he got a fine notice two weeks after struggling to pay for just one hour's parking at Crompton Street car park.

Ahead of going on a quick dash around Derby city centre on Thursday, December 1, the 35-year-old opted to park his car in the small car park next to Green Lane.

Realising he had no change for the parking machine, Mr Simper was relieved to see signs saying he could pay on his phone, but after texting and calling a number as well as going online, he was unable to make a payment. He then left so he could find an alternative place to park.

Mr Simper then thought nothing more of his problems until two weeks later, just before Christmas, when he received a letter from Crompton Street car park owners Parking Eye which fined him £60 for not paying to park despite his struggles and the fact he was there for only 11 minutes.

Disgusted with the decision, Mr Simper then appealed through Parking Eye which then turned it down and increased his fine to £100.

However, father of-two Mr Simper, felt he was being punished for doing nothing wrong and appealed via the Parking on Private Land Appeals agency (POPLA).

To his delight, the appeal was successful meaning he did not have to pay the £100 fine.

Mr Simper claimed his appeal was successful because Parking Eye submitted no evidence during the process.

He thinks other victims of such unwarranted fines may be able to have their fines revoked if they fight.

He said: "I couldn't believe it when I first got the fine. I was only there for eleven minutes and did everything I could to pay.

"I appealed because I felt I did everything in my power to try and pay but was being punished for something I couldn't do.

"I saw articles in the Derby Telegraph which said other drivers had been treated in a similar way so I decided to appeal again.

"Even though I won the appeal at the second time of asking I was still a bit miffed because I've won because Parking Eye failed to submit any evidence. So I'm still unsure what they have done about the concerns I made to them about trying to pay on phone.

"My message is for people who have been treated in this way is to fight an appeal through. I can't help feeling that these fines are given out in the hope that those on the receiving end don't appeal a second time."

In response to Mr Simper's claims, Parking Eye said the reason for not submitting evidence was due to "very rare administration error." Not so rare according to this thread <Tosser>

In November the Derby Telegraph reported how Dave Shooter spent 11 minutes trying to find a spot in the packed Siddals Road car park in Derby before being fined.

And last month we ran stories from victims saying they had been fined in city car parks despite having paid.

This is not the first time the Crompton Street Car Park has been in the news for controversial reasons.

Back in 2009, drivers were complaining after falling victim to huge clamping release costs of up to £275 under the management of previous owners City Parks Management.


http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/man-gets-fined-despite-parking-for-just-eleven-minutes-because-he-could-not-pay/story-30142219-detail/story.html#YD6JazQ3JfpEt3eU.99 (http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/man-gets-fined-despite-parking-for-just-eleven-minutes-because-he-could-not-pay/story-30142219-detail/story.html#YD6JazQ3JfpEt3eU.99)

#94
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 26 February, 2017, 11:48:35 AM
I couldn't find a space in Derby car park but STILL got a ticket!

Click link below to see video:

http://bcove.me/pthp5xct (http://bcove.me/pthp5xct)

A motorist is furious after he was fined for just DRIVING in a city car park.

Dave Shooter spent 11 minutes trying to find a spot in the packed Siddals Road car park.   

Frustrated, he finally gave up and drove off to park elsewhere. But then he was stunned when he was sent a £60 fine.... for not buying a parking ticket at Siddals Road. He's now condemned car park operator Euro Car Parks for its "miserly" attitude.

Mr Shooter wanted to park in Siddals Road because his wife is suffering ill health and he did not want her to have to walk too far to Derby Theatre.

The retired head teacher said: "I didn't even park up in a space, so I thought I had good grounds to appeal so I did.

"But they threw that out and wrote back to me saying if I did not pay the fine in a set number of days they would start court proceedings against me to recover the money. I didn't want the hassle of going through all that so I have paid up. But what a miserly attitude they had and I suspect other motorists might receive the same type of letter."

(http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276250/binaries/DEIH20161125A-002_C.JPG)

Mr Shooter said that after spending time looking for a space in the car park they realised that parking there would mean having to use steps to get to Derby Theatre, which they were unable to do due to complications with Mrs Shooter's health.   

So they stopped briefly to check their sat nav for an alternative car park before leaving.

Days later, having "thoroughly enjoyed" the performance of This May Hurt, Mr Shooter was shocked to receive a letter from Euro Car Parks telling him he owed them £60.

Then 65-year-old said: "I was only in the car park for 11 minutes and now I have had to pay £60 for the privilege.

Mr Shooter, who used to be head teacher at Picknall First School, in Uttoxeter, said he and his wife, who is also 65, arrived in Siddals Road car park at 6.33pm on September 23.   

He said: "We drove around for a while looking for a space that wasn't in a pothole or a puddle.

(http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276250/binaries/DEIH20161125A-012_C.JPG)

"We were having no luck so I stopped the car briefly and noticed if we were to park there it would mean my wife would have to climb steps to get to the theatre which she was unable to do because of health complications at the time.

"I looked at my sat nav and found an alternative one under the Intu centre so we left.

"But it transpires the owners of Siddals Road car park have cameras that film cars coming in and leaving the car park.

"In our case we were there for 11 minutes looking for a space, didn't even park in one and still got hit for £60.

"The performance we went to see was thoroughly enjoyable but if I had known how much it was going to cost me I might have thought twice about coming to Derby to see it."

(http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276250/binaries/DEIH20161125A-006_C.JPG)

Mr Shooter, of Badgers Hollow, Checkley, Stoke, said when he received the cash demand from Euro Car Parks he spoke to other people who had been through a similar experience who told him he had grounds for appeal.

But that was thrown out by the firm.

No-one from Euro Car Parks responded to our request for a comment.

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/former-head-teacher-fined-60-for-looking-for-car-parking-space-in-derby-for-just-11-minutes/story-29933355-detail/story.html#iTBJGhoKFqvBFBWS.99 (http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/former-head-teacher-fined-60-for-looking-for-car-parking-space-in-derby-for-just-11-minutes/story-29933355-detail/story.html#iTBJGhoKFqvBFBWS.99)

#95
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 February, 2017, 10:23:03 AM
Any system that lets a driver input a VRN that has not been captured on its ANPR cameras is not fit for purpose.

===============================================

Dyslexic mum fined £320 for parking at health centre after typing in wrong car registration number and overstaying

Cassie Lawrence, 30, has been threatened with legal action by parking firm Parking Eye, which manages NHS car parks at GP surgeries and hospitals

(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9625758.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/Montpelier-Health-Centre.jpg)

A mother has been fined £320 for parking in a health centre car park while attending GP appointments.

Cassie Lawrence, 30, has been threatened with legal action by parking firm Parking Eye, which manages NHS car parks at GP surgeries and hospitals.

Parking Eye, owned by outsourcing giant Capita, uses camera technology to record the number plates of cars that enter and leave so they can be traced.

Cassie, who is dyslexic, got two separate £160 parking tickets while attending GP appointments at Montpellier health centre, Bristol, in May 2015.

Patients are entitled to park there for free for up to 90 minutes but Cassie tapped the wrong registration number into a car park terminal. On a second occasion she overstayed her time limit.

She is now being chased by Capita’s debt recovery company, Equita, and fears she may end up with a county court judgment against her.

She said: “I entered my registration number in the machine inside the doctor’s but as I am dyslexic I simply put the last two digits of my reg the wrong way round.

“I have been receiving threats left right and centre from Parking Eye and its sister company Equita. I’m adamant I’m not going to pay this fee as I’m struggling financially.

“I also feel the fine is so unfair seeing as how as I was parked in a doctor’s surgery and clearly it was a typing error on my part.”

Parking Eye manages more than 900 sites, with clients including supermarkets, retail parks and NHS trusts.

Latest accounts show the firm made profits of £5.9million in 2015 - up from £4.8million the previous year - while its turnover totalled £26.6million.

Call centre worker Cassie, of St Andrews, Bristol, has now been told one of the fines will be reduced to £100 as a “goodwill gesture” providing it is paid within 40 days.

But the mother of two, who receives disability allowance and no longer drives because of her condition, says she can’t afford to pay it.

She added: “They can take me to court if they want, I’m not paying it. I think it’s disgusting they are fining NHS patients in this way.”

Parking Eye says fines are set by NHS trusts and it was down to drivers to make sure they do not overstay their welcome.

A ParkingEye spokesman said: “We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are extenuating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.

"We did not receive an appeal against one of the charges and the other was unsuccessful because unfortunately we haven’t received any evidence to support the appeal.”

The Sunday Mirror, backed by Labour and Tory MPs, has campaigned against parking firms ripping off NHS patients and staff.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dyslexic-mum-fined-320-parking-9625774 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dyslexic-mum-fined-320-parking-9625774)

#96
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 April, 2017, 09:58:07 AM
Council asks shoppers fined on Aldi's car park in Leek to get in touch

(http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276370/Article/images/30256208/15945645-large.jpg)
Have you been fined at Aldi in Leek?

Shoppers fined after using a supermarket car park are being urged to complain as an investigation gets underway.

Dozens of Aldi customers have fallen victim to a controversial parking system which sees them have to input their vehicle's registration plate at machines inside the Leek store.

Now Staffordshire Moorlands District Council is asking anyone who believes they have been wrongly received a £70 fine to get in touch so a dossier of evidence can be compiled.

The issue was discussed at a meeting of the planning committee this week.

Chairman Stephen Ellis said: "We now need evidence from people who have been fined and urge them to send it in to the council so we can take Aldi to task. This is an unacceptable situation.

"Everyone seems to have a story to tell which suggests the failure of the management of the car park. People have had threatening letters and some have been told they have not spent enough.

"You are a customer if you can't even find what you are looking for."

Aldi's rules state customers qualify for two hours of free parking at the Haywood Street shop providing they purchase goods and input their car details into terminals near the tills.

The German retailer, which employs ParkingEye to manage its car park, insists if shoppers use the machines and don't overstay the limit they will not be fined.

However, many people claim they have been sent tickets despite following the correct procedures.

Now councillors have suggested faulty equipment could be blame and have called for receipts to be dispensed.

Councillor Gail Lockett said: "I have lots of examples where people are using the store but are being fined. I've been today and the equipment isn't working.

"It took me three attempts to put the number in and then the machine doesn't give you a receipt. There is no proof. People are getting fines for faulty equipment.


"I've been told that if you refuse to pay the fines there is nothing they can do."

Councillor Robert Plant said when he visited the store just after Christmas he tried three times to register his number-plate.

He said: "I was only in 10 minutes and 10 days letter I received a fine. I then received three more threatening letters. I haven't paid up and the letters have stopped."


Councillor Sav Scalise said his daughter had been to the store and spent between £50 and £60 but was still fined.

He added: "She punched in the her details, but they still fine you. Something clearly needs to be done about this."

The council's operational manager Ben Haywood confirmed the authority would take up the complaints with Aldi.

He said: "If people have had fines and they are reported to us with the evidence, we will take it up with Aldi. Any breach of the Section 106 agreement will be taken up."

The Section 106 agreement states: "The car park will be controlled and managed to provide short-stay car parking for shoppers but will be managed in such a way as to allow customers to visit other shops, cafes, restaurants or public facilities located within Leek town centre. The maximum length of stay will be two hours."

An Aldi spokesman said: "The rules are clear and well-advertised therefore customers should not be in any doubt as to how the car park operates."

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/council-asks-shoppers-fined-on-aldi-s-car-park-in-leek-to-get-in-touch/story-30256208-detail/story.html (http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/council-asks-shoppers-fined-on-aldi-s-car-park-in-leek-to-get-in-touch/story-30256208-detail/story.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 25 April, 2017, 10:02:39 AM
They knew the driver had paid but still demanded the money. Another example of the system allowing drivers to input wrong VRNs.

=================================================

“ParkingEye spoilt what should have been an excellent day”

Review of Snowdon Mountain Railway

I had pre-booked 2 rail tickets several days ahead and was informed that I must pick up the tickets at least 30 minutes before train departure. We parked in designated car park and I paid for 4 hours to cover our trip. A week later I received a parking fine from ParkingEye for £100 which I contested. They wrote back to say that I had made an error on the registration number entry and as a 'goodwill gesture' reduced my fine to £20. But they knew that I had paid for the parking - it is easy to make an error when you are exposed to a new interface that you have never used before, under time pressure to pick up tickets and with a queue of people behind you. I urge the Snowdon Railway Company or owners of the land to get rid of ParkingEye just as many of the supermarkets have to avoid something like this leaving a bad taste.

Visited March 2017

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186448-d195638-r475846293-Snowdon_Mountain_Railway-Llanberis_Snowdonia_National_Park_North_Wales_Wales.html (https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186448-d195638-r475846293-Snowdon_Mountain_Railway-Llanberis_Snowdonia_National_Park_North_Wales_Wales.html)

#98
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 11 May, 2017, 10:52:05 AM
$cameras like these can only clock you in and out. This is yet more proof that they are not fit for purpose.

======================================

Shoppers who were trapped in their cars for hours in bank holiday gridlock at retail park are fined £100 for overstaying in the car park

  Ashford Retail Park in Kent installed cameras to check drivers stay times in April
  But the Easter bank holiday traffic meant some faced queues of two hours to get out of the shopping
  centre
  They were then hit with fines this week for 'overstaying' the three hour slots
  One man spent 20 minutes just getting out of his parking space in the car park
  Were you stuck in car park? Email paddy.dinham@mailonline.co.uk


Shoppers who queued for more than two hours to get out of a car park over the Easter bank holiday weekend have been slapped with £100 fines for overstaying their time slot.

Parking cameras went live at the Ashford Retail Park in Kent in April, with signs telling drivers the new maximum stay is three hours.

But motorists got caught in gridlock on Easter Monday, and were trapped in the car park for hours when they struggled to join traffic on adjoining roads.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/09/19/40229DFD00000578-4488560-image-a-1_1494354796416.jpg)
Motorists were fined in this car park in Ashford, Kent after they got caught in heavy traffic

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/09/16/402222B500000578-4488560-image-a-53_1494342084303.jpg)
One shopper tweeted a picture of the gridlock on the Easter weekend and said she'd queued for 20 minutes to find a space

Peter Donald, from Kingsnorth, Kent, received a £100 fine three weeks after the chaos occurred and complained he was not parked but actually stuck trying to leave.

He said: 'We went about our normal business. We were probably there about an hour and a half. We came out of Costa and it was absolutely gridlocked.'

He said he took them 20 minutes to leave their parking space and more than two hours to get out of the car park.

He said: 'My family and I were stranded in a gridlocked car park when trying to leave.
'We were in our car in excess of about two hours. No one was letting anyone out.
'There were people parking up on the main road.'

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/09/16/402222C200000578-4488560-image-a-52_1494342083065.jpg)
Another shopper sat still in her car for more than an hour when traffic came to a halt on the bank holiday

Once they were finally out the car park, it only took about ten minutes to leave onto the dual carriageway.

But the family received a surprise letter at the beginning of this week.

Mr Donald, who is appealing the fine, said: 'On Monday we received a penalty charge notice from Highview Parking who enforce the three hour time limit on parking at this site.

'They must have had a flood of Penalty Charge Notices from this day.

'What troubles me is that there's no quality control. It was utter madness. It's just a money making exercise.

'I find it rather disappointing that these companies apply no common sense or quality control to their issuing of parking fines to innocent motorists who have over stayed due to no fault of their own.'

The notice indicated that the family were on the site for about four hours in total.

The £100 fine is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

Highview Parking has been contacted for comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488560/Shoppers-trapped-car-park-100-fine-overstaying.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488560/Shoppers-trapped-car-park-100-fine-overstaying.html)

#99
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2017, 04:44:35 PM
#100

How many more times do they need telling?!?!

YOU DON'T HAVE TO MITIGATE IF YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mitigate
VERB

lessen the gravity of (an offence or mistake):


============================

Dad hit with 'shameful' charge for spending just minutes in Llandudno car park

Kenneth Jordan wrongly received an £85 charge notice from ParkingEye after dropping off his children at Mostyn Champneys retail park

A dad who spent just minutes in a Llandudno car park while he dropped off and picked up his children was shocked to be hit with a parking charge.

ParkingEye, which manages the car park at the Mostyn Champneys retail park, claimed Kenneth Jordan had parked there for hours, but issued an apology and a refund after he pointed out that he had in fact made two separate visits.

On April 20, the 60-year-old drove his wife’s Renault into the McDonald’s car park to drop off his two children, and says he spent no more than 10 minutes there.

Mr Jordan, from Bodedern, Anglesey, then took the car for a service in Llandudno Junction, before returning to McDonald’s to pick his children up at about 3.45pm, when he spent just a few minutes in the car park.

He later received a fine from ParkingEye.

(http://i3.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/article13075321.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS120506291.jpg)

“I believe the way ParkingEye operates is shameful,” said Mr Jordan, who is retired.

“The letter I received from them feels quite threatening and would scare a lot of elderly people to pay without asking any questions.

“Luckily, I’m not so easily scared, and I could prove with my receipts that I wasn’t at the car park during those times they are claiming.

“The proof they provided was two photographs of me driving into the car park earlier in the day, and of me leaving later in the afternoon.

“What I want to know is: why have they missed out on the photographs of me leaving the retail park in the morning, and of me driving back in again in the afternoon?"

(http://i4.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/article13075322.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS120506301.jpg)

He added: “I’ve fought this by sending them a letter with all my receipts showing I wasn’t there during that period, and I’ve yet to receive a reply.”

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “Unfortunately, a parking charge was issued in error and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

“The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation has been sent.

“We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.”

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/dad-hit-shameful-charge-spending-13075232#ICID (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/dad-hit-shameful-charge-spending-13075232#ICID)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 05 June, 2017, 09:58:20 AM
There's some good advice in here as well as yet more proof that ANPR systems allow you to enter registration numbers for vehicles it has no record of.

#101

=====================================

Why throwing your pay & display ticket away after use could cost £100

It’s increasingly common for car parks to have CCTV cameras, and often you’ll find a parking charge arrives in the post instead of being slapped on your windscreen. So if you’ve paid and displayed, it’s crucial to ALWAYS keep hold of the evidence so you can prove it.

This blog post was prompted by one MoneySaver getting in touch after she was hit with a parking charge and found she was unable to prove she’d paid as she’d chucked away her ticket. (Just to avoid any confusion, for the purposes of this blog a parking TICKET is what you get when you pay to park, and a parking CHARGE is the demand for payment if a firm thinks you haven’t paid.)

Of course, if you get a parking charge notice on your windscreen there and then, you’ll know you need your ticket as evidence right away. But in some cases you won’t – instead, your (alleged) parking infringement will be picked up by cameras, and you’ll only be sent a parking charge notice by post much later. If you’ve binned your ticket by then, you may struggle to fight an unfair parking charge.

For full help, see our Private Parking Tickets and Council Parking Tickets guides.

‘I struggled to fight a £100 charge after throwing away my ticket’

A few days after using the Pleasureland car park in Morecambe, Lancashire, retail worker Gillian Bruce received an unexpected letter from parking firm ParkingEye asking her to fork out £100.

Gillian KNEW she had paid for three hours’ parking, but the parking charge notice wasn’t clear why she was being billed. She could see the cameras had snapped her entering the car park at 11:44:51 and leaving at 14:44:52. They weren’t charging her £100 for overstaying by one second, surely?

Well, actually, when we approached ParkingEye on Gillian’s behalf, it turned out no, they weren’t.

ParkingEye told us that it had issued the £100 car parking charge because it had no record of Gillian having paid to park in the first place. The pay and display machine at the car park in question requires drivers to enter their registration number – and no payment for Gillian’s registration number had been made that day.

Gillian was distraught. She hadn’t kept her pay and display ticket, as many drivers don’t – and now she had no way of proving she’d paid.

After we got involved ParkingEye looked at its records and found an almost identical vehicle registration to Gillian’s on its system. Gillian had made an error entering her registration number – and thankfully ParkingEye agreed to cancel the charge.

But Gillian’s story is a clear warning to others who pay in cash at pay and display car parks. OK, she made a mistake – but if MSE hadn’t intervened, Gillian could easily have ended up paying out £100 as a result.

Hang on to your pay and display tickets for AT LEAST two months

The question then is how long you need to keep your ticket for in case you’re caught on camera.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy exact answer, as parking rules can be hideously complicated. But we reckon AT LEAST two months is a good bet.

When we checked the different legal routes parking firms and councils can use to chase you if they think you’ve broken the rules, we found they should usually have contacted you within 15 to 45 days of when you parked. Adding a bit of time for contingency, weekends and so on, two months seems a sensible minimum.

In fact, it could be longer. One of the parking trade bodies, the International Parking Community, gives its members up to six months to apply to track down an owner’s details. And to be absolutely watertight, you’d have to keep tickets for six years, as that’s how long companies have to chase you under the statute of limitations, which sets out time limits within which a court action must take place.

At the end of the day, though, this is about weighing up the risk, and if you park every day, you may not want to be filing six years’ worth of tickets.

But there are ways you can make storing tickets easier – for example:

Keep an old envelope in your car to store your stash of old tickets. Then when it’s stuffed, empty it into a drawer, cupboard or anywhere you’ll be able to find ’em.
Before you finally get rid of your tickets, snap a photo of them. That way if you’re chased later you do have some proof.

What if I paid by phone or online?

The time lengths will be similar to those above, but the question of evidence is a little trickier. You won’t have a ticket from the machine of course, but with luck there’ll be some proof you paid. Often you’ll be sent a confirmation text or email – if so, make sure you don’t delete these.

If you aren’t sent confirmation – or you’ve lost it – it’s harder to prove you paid. But your credit card or bank statement, while not as specific as a receipt, may still help you argue your case.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2017/05/30/throwing-pay-display-ticket-away-use-cost-100/?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=30-May-17-33565524&utm_campaign=nt-oneliners-one&utm_content=6 (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2017/05/30/throwing-pay-display-ticket-away-use-cost-100/?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=30-May-17-33565524&utm_campaign=nt-oneliners-one&utm_content=6)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 05 June, 2017, 10:28:10 AM
#102

================================

Lidl slaps shopper with £45 parking fine - but customer gets last laugh

The shopper - who had actually visited the store twice that day - was even more determined when her appeal was rejected

A former magistrate gave a Lidl car park more than they bargained for when they attempted to fine her £45 for overstaying.

Former chairman of Kirklees Magistrates’ Court, Eileen Marchant, spent 28 years on the Huddersfield magistrates’ bench, The Examiner reports.

So she was more than ready when the company that manages her local supermarket car park tried to take her on.

The shopper - who had actually visited the store twice that day - was even more determined when her appeal was rejected.

Eileen was slapped with a ticket by Athena Parking , which claimed she had overstayed the limit at the Aspley store.

(http://i3.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article13075675.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Eileen-Marchant-chair-of-Kirklees-Bench.jpg)
Eileen Marchant, an experienced former magistrate, has fought and won against a parking fine from a private company

But Eileen appealed as she knew she had not breached the rules.

She had visited twice in one day, both for short periods, returning the second time after forgetting to buy cat food.

Eileen appealed as she was sure evidence from the cameras would see her in the clear.

A veteran of complicated court trials, she compiled the evidence that would provide her alibi.

She posted the parking firm a receipt and a witness statement from the coffee shop she was in when they said she was parked at Lidl.

But she was outraged when her appeal was turned down.

The firm sent her a letter saying they had reviewed the photographic evidence, but she did not believe they had.

Eileen refused to take the set-back lying down.

“I knew I had left the car park in time,” said Eileen.

“They obviously hadn’t bothered to check it out properly – they just turned down my appeal.

“I was most upset with their very aggressive, bully boy tactics.

“Their letter said I had failed to comply and had to pay or enforcement action would be instigated against me."

(http://i3.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article12770875.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Lidl-jobs.jpg)

She added: “It said the appeals process had been exhausted and there was no further discussion on the matter.

“It said I could appeal to the Independent Appeals Service but ended with a thinly veiled threat saying I should think carefully and then written in bold that if my appeal was rejected I would have to pay the full charge.

“Someone who was more easily intimidated than me would just pay it, even if they knew they’d done nothing wrong.”

The fine could have increased to £90 if the matter kept dragging on.

Eileen was about to take action but before she could her ticket was suddenly cancelled.

But she has received no apology.

She has now written a strongly worded letter to the Portsmouth-based parking firm and advised others to make sure they fight their corner.

Refusing to pay a penalty charge notice received at a private car park does not land you in criminal court.

Parking firms would have to take any non-payer to civil court.

Very few do so due to the time and cost involved.

A spokesman for Athena said a mix-up caused by two staff dealing with Eileen's appeal meant it was originally rejected before being successful.

They added: "We have checked our systems and have found no evidence of any error but we have cancelled this charge in any event, on receipt of Eileen Marchant's email."

Refusing to pay Kirklees Council penalty charges is a different matter, which can lead to a criminal court summons.

Lidl did not respond to a request for a comment.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/lidl-slaps-shopper-45-parking-13075672 (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/lidl-slaps-shopper-45-parking-13075672)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 21 June, 2017, 10:49:25 AM
#103. Courtesy of the Prankster.

===========================================[/color]

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Excel application to reinstate case thrown out

Excel v Ms X C8DP57P6 26 May 2017, Stockport, DJ Ayres

Back in January Excel's claim against a motorist at the notorious Peel centre was struck out for failing to obey the judge's directions.

Excel thought they had complied so appealed the decision. The relisting hearing was held at Stockport on 26th May. The motorist represented themselves. Excel were represented by Mr Pickup. The Prankster assisted the motorist by suggesting a letter to write to the court to oppose the relisting.

In the hearing District Judge Ayres ordered the application dismissed and the motorist was awarded costs for their expenses of the day. They reported that the the letter did the trick.

DJ Ayres said that Excel would have to start all over again if they wished to pursue the matter.

After the hearing Mr Pickup said that if Excel do decide to restart the case, it would be several months before any decision is made. The Prankster, having seen the papers, has seen that excel were relying on Elliot v Loake. As the driver on the day was not known, and as Excel do not use keeper liability, The Prankster considers that any further money spent on this case would be a waste.

Prankster Notes

A ticket for the time parked was purchased and Excel have not contested that. Unfortunately the purchaser accidentally entered their own car's registration instead of the car which was parked.

Excel's attempt to charge for this accident is therefore a complete waste of time and energy for all parties. Their system is clearly flawed and designed to entrap motorists so they can maximise the number of parking charges issued. A proper system would only allow a registration to be entered if the ANPR system recognises that it [is] in the car park.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-application-to-reinstate-case.html (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-application-to-reinstate-case.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: dangerous beanz on 27 June, 2017, 12:58:07 AM
Slightly off topic.
Here's one that does work!
Basingstoke Hospital car park.
When you get to the barrier the ANPR takes your registration, opens the barrier, then you park. When you want to leave, the pay machine takes your registration, charges you accordingly and gives you notice of how long you've got to leave the car park (had two hours once!).
Drive to the gate ANPR recognizes the number plate and opens the barrier.
If the barrier doesn't open for any reason there's a call button for help.
Works seamlessly and apart from one instance of exit camera failure worked fine for all our recent visits.
Bet they don't issue many tickets there though, so I don't think it will catch on.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 27 June, 2017, 06:04:18 PM
erm......not as 'off topic' as you may think   <thinking>

Gatwick Airport Long Stay has a similar system: Pre booked online with ANPR assisted barriers. Yes, you book online, the ANPR recognises your plate and lifts the barrier. You can use the call button for assistance if this does not happen. No one gets in without paying (due to the new and radical, ground breaking, barrier system), no sPeCulative iNvoices (PCNs), the parent company makes a profit (I assume they make a profit as they have not gone bust, at the time of posting) and innocent motorists (selfish drivers, for the benefit of parking industry apologists) don't get hauled unnecessarily through the courts.

But, as you say, it won't catch on  <Swearyrant>

So what do we see then?

Contrary to the tone of this thread, ANPR does actually work. It's just that most BPA Ltd and IPC Ltd members choose to make it not work. Deliberately and wilfully [Please insert your favourite profanity here].
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 July, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Driver complaints about car park fine policies hit unprecedented levels

From disputes over ticketing times to mis-typed number plates, thousands of motorists say they are unfairly targeted

(https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/10/smart-parking-driver-complaints-fines-car-parks?CMP=share_btn_tw#img-1)
Sales agent Ken Barbour, ‘penalised for not buying my ticket before I parked in a space’.

Anna Tims
Monday 10 July 2017 07.00 BST

When Dorothea Matheson parked at a town centre car park, in Clarkston, East Renfrewshire, she typed her number plate into the ticket machine and paid the required fee. Two weeks later she received a demand for £60. Her offence was to enter her registration number with a letter O instead of a numeric 0. Despite the fact the two look almost indistinguishable, the parking operator, Smart Parking, declared that the ticket she had bought was invalid. It refused her appeal and she has now received a letter from a debt collection agency threatening court action unless she pays £160. “I wasn’t trying to evade payment. I simply made a genuine error,” says the retired receptionist. “This company acts as judge, jury and executioner.”

Matheson is among thousands of drivers who believe they have been unfairly targeted by companies which patrol privately owned car parks. Visitors to supermarkets, hospitals, airports and shopping malls have received demands for sums of up to three figures despite paying, because of misleading signs or a minor typo.

Citizens Advice Scotland reports that complaints about “over zealous” charges have reached an unprecedented level as companies seek to maximise profits. Trading Standards in Scotland has had to divert stretched funds into investigating what it says is “a surprisingly high number of complaints”.

It’s an industry that is, so far, unregulated. Anyone can set up as a “parking enforcement company” and, although those who sign up to an accredited trade body have to abide by its code of practice, it’s not mandatory to be a member. In 2012 the government established an independent appeals process for motorists in England and Wales, but in Scotland only the company that issues parking charges can adjudicate as to whether its decision is fair. Unsurprisingly, the verdict is usually “yes”.

Sales agent Ken Barbour is also being threatened with court action by Smart Parking’s debt collection agent unless he pays £160. He had paid for two hours parking and returned to his car in Inverness before the ticket expired. However, after entering the car park it had taken him 15 minutes to find a space and then he had to queue for the ticket. Cameras film drivers entering and exiting, and Smart Parking says those minutes are chargeable and that his ticket was therefore not valid.

“It seems that I’m being penalised for not buying my ticket before I parked in a space,” says Barbour. He argued his case via Smart Parking’s online appeals process but says he received no response.

Smart Parking, which declines to comment on individual cases, says that signs state that motorists will be charged for the full period that their vehicle is in the car park. But many motorists assume the clock only starts ticking from when they actually park.

Confusion is compounded by the fact that the ticket machines calculate the required parking time from the moment payment is made. Motorists assume that they have until the time stamped on the ticket, when they might have already unwittingly used up 10 minutes of their paid time finding a space. In order to use the system accurately, drivers are supposed to calculate how much time they want, including the time already spent inside the car park, which means they have to check the time they crossed the threshold and pay for an additional hour if it takes them over the tariff chosen.

Those who choose the option to pay at the end of a visit must recall the precise time they drove into the car park. A newly widowed 80-year-old was recently chased for £160 after underpaying by just 10p in a Perth car park that operates the system. Smart Parking insisted the charge should stand.


“Since the system changed from a simple pay-and-display, charges and complaints have skyrocketed,” says Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife who is preparing a members’ bill to demand that private parking in Scotland be regulated. “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Smart Parking is using this system as a revenue raiser.”

Smart Parking, owned by the Australian group Car Parking Technologies, revealed earlier this year that 75% of its revenue comes from parking breach charges and that the number of notices doubled over the 12 months following the roll out of number plate recognition technology. It’s a lucrative business, too, for firms who rely on foot patrols to identify contraventions and who pay “wardens” a commission of up to £30 for every ticket issued .

Private parking firms cannot fine drivers like police and councils. Their demands are simply invoices for breach of contract and are governed by civil law. However, many firms try to blur the difference by calling them Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), similar to local authority Penalty Charge Notices (also known as PCNs), apeing the yellow windscreen tickets issued by local authorities and employing debt collection agencies to chase for non-payment.

In fact, debt collectors have no power to enforce payment or seize goods and many are unregulated sole traders. If a motorist refuses to pay up they can merely recommend that the parking company takes court action.

Given the small sums at stake, fewer than 5% of cases make it that far. Indeed, in Scotland and Northern Ireland they cannot do so unless the parking firm can prove who was behind the wheel at the time. In England and Wales they can pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle as listed on DVLA records (see box).

For the past five years English and Welsh drivers whose appeal is rejected by a parking company have been able to take their case to one of two independent appeals services – POPLA operated by the British Parking Association (BPA), or the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) run by the International Parking Community (IPC) – provided the parking firm is a member. The codes of practice include unambiguous signs in the car park and a reasonable grace period for drivers who overstay.

However, critics question how independent these appeals services are given they are funded by member parking companies, and that while POPLA is outsourced to Ombudsman Services, the IPC’s scheme is run in-house. In April, the BPA suspended the Independent Scrutiny Board which the government had asked it to set up to ensure its appeals were fair, because its rival was not required to fund one.

Since the IPC, which does not allow motorists to respond to evidence against them, tends to uphold around 20% of driver complaints compared to the BPA’s 50%, parking companies began defecting to the former in the hopes of a favourable outcome. The IPC has failed to respond to a request for a comment.

The government, meanwhile, declines to say whether it plans to force the appeals services to appoint an independent auditor. “Ministers are carefully reviewing the case for reform of the private parking sector and further details will be released in due course,” the Department for Communities and Local Government tells The Observer.

KNOW THE RULES
In Scotland and Northern Ireland you can choose to ignore a parking notice. Private firms can only pursue the driver, not the registered owner of the car, so if you refuse to identify the driver there is not much they can do. Debt collectors, however officious sounding, have no enforcement powers.

In England and Wales the registered keeper can be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if the driver is not identified.

For a convincing argument, check the codes of practice of the relevant trade association to see if the parking company breached any of the terms.

Websites for the British Motorists’ Protection Association and the Parking Cowboys contain detailed advice and assistance on what you should do in which country. Meanwhile, the consumer champion Which? offers drivers an appeals letter template.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/10/smart-parking-driver-complaints-fines-car-parks?CMP=share_btn_tw (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/10/smart-parking-driver-complaints-fines-car-parks?CMP=share_btn_tw)

#104 and 105
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 10 July, 2017, 02:47:17 PM
#106

I’m innocent, so how can I park this fine back with Aldi?

ParkingEye has fined me £70 when I wasn’t even there. But I can’t prove it

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7e3e361efd6b4a2acfe15ab84e21f38d801c9c7b/0_30_3861_2317/master/3861.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=1ee474859881f7ec4f72abeb8ec3b15e)

Rebecca Smithers
Monday 22 May 2017 07.00 BST


Please help me prove my innocence over two separate visits to a supermarket on the same day, as I have been fined for overstaying.

I drove to my local Aldi store twice – once before work and then at lunchtime – and stayed only briefly each time. I paid in cash as both trips were for a few bits – milk and crisps before work for the office staff and a lunchtime meal for myself. So I didn’t keep the receipts.

I subsequently received a fine for £40 from ParkingEye, which claimed that my car had remained in the car park for five hours. I refused to pay the fine as I did not accept that I had done anything wrong, and it has since risen to £70. I feel like I’m banging my head against a brick wall.

By the time I got the fine the CCTV film at work had been recorded over, which would have shown my car entering and leaving while it was allegedly at the Aldi store.

I have appealed via the independent appeals service Popla, spoken to ParkingEye and Aldi’s parking team, and still no one wants to listen to reason. My family used to spend upwards of £100 a week at the store but haven’t been back since. SD, Stalybridge, Cheshire


Aldi’s car parks throughout the UK are managed by ParkingEye, though the retailer encourages shoppers who have been slapped with what they consider to be an unfair charge to complain directly (via customer.service@aldi.co.uk). Talkboards, meanwhile, are full of complaints.

Aldi has told us before that it does not receive revenue from parking notices, but that does not stop us from receiving a regular flurry of letters through this column. It insists that it doesn’t want genuine customers to be penalised.

Meanwhile, ParkingEye tells us that it “encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances and they should not have received a parking charge”. It adds: “In this case, we requested, but did not receive, any written evidence and therefore rejected the appeal. The driver made a subsequent appeal to Popla, which agreed with ParkingEye’s decision. ParkingEye works closely with clients to agree appropriate processes.”

The lesson is to hang on to receipts, even when it’s just for a packet of crisps and a can of Coke, and always challenge an unfair fine at the earliest opportunity.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/22/aldi-parking-fine-appeal-proof (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/22/aldi-parking-fine-appeal-proof)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 July, 2017, 02:58:09 PM
Mother-of-three wins epic court battle with a parking firm who fined her despite having a valid ticket because she entered the wrong registration

Blessing Burgess was fined in Stockport town centre though she had a ticket
Husband Daniel had entered the wrong car registration at the ticket machine
She was offered a reduced £10 fine but refused to pay as the company hadn't lost out on the fee for the session
The 31-year-old mother represented herself in court and won earlier this month


A mother-of-three has won her battle against a parking company in court after she proved she had bought a ticket but was still fined.

Blessing Burgess, from Stockport, received a fine after parking in the town centre with her family in January last year to eat at Nando's.

She appealed the fine with her ticket, but the company didn't back down as her husband Daniel had entered the registration for their other car.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/11/09/4236DADD00000578-4684518-image-a-1_1499763114985.jpg)
Blessing Burgess took Excel to court and won when they fined her after her husband paid the parking charge for the wrong car in Stockport

Excel, the company managing the car park, offered to reduce the fee to £10, but Mrs Burgess refused to give up, believing the firm to be profiteering as they hadn't lost any money.

She told the Manchester Evening News: 'They kept sending us horrible letters and we got threatening messages from a debt collection agency too.

'It was hard not to be intimidated by the letters – I really felt like they were trying to scare me.

'We even did mediation, but they were talking as though if it came to court I would definitely lose, like I didn’t stand a chance.'

Mrs Burgess ended up representing herself at Stockport Magistrates Court, where she won her case.
The 31-year-old said: 'I am so pleased the judge could see the reality of what was taking place. In the end of the day, they picked on the wrong lady.'

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/11/10/4237598300000578-4684518-image-a-11_1499764041280.jpg)
Mrs Burgess had parked with her husband and family at the Peel Centre in Stockport, to enjoy a family meal at Nando's

Posting on her Facebook page when she first received the fine, Mrs Burgess explained: 'My husband went into auto-pilot and entered the registration number for the car he drives most days. We were unaware this had even taken place until a week or so later when we received a parking charge notice in the post, demanding £60.

'I was frantically worrying and searching for the ticket as I was sure that I had bought one as we always do wherever we park. I went out to the family car and thankfully found the ticket.

'After looking at the ticket and the letter I had received I realised what had happened. At that moment I felt relief that I had paid and that once I spoke to the company the charge would be dropped.'

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/11/09/4236DACD00000578-4684518-image-a-3_1499763120865.jpg)
Mrs Burgess said she realised what had happened when she found the ticket but had been sure the human error would be taken into account and the fine dropped

She explained she had sent the ticket as evidence to the company, and they had confirmed with CCTV stills that they had entered the car park at the corresponding times.

The ticket they purchased was even valid for a further 90 minutes after they left.

She said: 'All of this evidence I provided shows that despite human error we acted in good faith by buying a ticket and did not defraud the company or the break the law as we are law abiding citizens and recognise that they are running a business.'

A spokesman for Excel told the Manchester paper it was 'disappointed' and would be considering its options.

The spokesman added: 'Motorists are required to enter their full Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) when purchasing a ticket. Ms Burgess entered a totally different VRM, thus breaching the clear terms and conditions.

'We are currently considering our position in relation to the judge’s decision and will refrain from any further comment at this stage while the matter is ongoing.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4684518/Mother-three-wins-epic-court-battle-parking-firm.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4684518/Mother-three-wins-epic-court-battle-parking-firm.html)

#107

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: JSPark on 11 July, 2017, 09:57:10 PM
Hi

I have recently got a Parking Charge Notice from parking in excess of 3 hours in my local ASDA. They use an ANPR system and I was sent the notice through the post. A friend of mine who used to work for the council advised that the land is owned by the council and that they have not given their express permission for ANPR to be used on their land and therefore under current legislation the enforcement of ANPR on council or publicly owned land is not legal.

Has anyone else also had this advice and is it worth appealing/rejecting the charge on this basis and contesting it with the company,Parking Eye ?

Thanks

JS
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DastardlyDick on 13 July, 2017, 09:37:37 AM
Hi

I have recently got a Parking Charge Notice from parking in excess of 3 hours in my local ASDA. They use an ANPR system and I was sent the notice through the post. A friend of mine who used to work for the council advised that the land is owned by the council and that they have not given their express permission for ANPR to be used on their land and therefore under current legislation the enforcement of ANPR on council or publicly owned land is not legal.

Has anyone else also had this advice and is it worth appealing/rejecting the charge on this basis and contesting it with the company,Parking Eye ?

Thanks

JS


I believe that the Parking Company (in your case Parking Eye) have to have a Contract with the Landowner giving them permission to take people to Court in their name (as opposed to the Landowner's). They also have to have planning permission for the notices with the terms and conditions on them, because they are considered to be advertisments. Some people have been successful by asking for unredacted/unedited copies of the planning permission and the Contract which the Parking Companies are reluctant to supply.
May I suggest that you search online for "Parking Prankster"? He makes a speciality of dealing with Parking Eye "fines" and has been very successful against them.I
Parking Eye are one of the Company's that will take you to Court to get the money and costs so don't just ignore it or rely on your friends advice.
Did you actually overstay or did you "double dip" and make two visits on the same a few hours apart? Parking Eye have a reputation for conveniently ignoring the 1st Exit and 2nd Entry and claiming one visit lasting several hours.
Hope this helps.
Title: Parking Eye - South Shields Hospital
Post by: HebburnLee on 14 July, 2017, 04:24:14 PM
My wife has recently been issued with a fine by Parking Eye, who monitor South Shields Hospital's car parks; her offence was to be just over three minutes and 15 seconds late in leaving the premises, after attending an appointment with our four year old son, who was undergoing some medical tests. The evidence presented by Parking Eye shows the car entering the site and leaving the site, but does not take into consideration that my wife had to drive around the entire site twice before she found a vacant parking bay, nor does it take into account that the hospital has an A&E department so there are emergency vehicles coming and going, or that she was trying to leave the hospital at about 4.18pm, ie a busy time for both staff, patients and visitors leaving the hospital. Taking that into account, it is ludicrous that a motorist is expected to anticipate how long it will take them to leave the site (and not just the parking bay)!

Naturally, Parking Eye has rejected her appeal, so the next step is the Ombudsman.

Three minutes and 15 seconds - utterly ridiculous!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Coco on 14 July, 2017, 06:05:21 PM
Please see the two posts immediately preceding yours about Parking Eye. I suggest you have a trawl through Pranky's site  (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/minster-baywatch-youve-been-gladstoned.html) - he has posted a wealth of information about Parking Eye and is probably the person best able to assist you.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 22 July, 2017, 11:15:55 AM
Any ANPR system that allows you to input a VRM that it has not detected is not fit for purpose and would never get type approval from government, so why do government let them get away with it?  <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy:

===========================================

Pensioner fined £140 for parking ticket mistake at Norwich Community Hospital

(http://images.archant.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5111779.1500403046!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Brian Moore received a fine for inputting his number plate wrong into a car park machine.

Charity chiefs want action to curb Norwich parking enforcement firms after a pensioner was handed a £140 parking charge when he mistakenly typed a zero instead of the letter “O” when buying his ticket.

(http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5111780!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Brian Moore received a fine for inputting his number plate wrong into a car park machine.

Brian Moore, 72, made the slight error in entering his car registration at the ticket machine when he visited Norwich Community Hospital, in Bowthorpe Road, in March for diabetes treatment.

But seven weeks later he received a demand for £100 from car park operators Civil Enforcement Limited, later upped to £140.

Norfolk Citizens Advice has taken up his case - and said it was one of many similar complaints it had received.

Mr Moore, from Sprowston, said: “I actually found the ticket and I went to the police at first because I thought it might be a hoax.”

(http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5111781!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Norwich Community Hospital, Bowthorpe road. PHOTO: Nick Butcher

He then wrote to the company with a copy of the ticket, but he said Civil Enforcement refused to accept the matter as a genuine mistake, and instead increased its demand to £140.

Norfolk Citizens Advice has since helped Mr Moore to write a further letter to the company. Civil Enforcement said Mr Moore’s penalty was cancelled after his appeal and a letter of confirmation was sent, but Mr Moore said he had not received a letter.

“I was angry at the time because I knew I had paid,” he said. “But I was worried I would end up in court. I think they think old people are just going to panic and pay. It’s heavy-handed.”

Norfolk Citizens Advice said it planned to raise the “controversial methods” with Norwich South MP Clive Lewis when he visited the charity on Thursday.

(http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5111782!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Norwich Community Hospital, Bowthorpe road. PHOTO: Nick Butcher

It reported a steady stream of complaints from clients facing demands from private parking companies totalling hundreds of pounds, including another two at the hospital, where tickets were printed with registration numbers incomplete, despite being typed in correctly.

Acting chief executive David Potten said: “Many of the demands seem to us to be frankly unethical. Given the requests we have received for help and advice - and the number of complaints posted on the hospital’s own website - I really feel action is called for. And I question whether the hospital trust should be allowing these practices to be happening on its property.

“I hope Clive Lewis will be able to take up the matter on behalf of our clients.”

Mr Lewis said: “It’s Labour policy to end parking charges at hospitals and because we are committed to funding the NHS properly, there won’t be any negative implications for hospital services.”

Paul Larman, estate manager for Norwich Community Health and Care NHS Trust (NCHC), which runs the hospital, said: “We are concerned to hear about the recent poor experience of some of our patients when dealing with Civil Enforcement Limited, the debt collecting arm of ParkSolve who manage our carpark, over disputed car parking fines.

“We will be taking up the issue with ParkSolve on Mr Moore’s behalf, and investigating other reported instances. We will be in touch with Norfolk Citizens’ Advice to advise them of the outcome of different complaints, but meanwhile we would like to reassure Mr Moore, specifically, that he need not pay the fine. Anyone who feels they have been issued with a ticket or a fine in error has the right to appeal it by contacting Civil Enforcement Limited. We hold regular meetings with ParkSolve, the contractor and we will always investigate complaints.”

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/pensioner-fined-140-for-parking-ticket-mistake-at-norwich-community-hospital-1-5111783 (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/pensioner-fined-140-for-parking-ticket-mistake-at-norwich-community-hospital-1-5111783)

108#
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 29 July, 2017, 01:18:46 PM
Car park row heads to court as Darlington motorist refuses to pay fine

(http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/resources/images/6642741.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)

A SPORTS Direct customer car park has attracted new criticism after a Darlington woman was fined and threatened with court action for a ticket machine mix-up.

The car park on East Street, Darlington, is managed by private parking firm Smart Parking and uses a ticket machine that motorists must use to enter and record their registration number.

The machine is paired with automatic number plate recognition cameras (ANPR) which detects entry and exit of all vehicles using the car park. The system is designed to stop the sharing of paid tickets amongst other car park users.

But, for Sarah Copland of Shearwater Avenue, the car park has left her with legal worries after the ticket machine wrongly detected her number plate and only included the last character of it, leaving a £45 penalty charge notice being issued to her five days later.

A frequent customer of the clothing store, she said she knows how the town centre car park works: “I used the car park on January 20 and use it quite often – I paid my money, entered my registration. Job done.”

However, it appears that Smart Parking believe that Ms Copland did not pay for the space and despite still having the original ticket to hand, her appeal to the firm was unsuccessful.

The case has since escalated further with a solicitor and a debt collection agency sending Ms Copland correspondence regarding the £45 charge.

Ms Copland has received threats that a County Court Judgment (CCJ) may be issued against her.

“I refuse to pay this fine," she said. "I have done nothing wrong.”

Enforcing Ms Copland’s fine are Zenith Collections, who are part of Debt Recovery Plus, a company that specialises in the recovery of missed fines by millions of motorists each year.

Earlier this week, it was reported that private parking firms had pursued more than 1.7m motorists over three months for fines at similar ‘managed’ car parks.

“I want to make other people aware of the pitfalls of using this car park,” Ms Copland said.

However, this is not the first time the East Street car park has caused controversy. In January, motorist Chris Wilson hit out at Smart Parking, when he discovered the firm were in the process of taking him to court over a fine which had been issued a year before.

He claims that when he entered the car park, a contractor was carrying out drainage work on the site, causing a “great deal” of congestion, leaving a delay between him finding a space and buying a ticket.

The following month, Hurworth Parish Councillor Paul Walters called on people in Darlington to fight back against “ruthless” parking charges – describing the appeals process at Smart Parking as a “complete injustice”.

The Northern Echo contacted Smart Parking for a comment last night but has yet to receive a response.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/15438961.Car_park_row_heads_to_court_as_motorist_refuses_to_pay_fine/?ref=twtrec (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/15438961.Car_park_row_heads_to_court_as_motorist_refuses_to_pay_fine/?ref=twtrec)

#109
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 12 August, 2017, 08:06:01 AM
Not proof as such, but this Parking Cowboys blog sums up all that is wrong with using ANPR cameras to enforce in car parks.

===========================================

Parking Eye ignoring my vehicle tracker data!

From: Susan

Hello,

I have received two parking fines from Parking Eye. Dated two days apart but for the same alleged offence. To cut a very long story short the vehicle I was driving had a tracker and there is proof beyond any doubt that the vehicle was not where Parking Eye alleged it was.It was parked up where I was staying.I have sent all relevant photocopied documents by recorded delivery to both Parking Eye addresses with no reply.

Can you tell me please who has committed the fraudulent part of this fine and how?.
I cannot work out exactly what they have done to make this fine look real. I do not intend to let this matter drop and want to have an explanation from Parking Eye but don’t really know how to do it.


Parking Eye’s ANPR system is well known to be flawed in that it sometimes doesn’t capture all entries and exits to car parks (e.g. if the view of your car’s registration was blocked by another vehicle as you passed the camera). If you visited the same car park multiple times, then Parking Eye’s system might think you’ve stayed from the first entry to the last exit, likely exceeding the maximum time limit. Parking Eye are well aware of this flaw in their system and claim to make checks to identify instances. However, we hear of such cases regularly, and are concerned they don’t do enough about it. Certainly there is a perceived conflict of interest in that they can financially benefit by not fixing the issue.

Anyway, if you have evidence that the vehicle was not there, then on the balance of probabilities, you did not breach the car park rules and therefore the parking charge has been issued incorrectly and should be cancelled.

Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice Parking Eye are required to offer an appeals process which it sounds like you have engaged with. If they turn down your appeal, then they are required to offer you an independent appeal (known as POPLA). At either appeal stage, if you provide your tracker evidence then your ticket should be cancelled. There is a chance that it will not (the POPLA assessors are not legally qualified), but do not give up!

If you continued to refuse to pay, then ParkingEye would need to take you to County Court to ask you to pay up. Again, if you present your tracker data to show you were not there, then the court should uphold your defence. I do not believe Parking Eye would attempt court with a solid defence as yours sounds.

The other thing I would do is to threaten a Data Protection claim against them. By continuing to process your data when they knowingly don’t have a case against you, then arguably they are breaching the DPA for which case law may allow you to be compensated. We have a guide here about this http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/. (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/.)

I would also complain to the DVLA, your MP, and the BPA http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/complaints/. (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/complaints/.) Things will only get done about this sort of behaviour if people make a fuss.

Best of luck, PC

PS. keep copies of all correspondence!

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/2017-08-tracker-parkingeye/ (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/2017-08-tracker-parkingeye/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 15 September, 2017, 11:00:00 AM
Systems cannot recognise and discount time spent as a result of having difficulty paying.

Systems allow drivers to enter a car number plate it did not record entering the car park.



Disabled pensioner's £100 fine for car park overstay

(http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/resources/images/3462339/)

A DISABLED pensioner has become the latest person to receive a £100 fine at a Weymouth car park.

Peter Taylor, 72, from Wolverhamp-ton, received a fine after staying in the privately-owned Weymouth Old Town (West) car park 12 minutes longer than the two hours he had paid for.

The car park is managed by Parking Eye Management, which has since refunded the fine as a ‘gesture of goodwill’.

Mr Taylor had been visiting the town with his friend Margaret Page for a break.

He was driving her car on the day she was fined.

He said he was delayed when paying for the ticket.

Car park users have to enter their vehicle registration details in order to get a ticket. As the car did not belong to him, Mr Taylor had to go back to the car to find out its registration.

He claims he also had to wait for a woman to finish using one of the machines.

He said: “She must have paid it in all with 10 pence pieces.”

Mr Taylor said he was also forced to take a break before leaving the car park as he suffers from heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and walking difficulties.

(http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/resources/images/3462340/?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen)

Both became aware of the fine when Ms Page received a summons three days after their visit.

Mr Taylor said: “I was amazed when Margaret had that summons.

“I must have spent 10 minutes getting the ticket in the first place. It seems pretty harsh.

“If they are going to time you from the time to enter to the time you exit, they should make that clearer.

“By the time I got back to the car I was within the two hours. It doesn’t seem right at all.”

Mr Taylor’s fine was discounted to £60 after he paid it within 14 days.

However, despite paying, he sent a letter appealing the decision.

He has since been refunded.

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said: “Car park users enter into a contract to pay the appropriate amount for the duration of their visit or to not exceed free parking limits.

“A parking charge becomes payable if the terms and conditions are not adhered to.

“On this occasion it appears that as well as overstaying, an incorrect vehicle registration mark was entered, but as a gesture of goodwill the charge has been cancelled.”

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11701102.Ouch__Disabled_pensioner_s___100_fine_for_car_park_overstay/ (http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11701102.Ouch__Disabled_pensioner_s___100_fine_for_car_park_overstay/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 21 September, 2017, 10:08:30 AM
#111

ANPR cameras cannot perceive of problems with paying for parking. They only facilitate the issue of parking tickets to those who make every effort to pay.

===========================================


Bath woman prepared to go to court over 'grossly unfair' parking fine from hospital car park

Brenda Richards is "absolutely furious" about being charged £80 by the private company that runs the car park at the Royal United Hospital

[There is a video on the website but I do not know how to put a link to it on here. Go here to view http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/bath-woman-prepared-go-court-500648 (http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/bath-woman-prepared-go-court-500648)]

A Bath woman is “absolutely furious” after she was fined £80 for parking at the Royal United Hospital having tried several times to pay at two machines.

Brenda Richards had been visiting a very ill friend when she found she was unable to pay at two machines operated by Parking Eye.

The 77-year-old said that she and her husband tried to pay three times at one machine and once at another before giving up and leaving with four receipts marked “card void”.

A week later, the Fairfield Park couple received an “invoice” from Parking Eye telling them they owed £80 because they had not paid for the 66 minutes their white Kia Sportage spent in the hospital car park on July 25.

(http://i2.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article500687.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/BAAL20170918D-006_CJPG.jpg)
Brenda Richards is "absolutely furious" about the £80 'invoice' from Parking Eye (Image: Artur Lesniak)

Mrs Richards said she appealed the fine, but was “very quickly” turned town by the company.

A second appeal with independent adjudicator POPLA – Parking On Private Land Appeals – is under way.

Mrs Richards said that she is prepared to go to court over the fine, which she deems “grossly unfair”.

“I am just so incensed,” she said.

(http://i2.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article501036.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/RUH-car-park.jpg)
Parking Eye runs the car parks at the RUH (Image: Parking Eye)

She said she and husband Graham Godman visited their friend in hospital more than a dozen times in the past three months, paying £2 to stay for an hour each time.

She had taken to leaving her handbag at home to reduce the spread of norovirus – a risk on the ward where their friend was staying – and so had no cash on her on the day in question.

“All I had was a few cards on me,” she said.

After receiving four “card void” receipts, and with two minutes to spare before their planned hour was up, Mrs Richards and Mr Godman left the car park unsure whether they had paid for parking.

(http://i4.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article500737.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0bfbae44-242b-4eff-a337-304b0ffb0c3b.jpg)
The four receipts showing "card void" from Mrs Richards' four attempts to pay £2 on July 25

When no charge appeared on their credit card statement, the couple wondered whether to send a cheque for £2 to Parking Eye.

But Mrs Richards said she was assured twice by parking officials at the hospital that she would not be fined because none of the machines had been accepting card payments that day.

She said she was unaware it was possible to pay for parking by phone.

After receiving notice of the £80 fine from Parking Eye, Mrs Richards wrote to the parking operator explaining what had happened.

(http://i4.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article500685.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/BAAL20170918D-002_CJPG.jpg)
Mrs Richards with the 'invoice' from Parking Eye telling her she has 28 days to pay £80 or 14 days to pay £40 (Image: Artur Lesniak)

In a letter rejecting her appeal, Parking Eye wrote: “Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question.”

Signs at the hospital advise that parking tariffs can be paid by coin, card or ‘paybyphone’.

The company advised Mrs Richards she could appeal via POPLA and that, “as a gesture of goodwill”, it would give her an extra two weeks to pay a discounted fine of £40.

“I’m absolutely furious,” Mrs Richards said.

(http://i2.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article500688.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/BAAL20170918D-005_CJPG.jpg)
Mrs Richards and her husband had parked their white Kia Sportage in the hospital car park (Image: Artur Lesniak)

She kept all her receipts showing she tried to pay four times on the day in question and paid for parking at the RUH on ten occasions before that day and five afterwards.

Appealing to POPLA, she wrote: “My contention is that it shows an absolute willingness to pay for parking and no intention to avoid such payment.

“I made four attempts to pay on the day in question and the reason I could not pay was that a fault in Parking Eye’s machines meant that none of them could accept payment by card.

“An employee of PE assured me that the company knew of the fault and would not impose a fine in those circumstances.

“To be fined by PE is, therefore, grossly unfair and I am prepared to go to court for a judge to decide the matter.”

(http://i4.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article500964.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/a7c4a0ab-47e6-45af-9c1e-c3318234fa90.jpg)
One of the receipts showing "card void"

A spokesman from Parking Eye said the company was not aware of any problems with parking machines at the hospital that day.

He said: “People attending Royal United Hospitals Bath can pay for parking via the ‘PayByPhone’ service or at one of the ten payment machines provided across the site.

“We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.

“If a driver disagrees with our decision, they have the option to appeal to the independent appeals service (POPLA).”

POPLA is an independent parking appeals service set up by the British Parking Association. It is administered by The Ombudsman Service, which then charges the BPA for all the cases it handles, regardless of outcome.

The Bath Chronicle has contacted the RUH for comment.

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/bath-woman-prepared-go-court-500648 (http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/bath-woman-prepared-go-court-500648)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 October, 2017, 04:46:09 PM
#112 and 113

Any ANPR system that allows you to input a VRM that it has not detected is not fit for purpose and would never get type approval from government, so why do government let them get away with it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O NO Dad-of-two dragged to court after refusing to pay parking fine for putting zero rather than an O on ticket

James Lewis was shopping at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre car park, in South East London, when slapped with a £60 fine

A DAD-of-two is being dragged to court after accidentally pressing zero rather than the letter O as he entered his registration number to park for FREE.

James Lewis, 31, was shopping at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre car park, in South East London, when jobsworths grabbed the opportunity to slap him with a £60 fine.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000358391152.jpg?strip=all&w=960)
James Lewis faces going to court over an unpaid parking fine - because he used the number zero rather than O

The outraged motorist, who was parked for less than an hour, has since refused to pay the parking charge - but now faces a day in court.

He told The Sun Online: "I got a letter in the post about the fine, but I thought there must have just been a mistake. I lodged an appeal and sent off a picture of my ticket.

"But because I typed zero rather than the letter O into the machine there, the parking firm came back and said it was my fault.

"Since then I have been threatened with legal action and contacted around five times in the post.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/hd-parking-fine-v3.jpg?strip=all&w=672)
James has been battling with Smart Parking Limited for more than four months

"The fine is probably ten times more now.

"It's annoying because I've never had anything like this before and when you see that brown envelope come through the door you just think, 'oh no what's this?'

"I was only parking for free for around an hour and then suddenly was being told to pay £60."

The 31-year-old HGV driver was out Sunday shopping when he accidentally typed YB09VA0 instead of YB09VAO when entering his registration plate for free parking.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/hd-parking-permit.jpg?strip=all&w=720)
Smart Parking denied James' appeal after he sent off a copy of his ticket

James had no idea he had been slapped with a fine until a £60 charge landed on his doormat a few days later.

Smart Parking Limited, the firm which manages the car park, refused to back down over the error - and later upped the fine to £160.

That's despite claiming to apply a "common sense approach" when it comes to reviewing appeals.

Now defiant James has chosen to go to court instead of settling the debt.

The dispute has been ongoing since May 21, 2017.

Now James says he wants to prove a point to the "money-grabbing" company.

He added: "I am ignoring it now because it is just not worth my time.

"If it comes to it I will go to court. I won't just stand by while they whack me with a £60 fine because of something like this.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000358391143.jpg?strip=all&w=640)
James, from South East London, says he will go to court over the parking dispute

"They need to have some common sense.

"It's been very frustrating for me, and I can imagine distressing for anyone else forced to pay for one tiny mistake.

"I am worried about the court action and the fine because I have a family to support, but let's see what the court has to say."

If the ruling does not go in James' favour, the dad-of-two will likely to be forced to pay the fine - on top of hefty court costs.

His fight comes after grandmother Sylvia Bradford was slapped with a £60 fine for legally leaving her car in the same free car park.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict0003578406701.jpg?strip=all&w=960)
Sylvia Bradford, 70, made the same mistake at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre and was also told to hand over £60 to Smart Parking

The 70-year-old made the same error as James when she pressed the letter O rather than a zero on the machine with pale yellow letters on a silver background.

But after lodging a complaint, Smart Parking Limited said that it is sticking by its decision to issue the fine.

Sylvia plans to take her appeal to the ombudsman, meaning she will face paying out £100 if it is again refused.

She said: “My husband blew his fuse. This really does take the biscuit. It seems ridiculous. It’s common sense."

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/smart-e1507279826771.jpg?strip=all&w=960)
Smart Parking claims to use a 'common sense' approach when it comes to an appeal

The Sun Online has attempted to contact Smart Parking Limited for comment.

On its website, the firm says: "Smart Parking has gained a vast amount of experience over many years of handling parking related appeals.

"It goes without saying that each appeal is individually assessed by a trained appeals assessor, who will review not only the site rules, but will apply a common sense approach.

"If your appeal is refused, in order to avoid any further action you should pay the full PCN within 14 days."

A spokesman from the British Parking Association, of which Smart Parking is a member, said: "We would strongly advice motorists to follow the independent appeals process rather than choosing to ignore parking fines.

"There is no cost to go to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) to help with your case.

"Taking it to court is much more likely to occur costs."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4624566/erith-riverside-shopping-parking-fine-bexley-london/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4624566/erith-riverside-shopping-parking-fine-bexley-london/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DBC on 18 October, 2017, 07:50:11 PM
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/loggerheads-mold-car-park-fines-13774891 (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/loggerheads-mold-car-park-fines-13774891)

Landlord's woe as car park fine scheme backlash nearly calls time on his pub
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 19 October, 2017, 09:40:48 AM
I have no sympathy for the landlord, even a brief search online would have shown the scheme as unsuitable and as for getting into bed with the cowboys.... Numpty!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 19 October, 2017, 10:10:15 AM
I have no sympathy for the landlord, even a brief search online would have shown the scheme as unsuitable and as for getting into bed with the cowboys.... Numpty!

                                                                              <Yeahthat>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 December, 2017, 11:43:58 AM
#114

This is an admission by NCP Ltd (members of the BPA Ltd) that there is an inherent problem built in to ANPR enforcement systems. Put simply, a camera cannot possibly calculate the time spent parked.

======================================

RAF veteran wins battle over £100 parking fine after arguing clock should run from when he bought his £1 ticket rather than when he entered car park

Ex-RAF man Terence O'Halloran paid £1 to park for an hour but was given a fine
He claimed NCP had calculated the length of stay incorrectly and won his case
Mr O'Halloran said: 'It is not a victory. It is the correct analysis and decision'


A motorist who was insisted he was wrongly slapped with a £100 fine at a car park in Lincoln has claimed victory and got his ticket scrapped.

Ex-RAF man Terence O'Halloran paid £1 to park for an hour at St Rumbold's Street but was shocked to discover a penalty notice on his windscreen when he returned within the hour last month.

He claims NCP calculated the length of stay from the moment heentered the car park to the time he exited, rather than the clock starting when he bought his ticket from the machine.

Now financial journalist and analyst Terence has finally won his case and has had his ticket quashed.

He said: 'It is not a victory. It is the correct analysis and decision. The charge notice should not have been issued. People are now aware.'

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/12/20/473FC3E200000578-5172301-image-a-1_1513109049723.jpg)
Ex-RAF man Terence O'Halloran paid £1 to park for an hour at St Rumbold's Street but was shocked to discover a penalty notice on his windscreen when he returned within the hour

A letter addressed to Terence from NCP reads: 'Your appeal has been reviewed and has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, which record your entry and exit times.

'Having considered the content of your letter we are prepared to cancel this notice.

'We would apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thank you for your correspondence.'

Mr O'Halloran, from Stainton by Langworth, previously told Lincolnshire Live: 'You expect to pay for the duration of your actual parking and in British Society you park up and pay at the machine and get your ticket.

'Your time starts when your ticket is issued. The NCP at St Rumbold's Street is busy so it can take 10 minutes to find a space.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/12/20/473FC3DB00000578-5172301-image-a-2_1513109057126.jpg)
Mr O'Halloran claims NCP calculated the length of stay from the moment he entered the car park to the time he exited, rather than the clock starting when he bought his ticket from the machine

'If you're parking for one hour apparently the time starts as your car enters the car park and concludes as your car exits the car park - that's given you something between 45 and 50 minutes' car parking.

'Apparently the time on your ticket means absolutely nothing to NCP.

'Yes, there is a 10 minute statutory over run but if you're searching for spaces before going to the machine to buy your ticket, time soon runs away.'

His car was clocked as he entered the car park at 10.36.51am on October 26 and when it left at 11.53.07 - a period of about 77 minutes.

'It took me five minutes to walk into town, 10 to 15 minutes for a haircut and then five minutes to return. I'm sure I was back within the hour.'

In a letter to Mr O'Halloran, NCP stated that there was a breach of the parking rules because the car was 'parked longer than the time paid for', as explained by 'clear signage'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5172301/RAF-veteran-wins-battle-100-parking-fine.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5172301/RAF-veteran-wins-battle-100-parking-fine.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: BAILIFFCHASER on 16 December, 2017, 12:09:15 AM
Well haven't on for a while but if i am right. Then a Parking Charge Notice is issued to the driver of the vehicle. Not the owner. Then why does everybody kick a fuss up. just write to the company issuing the charge etc and ask them for a picture of the driver. If they cant produce it then they cant pursue you as you do not know who the driver is. Its different if it was a Penalty charge Notice. Boy have i dealt with a load of these.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Coco on 16 December, 2017, 12:17:00 PM
Well haven't on for a while but if i am right. Then a Parking Charge Notice is issued to the driver of the vehicle. Not the owner. Then why does everybody kick a fuss up. just write to the company issuing the charge etc and ask them for a picture of the driver. If they cant produce it then they cant pursue you as you do not know who the driver is. Its different if it was a Penalty charge Notice. Boy have i dealt with a load of these.

If you fail to identify the driver the Protection of Freedoms Act allows the issuer to pursue the Registered Keeper.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 26 January, 2018, 11:44:58 AM
#115

Smart Parking urged to review number plate error ‘fines’ after English court case

(https://www.thecourier.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/08/03lkmcsp2-558x372.jpg)
Smart Parking's Kinnoull Street car park in Perth.

Smart Parking has refused to reveal whether it will review its policies after a woman in England won a David and Goliath battle with a private parking firm over a number plate error.

Blessing Burgess paid for parking at a retail park in Stockport, Greater Manchester. However her husband Daniel had mistakenly entered the registration of their other car into the payment machine at the site.

The firm offered to reduce the amount owed to £10 as a “goodwill gesture” but Ms Burgess accused them of profiteering, given that they had suffered no financial loss.

However when the firm, Excel , took the case to Stockport Magistrates’ Court a judge ruled in the 31-year-old’s favour. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/meet-blessing-burgess-mum-three-13311154 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/meet-blessing-burgess-mum-three-13311154)

Payment machines requiring motorists to enter their vehicle registration numbers are used by Smart Parking in Perth, and dozens of drivers have been “fined” for errors including entering a zero on place of a letter O.

Perth and North Perthshire MP Pete Wishart, who has long campaigned against Smart Parking, said that private parking firms need to use common sense in cases of “simple human error”.

He said:  “My office has handed many of these cases to Smart Parking over the past two years, only to be told that the motorist is still at fault and that they have no intention of backing down.

“Now that a fellow private parking firm have lost their battle in the English courts, it is time for Smart Parking to accept that sometimes people can make mistakes and start acting constructively with motorists and elected representatives.

“Smart Parking are very fond of quoting the ‘Parking Eye v Beavis’ case in their hostile correspondence but I can’t imagine for a second they are going to start quoting this case where a judge found in favour of the motorist.

“When people can clearly prove that they have paid for parking but have made a genuine mistake, parking firms must see sense and withdraw their threat of legal action.

“I accept that parking firms must take action to prevent those knowingly flaunting the rules, but in all of the constituency examples I have sent them over the years, I have no cause to doubt that motorists were trying to pay for parking in good faith.”

A spokesman for Smart Parking refused to be drawn on whether the company would review it’s policy.

He said: “It is not for Smart Parking to comment on court cases where we are not involved or on the legal strategies employed.

“Instead, we are happy to confirm that we continue to operate our business according to our own high standards as well as the guidelines of the British Parking Association, of which we are a member.”

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/469905/smart-parking-urged-to-review-number-plate-error-fines-after-english-court-case/ (https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/469905/smart-parking-urged-to-review-number-plate-error-fines-after-english-court-case/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 12 March, 2018, 12:54:52 PM
#116

COMMENT: Both these car parks are "Pay and Display" but are policed by cameras and not human beings (I use the term loosely when it comes to the wea$els). A human being would have seen the displayed ticket was compliant and no PCN would have been stuck on the windscreen, and even if it had the driver would definitely have kept his ticket as proof.

This is the very reason why councils are not allowed to use anpr cameras for enforcement purposes.

=====================================================

Parking company says sorry after wrongly dishing out fines on two of Stoke-on-Trent's biggest car parks

Angry motorists contact The Sentinel after landing £60 fines in Hanley

Parking giant NCP has apologised to angry motorists - after sending out £60 parking fines by mistake.

The company has blamed the problem on faulty payment machines at its two Stoke-on-Trent car parks over a three-day period.

The problem affected the Glass Street and Meigh Street car parks, in Hanley, between February 7 and 10.

Nicola Amison was stunned to receive a fine after parking her car for just 13 minutes - and is warning drivers to always keep their pay-and-display tickets.

The 33-year-old, of Bucknall, said: “I parked on February 7 for just 13 minutes and put £2 in the meter because it is £1.80-an-hour. But I was then fined and luckily I found my parking ticket.

“The parking charge notice I received said I entered at 2pm and left at 2.15pm but my ticket says I paid at 2.02pm.”

(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article1277938.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/nicola-amison-1.jpg)
Nicola Amison was given a fine at the Meigh Street NCP car park after just 15 minutes.

Nicola vented her frustration on social media and was contacted by other victims.

Rob Poole, aged 45, of Sneyd Green, was shopping with his partner, Victoria Birch, when they received a parking ticket despite parking for just 30 minutes and buying a one-hour ticket.

He added: “We have sent our pay-and-display ticket to NCP but it should not be down to us to prove that we should not be fined – it should be down to the company to prove we did not pay. Some people will pay up to avoid the mither.”

(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article1278066.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Meigh-Street-NCP.jpg)
The NCP car park in Meigh Street.

NCP has blamed the incorrect fines on a 'technical issue' and says it will refund the motorists.

A spokesman said: "Due to a technical issue at our two car parks in Stoke-on-Trent, NCP incorrectly ticketed some of our customers who had paid for their parking.

"After receiving a number of appeals we have investigated the situation and found that our payment machines experienced intermittent faults which meant some payments were not registered correctly, and therefore a parking charge notice may have been issued. We have now cancelled all notices which have been affected.

"This is an extremely unfortunate and rare situation and we would like to offer our most sincere apologies to any of our customers who have been unfairly ticketed at Meigh Street and Glass Street and apologise that they have found themselves in the situation where they have had to take the time to appeal to us."

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/parking-company-says-sorry-after-1277964# (https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/parking-company-says-sorry-after-1277964#)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: TheKLF99 on 21 March, 2018, 11:13:29 AM
I have just received a parking fine from an ANPR system they have at Sainsbury's in Kidderminster.

Again like so many others this system has clearly got it wrong

The night in question I went to Brierley Hill Civic centre to see Knightmare Live.  On my way there I popped into Sainsbury's for some sweets and drinks for the show.

I then carried on driving to Brierley Hill to watch the show.  3 1/2 hours later I returned back via Kidderminster to Ludlow, stopping at Sainsbury's to do a bit of food shopping and get some petrol.  I wanted to get some frozen food shopping and didn't want it to defrost whilst at the show.

The parking restrictions were no return within 2 hours.

For some reason their system must have missed my reg plate on the initial exit, although I still don't understand why the system isn't setup that it checks plates on entry for those already in the car park, if it did this then it could have worked out that if a reg plate that is currently in the car park has reentered the car park then clearly that vehicle left the car park and for some reason the ANPR missed it on the exit.  I work in computers and it's not that hard to program and check unless the obvious reason is to deliberately scam motorists with fake tickets (not to mention also illegally retrieving motorists details from DVLA due to their faulty system)

Thankfully for me though I had Google maps turned on at the time and that has monitored my entire journey which proves I spent only 5 minutes each time in the car park and there was a clear 3 hours difference between the two journeys.  Unfortunately I have no video evidence that the vehicle actually moved although Google does say I drove from Sainsbury's and I met my friend at Brierley Hill and so he knows I was there with my vehicle at the time Horizon are claiming I was parked on their land in Kidderminster.

The only thing is I'm autistic and it's quite stressful that I don't know whether or not this firm will accept my appeal, and if they don't I'd have to then take it up with POPLA which taking it up with POPLA means the fine would then go up to £70.

The firm has said it takes 35 days to process an appeal which is ridiculous to have to wait stressing for 35 days about whether or not I have to pay this firm £40 just for shopping twice in Sainsbury's in one day.

The car park in Sainsbury's used to actually have a physical person going round checking the cars but now they've gone to this ANPR system.  I have wondered though what actually happens if the ANPR camera does miss a car leaving as I know ANPR isn't fully foolproof and my vehicle has a well lit reg plate, printed to the official standard even with the official font and EU GB flag - well now I know.  I have a feeling that what happened in my case is that in Sainsbury's there is two exits to the car park, one is an exit and entrance which you can quite clearly see the ANPR cameras on, but the other is an exit only and from what I can see doesn't have ANPR cameras on that exit.  That night I chose the exit only exit as at present my car has a slight fault with power steering and that exit is more straighter than the main entrance and exit, but regardless I would presume that if your going to put ANPR cameras on a car park you'd put ANPR cameras on all exits.

I went to Brierley Hill that night to see Knightmare Live, the show was great but the stress that this has caused thanks to Sainsbury's has spoilt all of that and I'm surprised that Lord Sainsbury who has a daughter with Aspergers can't see why such a situation of accusing someone in this way with Aspergers would stress them out.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 22 March, 2018, 10:36:02 AM
#117

Contact Sainsburys mate and tell them that if they don't put it right you will be contacting your local press. And if Sainsburys say it's out of their hands and you need to go through the appeals process, contact the press and tell your story exactly how you said it on here.

This is yet another case of being guilty until proven innocent, something that only happens in the parking industry. It's disgraceful that anyone is put through this process. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you think we can help.

We have some experts on here who I'm sure would love to give Horizon and Sainsburys a very hard time if they insist on prolonging this process unnecessarily.  :-ev-:

======================================================


I have just received a parking fine from an ANPR system they have at Sainsbury's in Kidderminster.

Again like so many others this system has clearly got it wrong

The night in question I went to Brierley Hill Civic centre to see Knightmare Live.  On my way there I popped into Sainsbury's for some sweets and drinks for the show.

I then carried on driving to Brierley Hill to watch the show.  3 1/2 hours later I returned back via Kidderminster to Ludlow, stopping at Sainsbury's to do a bit of food shopping and get some petrol.  I wanted to get some frozen food shopping and didn't want it to defrost whilst at the show.

The parking restrictions were no return within 2 hours.

For some reason their system must have missed my reg plate on the initial exit, although I still don't understand why the system isn't setup that it checks plates on entry for those already in the car park, if it did this then it could have worked out that if a reg plate that is currently in the car park has reentered the car park then clearly that vehicle left the car park and for some reason the ANPR missed it on the exit.  I work in computers and it's not that hard to program and check unless the obvious reason is to deliberately scam motorists with fake tickets (not to mention also illegally retrieving motorists details from DVLA due to their faulty system)

Thankfully for me though I had Google maps turned on at the time and that has monitored my entire journey which proves I spent only 5 minutes each time in the car park and there was a clear 3 hours difference between the two journeys.  Unfortunately I have no video evidence that the vehicle actually moved although Google does say I drove from Sainsbury's and I met my friend at Brierley Hill and so he knows I was there with my vehicle at the time Horizon are claiming I was parked on their land in Kidderminster.

The only thing is I'm autistic and it's quite stressful that I don't know whether or not this firm will accept my appeal, and if they don't I'd have to then take it up with POPLA which taking it up with POPLA means the fine would then go up to £70.

The firm has said it takes 35 days to process an appeal which is ridiculous to have to wait stressing for 35 days about whether or not I have to pay this firm £40 just for shopping twice in Sainsbury's in one day.

The car park in Sainsbury's used to actually have a physical person going round checking the cars but now they've gone to this ANPR system.  I have wondered though what actually happens if the ANPR camera does miss a car leaving as I know ANPR isn't fully foolproof and my vehicle has a well lit reg plate, printed to the official standard even with the official font and EU GB flag - well now I know.  I have a feeling that what happened in my case is that in Sainsbury's there is two exits to the car park, one is an exit and entrance which you can quite clearly see the ANPR cameras on, but the other is an exit only and from what I can see doesn't have ANPR cameras on that exit.  That night I chose the exit only exit as at present my car has a slight fault with power steering and that exit is more straighter than the main entrance and exit, but regardless I would presume that if your going to put ANPR cameras on a car park you'd put ANPR cameras on all exits.

I went to Brierley Hill that night to see Knightmare Live, the show was great but the stress that this has caused thanks to Sainsbury's has spoilt all of that and I'm surprised that Lord Sainsbury who has a daughter with Aspergers can't see why such a situation of accusing someone in this way with Aspergers would stress them out.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 March, 2018, 11:44:09 AM
Horizon dropped the case, but Darren (The KLF99) has a decent tip to counter the double dipping scam perpetrated on him and many others (via ParkingCowboys' website).

===========================================

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/2018-03-double-dip-location-tracking/ (https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/2018-03-double-dip-location-tracking/)

A clever tip to prove you didn’t ‘double dip’

Posted on March 22, 2018 by Parking Cowboys — No Comments ↓
From: Darren


Hi,

I notice that you have some bits on your site about “Double Dipping” and some advise that might help people who have had this scam tried.

I recently was double dipped in Sainsbury’s in Kidderminster. I went to get some sweets before going to see a show in Brierley Hill.

Later on I returned to Sainsbury’s (totally after the “no return period”) to do some food shopping.

I then received a parking ticket claiming I’d been in their parking bay for 3 1/2 hours (even when the show I was in 9 miles away was on – interesting concept).

Initially I thought to myself well how on earth do I prove it – I went to a show and when I went to the show I didn’t stand outside taking pictures of my car because I didn’t anticipate Sainsbury’s trying to make out my car was still parked on their car park as that hadn’t entered my head.

Then I suddenly thought about a clever tool – I remember reading somewhere that if you have an android phone it monitors your location constantly and builds a map of where you’ve been.

Luckily I did have an android phone – and I found out that if you go to google.com/maps/timeline it shows you exactly where your phone went.

Really handy – from that I could get the time I arrived in the car park (which matched their time entrance time), and the time I left the first time and the time I went back and the time I left the second time (which matched their exit time).

I then found out that you can print this by pressing Ctrl+P and export it to a PDF – great now just forward it to both Sainsbury’s and the Horizon parking – two days later Horizon dropped the case.

It’s handy to look at if you think you haven’t got any proof you’ve made two visits to the same shop.

I just thought I’d share this with you so you can share this with other people using this site who may be in a similar position.


 

Hi Darren, thanks for writing in with this tip. The legal standard for deciding such cases in the county court is on the balance of probabilities. If you presented your evidence, and the parking company could not offer any further evidence, then on the balance of probabilites your defence should be upheld.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 22 April, 2018, 12:45:53 PM
#118 and #119

===================================


Below is a link to the BBC Watchdog programme broadcast last Wednesday, 18th April 2018.

Andrew Pester's (current BPA Ltd CEO) interview starts at about 8 minutes 40 seconds.

When questioned about the double dip/ANPR victims who feature in the preceding report he states (at 10 mins 47 secs) "...with any technology it's not 100%"

At 10 mins 32 secs "...where technology is involved it is often not 100% foolproof"

At 10 mins 48 secs "...errors do happen and lessons have to be learned"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaKMkO3YVM&feature=youtu.be)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: BGB on 23 May, 2018, 08:11:29 PM
Motorist stuck in C-charge nightmare as TfL cameras mistake bus for his Mercedes

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/motorist-stuck-in-ccharge-nightmare-as-tfl-cameras-mistake-bus-for-his-mercedes-a3845251.html

A motorist has been wrongly charged thousands of pounds in congestion charges — because Transport for London cameras keep mistaking a bus for his car.

Leon Grant set up a direct debit with TfL via its auto pay system three years ago so that he would pay £10.50 every time he drove into central London during the week. He now rarely drives into the congestion charge zone but is still being charged up to £200 per month.

It was only after reporting the wrong charges to TfL for more than two years that officials realised their cameras had been unable to distinguish between the numberplate on his Mercedes and one belonging to a TfL bus.

Mr Grant’s personalised number plate is LJG6, which TfL says is a “very similar registration” to one on a bus, which includes the combination LJ66. He said: “I kept getting these bills every month for £100 or £200 and I thought, ‘This is bizarre, I haven’t been in the congestion zone this month’.

“Sometimes my statement says I’ve done 10 trips into the city, other months it’s apparently 20 — but it’s never me.”

Mr Grant, an accountant, set up the auto pay direct debit in 2015, when he would often drive into central London from his home in East Finchley. Auto pay, which is £10 a year to join, allows TfL to record the number of times that a vehicle travels into the congestion zone between 7am and 8pm on weekdays. It then sends the driver a monthly bill, which is paid as a direct debit.

Almost immediately after signing up, Mr Grant noticed he was being charged for trips he had not taken. He complained and TfL sent him a refund, but the erroneous payments continued.

At first, Mr Grant thought his vehicle had been cloned and contacted police. But, after two years of refunds, TfL realised the anomaly. Officials put him on a “watch list” in January, meaning that charges should be checked before being issued, but they kept on coming.

He said: “Each time they apologise for any inconvenience, but then they do it again the next month and the month after that. How many other people have had to do his if their cameras cannot distinguish between a G and a 6? If I’d not set up the direct debit, they would have taken out a county court judgment against me for not paying.”

In a letter to Mr Grant in January, a TfL representative wrote: “I can confirm the vehicle being charged is not a clone vehicle. The vehicle being charged for the journeys is a bus with a very similar registration mark, which is LJ66, and that is being charged on your CC Auto Pay as it recognises the vehicle as LJG6.”

A TfL spokesman said that of the 10,720,579 journeys recorded in the zone last year from vehicles on auto pay or fleet accounts, 145 charges were refunded due to a registration error.

Paul Cowperthwaite, General Manager of Road User Charging at TfL, said: “I apologise to Mr Grant for any distress or inconvenience caused. We have cancelled all erroneous charges and are investigating why this has occurred.”

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 10:34:37 AM
#120

Couple fined £100 for overstaying at car park because they got stuck in a queue trying to leave

(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2018/02/16/TELEMMGLPICT000154520972_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqbFoXn4d1uVNGRa1pDHVYNOxQQAzv8_GbhAJNOKndEE8.jpeg?imwidth=1400)
Donna and Darren Jacques were given a £100 fine

A couple was fined for overstaying at a car park because the queue was so long they could not leave.

Donna and Darren Jacques were back at their car in the Stockton car park with time to spare, but they could not leave for another half an hour due to grid-locked traffic.

They appealed against the £100 fine but it was upheld by the independent ombudsman POPLA, which said the couple was still using the car park despite them trying to leave.

It said they should have bought a new ticket to cover the time they spent queuing. Car park operator ParkingEye had fined the couple, producing CCTV photos of them leaving the car park late.

The couple, from Billingham, had taken their two children to a firework display on Bonfire Night last year.

Mrs Jacques said: "We have never disputed we were half an hour late, but you don't pay to sit in a car park. "We couldn't physically leave.

"There's CCTV on the entrance, which is the same as the exit. I don't know if they've seen us coming back to the car.

"It feels like they're pushing you as far as they can so you will just give up and pay."

POPLA said the couple were still using the car park's facilities "regardless of whether they considered themselves to be parked".

Acknowledging the couple had paid for two hours parking, it added "this does not detract from the fact that they were 34 minutes over the time paid for."

"The parking operator, as stated on the signage, allows motorists to pay for additional time if required before leaving.

"It is reasonable to believe the appellant was aware they would not leave the car park within the timeframe they paid for and therefore was able to purchase more time but failed to do so."

Stockton North MP Alex Cunningham has called for action on parking companies after receiving complaints from constituents. ParkingEye has since cancelled the Jacques' fine as a "goodwill gesture".

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said the company followed the British Parking Association's "strict" code of practice and welcomed any legislation that aims to "drive consistency and improve processes".

"ParkingEye operates an audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.

"If a motorist disagrees with our decision they have the option to appeal to the independent appeals service (POPLA).

"In this case the parking charge has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/16/couple-fined-100-overstaying-car-park-got-stuck-queue-trying/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/16/couple-fined-100-overstaying-car-park-got-stuck-queue-trying/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 10:59:39 AM
#121

"We [Smart Parking Ltd] have cancelled the charge as an act of goodwill". Obviously not because of the bad publicity the initial act of greed attracted.  <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy:

=============================

NHS worker fined £100 for overstaying at car park - even though she was saving a man's life
Margaret Kidson thought she had a reasonable excuse for her 11 minute overstay, but parking officials disagreed

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11951440.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/NHS-worker-given-%C2%A3100-parking-fine-for-overstaying-in-shopping-centre-car-park-after-rushing-to-help.jpg)
Margaret Kidson was stunned when parking chiefs refused to withdraw the fine she picked up while saving a man's life

An NHS worker was stunned when she was given a £100 parking fine - even though she was saving a man's life after he collapsed in the street.

Margaret Kidson rushed to help the man, who was having an epileptic attack, outside a shopping centre in Kent.

The 60-year-old looked after him and made sure he wasn't hurt, but this took her 11 minutes over the time limit.

When she was sent a £60 fine she appealed, confident that her excuse would be deemed reasonable.

But operators Smart Parking Ltd - who enforce fines at the Erith Riverside Shopping Centre - threw out her protest, and upped the fine to £100.

However this morning a spokesman told Mirror Online that the fine had been cancelled "as an act of goodwill".

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11951441.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/NHS-worker-given-%C2%A3100-parking-fine-for-overstaying-in-shopping-centre-car-park.jpg)
She was fined after an 11 minute overstay at the Erith Riverside Shopping Centre (Image: Google)

She told The Sun before the hefty fine was written off: "I think it's disgusting. I was coming to the aid of someone."

When she spotted the man in October, she gave him first aid to ensure he did not choke on his own vomit.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11951442.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Parking-ticket-payment-machine.jpg)
NHS worker Margaret Kidson was stunned to be issued with the fine

She stayed with him for 20 minutes, saying that it would not have been safe to leave him on his own.

Margaret, who works in the drug and alcohol service at the nearby Erith Health Centre said: "You can't leave them, they could die."

She said she waited by his side until nurses arrived to help him - not expecting to be hit by a fine.

In total she was with the man for around 20 minutes, meaning she would have otherwise been back comfortably before her time ran out.

Guidance from the Epilepsy Society says anyone helping a person having a seizure should stay with them, and call an ambulance if it does not stop within five minutes.

After the seizure ends, the patient should be put in the recovery position, and first aiders should stay with them until they are recovered.

A spokesman from Spark Parking Ltd said: “We have cancelled the charge as an act of goodwill."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-worker-fined-100-overstaying-11951431 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-worker-fined-100-overstaying-11951431)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 11:18:29 AM
Gymgoer, 22, is stunned to get £100 parking fine for overstaying by just TWO seconds

Amy Bendall, 22, issued with fine after stay at the Midleway car park in Burton
She was slapped with a £100 fine for being mere seconds after her five-hour stay
Furious, Ms Bendall contacted firm Smart Parking which cancelled the notice


A driver was stunned when she was slapped with £100 parking fine for overstaying by just two seconds.

Amy Bendall, 22, left her car in the Middleway car park in Burton town centre after visiting a local gym.

She paid for her five-hour stay, but four days later she was shocked to receive a parking fine notice from the parking operators.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/15/18/482B557D00000578-5271549-image-a-3_1516039435438.jpg)

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/15/18/4829C79E00000578-5271549-Ms_Bendall_s_fine_after_she_returned_two_seconds_later_to_the_Mi-a-2_1516039435324.jpg)

Ms Bendall said: 'I had gone to the gym and then into town. I checked the time and paid for the five hours I had been there, but then I got a ticket for staying two seconds longer.

'You would have thought there would be a bit of a grace period. It look me a little longer to get out of the car park because I got stuck in a queue.

'It would hardly be fair being fined for that.'

In the notice it said she paid the fee within 14 days, it would be reduced to £60.

But as she had kept her receipt, Ms Bendall decided to appeal the decision and the company cancelled the fine when she informed them about what had happened.   

A new system is in operation at the Middleway car park, which serves businesses including Matalan, Bella Italia and Nando’s.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/15/18/482B556800000578-5271549-image-m-7_1516039478302.jpg)

It means shoppers can get four hours car parking for free, but will have to pay if they want to leave their car for longer. Five hours costs £1 and a full day costs £10. 

A spokesman from Smart Parking confirmed that the fine issued to Miss Bednall had been cancelled. 

He said he would be unable to comment further, but added all information was available to customers on signs in the car park.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/15/17/482A263D00000578-5271549-image-m-4_1516037050014.jpg)
Just two seconds: The parking notice clearly shows the 10.57.14 entry time and the 15.57.16 exit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5271549/Gymgoer-fined-100-overstaying-TWO-seconds-car-park.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5271549/Gymgoer-fined-100-overstaying-TWO-seconds-car-park.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 11:57:22 AM
#122

The whole of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 refers to "parking". See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted (http://http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted)

Personally speaking, if I had overstayed by a few seconds I would take this all the way to court and make them prove that I was parked for the entire time.

===============================

Mum fined £155 after SEVEN SECOND overstay in pub car park

The owner of the Barley Mow pub in Histon has defended its parking system

blob:https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/0f9de123-7260-470f-8294-09d3c06c430f (http://blob:https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/0f9de123-7260-470f-8294-09d3c06c430f)
(http://blob:https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/0f9de123-7260-470f-8294-09d3c06c430f)
http://blob:https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/0f9de123-7260-470f-8294-09d3c06c430f

A mum-of-two is furious that she faces a £155 bill for a seven second overstay in a pub car park.

Leonie Isaacson, 52, was handed a penalty charge after parking outside the Barley Mow in Histon on Saturday, February 17.

Her brief stay between 8:06:03 and 08:11:10 contravened the five minute grace period for motorists.

The Cambridge resident said she had only been stopping to buy a loaf at the bakery opposite and felt the parking policy was "over the top".

But the Barley Mow's landlady, Dore McCann, has hit back saying people have misused her car park for years at a cost to her business.

She said she had faced a barrage of abuse since the introduction of the new system.

(https://i2-prod.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/article14596376.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1877201-24_DSC_1757.jpg)
One of the parking notices outside the pub

Ms Isaacson, a learning development consultant, routinely drops off her son for sports practice in Histon.

"I go to Barkers Bakery to get some bread," she explained. "I parked as usual at the Barley Mow and just nip across."

"I hadn't noticed that they had stuck up these notices about the parking so it was a bit of a surprise to receive that parking charge."

The Barley Mow introduced a new parking system on February 6 to crack down on non-customer usage.

Pub customers must register their car's registration number on a tablet to ensure they are protected for 12 hour free parking.

Penalty fees start at £85, falling to £50 if paid within 14 days.

(https://i2-prod.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/article14596380.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1877198-C7_DSC_1744.jpg)

Ms Isaacson challenged her penalty with ZZPS, which provides customer services for Enterprise Parking Solutions Ltd.

But because of the extended correspondence she faces late payment and additional administration charges, taking her total bill to £155.

The company said it could not check the calibration on the car park's camera unless an appeal was lodged with POPLA - an independent appeals service for parking charge notices.

But Ms Isaacson was unaware of the 28-day window to register such an appeal and is left "frustrated" by the whole experience.

"I feel for the Barley Mow," she said. "But it's not great for customers. I work with a number of people who live in Histon and they are all shocked. It's pretty tough.

"If it had been a couple of minutes I'd have gone 'fair dues'."

"At eight o'clock in the morning, there's no trade and the pub isn't open to get a permit. It's seems a little bit over the top and a bit unfair."

Ms Isaacson said she had never received a parking penalty charge before.

She added: "The last notice talks about debt recovery. I don't want a bailiff at the door. It's a bit intimidataing."

(https://i2-prod.cambridge-news.co.uk/incoming/article14596412.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1877200-IR_DSC_1753.jpg)
Pub landlady Dore McCann said she had faced a barrage of abuse about the pub's car park rules

But pub landlady Ms McCann told the News that the introduction of the new parking system at the pub had seen her constantly abused.

"For 24 years I've gave my car park free to the village," she explained. "Unfortunately our car park is being used constantly by people for five minutes. It's being used permanently.

"I pay a huge amount of rates, a huge amount of rent. I've lost hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of business because I wanted to be neighbourly to the village."

Ms McCann emphasised that the car park was private property there for the benefits of customers but was always being used by local shoppers.

Her stocktaker and delivery lorries have on occasion been unable to stop outside because the car park was full.

A total of 11 signs have been put up in the 16-space car park, but people still challenge penalty charges.

"I'm still verbally abused via my Facebook and TripAdvisor," she said. "I'm constantly under a barrage of abuse.

"If people used my car park correctly I wouldn't have done this. The car park is for customers only."

Ms McCann said that she has a long list of tickets she has cancelled for people who have apologised for mis-using the car park.

But other drivers have entered the pub making demands and she claimed one person had even thrown a bottle at her.

"It's not an acceptable for people to behave like this," she said.

"I parked in an Aldi for over an hour and a half, I got a ticket and I paid it immediately. As a driver I should look at the signs."

She added that a lot of people in the village were on her side and understood she was protecting private property.

"Everybody does five minutes and then this car park is permanently full," Ms McCann said. "There's no room for my customers."

"I'm hoping in time it will adjust."

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/histon-pub-car-park-penalty-14595931 (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/histon-pub-car-park-penalty-14595931)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 12:16:05 PM
#123

The sad thing is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Once again the motorist has to prove her innocence.

And once again she could not have been parked for the whole time she was in the car park.

===============================================

Mother fined £185 for overstaying her time in a car park by just TWO SECONDS
A MOTHER was left shocked when she received a £185 bill for overstaying her parking time by two SECONDS after changing her son's diaper.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Parking-ticket-727130.jpg)
Liz Taylor was taken to court over an unpaid fine for overstaying in a free car park

Liz Taylor was taken to court after parking her car at the Castlegate Retail Park in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, October last year.

Mrs Taylor, who works as part-time as a pharmacy technician, thought she had plenty of time to do her shopping since the car park offered two hours of free parking.

She was shopping at Laura Ashley and walked further into town when she could not find what she was looking for.

Mrs Taylor was further delayed when her two-year-old son Zac needed to have his nappy changed.

A fine was issued a week after the incident, demanding £85 for overstaying in the parking lot.

Because she did not respond to the fine, she received a court summons to Huddersfield County Court on october 11 this year.

Mrs Taylor said the fine from ParkingEye Ltd is more than she earns a week in her job.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/Parking-ticket-703498.jpg)

She was initially offered a £30 discount on her ticket if she paid within 14 days of it being issued, but now she was told by the court to pay the whole sum.

The mother claims to have done everything to leave the car park on time.

The car park now allows cars to stay for free only up to 90 minutes.

Speaking about the incident, she said: "A week later I got a letter from ParkingEye Ltd demanding £85 discounted to £50 if I paid within 14 days.

"New legislation means motorists are allowed a ten-minute period of grace on top of the permitted two hours. So this meant I was just two seconds over."

She continued: "I just don’t think it’s fair especially as I made every effort to get back and out of the car park on time.

"And how do you know that their cameras are accurate to two seconds?"

The company allows for appeals to submitted but because she failed to provide evidence she shopped at the retail park, her appeal was rejected.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/Parking-ticket-703499.jpg)

A ParkingEye spokesman told the Daily Mail Online: "People using this car park have a responsibility to make sure they do not overstay their time, otherwise a parking charge will become payable."

"If however, they feel they should not have received a charge due to mitigating circumstances, we encourage people to submit an appeal, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communication and on our website.

"On this occasion the driver failed to provide any evidence that she had shopped on the site and therefore her appeal was rejected."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/727130/Mother-fined-185-overstaying-time-car-park-two-seconds (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/727130/Mother-fined-185-overstaying-time-car-park-two-seconds)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 12:44:28 PM
#124

===============================

Two supermarket trips mistaken for all-day parking

By Jonny Drury | Welshpool | News | Published: Jan 1, 2018

A couple who made two short trips to Welshpool supermarket in two days have been hit with parking fine accusing them of spending almost a whole day parked in the car park.

(https://www.shropshirestar.com/resizer/__v6VV1h79uUCcZ1sdWMMrVlgnc=/1000x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-shropshirestar-mna.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LOIHLD63PFHXDOTKYAHZYYEIJE.jpg)
Morrisons in Welshpool. Photo: Google StreetView.

Pip Morris had visited Morrisons on November 23 for five minutes, before her husband visited the following day also for a short time.

So the couple were stunned to receive a fine from Parking Eye this week, claiming they had left their car in the car park for almost 24 hours.

Pip was left angry and confused over the situation, and has contacted the company, which runs parking on behalf of the supermarket, for answers.

She said: "I had a parking ticket saying I’d parked from around 5.30pm until 10.35am the next day, totalling to around 17 hours or so, which I hadn’t.

"I’d gone in on the evening of November 23 and sent one of the kids in and returned five minutes later.

Then my husband and I popped into Morrisons the next day, which happened to be 10.35am. The machine has missed us leaving on the 23rd and returning the next day. It sounds confusing

"Parking eye haven’t given me a genuine reason for their error.

"They and Morrisons both made me feel as they were doing me a favour taking the charge from me. It’s not nice to have these fines, especially over Christmas, it is very much unnecessary as they are not genuine."

Pip said: "I was confused. I thought that somebody had used my car but I can recall when I used my car, as can my husband with his charges.

"I am just very annoyed that the company don't have their CCTV on to deal with this."

“I am just very annoyed the company doesn’t have their on CCTV to deal with this.” Other shoppers have also reported suffering from the same problem and have threatened to boycott the store.

Parking Eye was contacted for a comment.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/mid-wales/welshpool/2018/01/01/fined-two-supermarket-trips-mistaken-for-all-day-parking/ (https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/mid-wales/welshpool/2018/01/01/fined-two-supermarket-trips-mistaken-for-all-day-parking/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 01:06:23 PM
#125

Asda shopper warns of their 'faulty parking system' after being fined 'for six-hour car park stay' when he actually visited twice on the same day

Jamie Stark went to Asda to stock up on festive food with his mother and brother
He later returned to the Hull-based store realising he had forgotten a few things
Mr Stark later received a fine alleging that he had stayed longer than five hours
Comes just weeks after another shopper was issued a fine for the same reason


A shopper has warned fellow motorists of a 'faulty parking system' which saw him slapped with a fine for visiting Asda twice in one day.

Jamie Stark, 40, who lives in east Hull, went to Asda Mount Pleasant with his mother and brother on December 23 to stock up on food for the festive period.

He returned to the same shop in the afternoon when he realised he had forgotten a number of items.

But, soon after, he received a note saying he had to pay a £70 fine - with the store saying he had parked for more than five and a half hours.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/10/09/47F9AB4800000578-5253693-image-a-21_1515577881255.jpg)
Jamie Stark was disgusted after receiving the fine from Parking Eye, claiming that he overstayed at the Asda car park despite visiting the store twice

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/10/09/47F9AB4C00000578-5253693-image-a-22_1515577886070.jpg)
Mr Stark has been stocking up on Christmas food over the festive period at the Hull-based store, but realised he had forgotten bottle bags after his first trip so returned later in the day

Mr Stark has spoken of his disgust at receiving the fine and said a 'fault in the system' meant the camera did not recognise he had made two trips.

'I got to the car park the first time at 8.52am,' he said.

'We shopped for around two hours and then left at 10.57am. I know that because I found the receipt from the supermarket.

'I went back to Asda at just after 2pm because I'd forgotten to get some bottle bags, and was only there for about five minutes.

'I then received a £70 fine which said I had parked in the car park for more than five and a half hours.'

It is the second time in just weeks that an Asda car park - managed by company Parking Eye - has fined someone who made two separate trips.

Grimsby woman Sarah Walton was fined £70 for her trip to Asda, and was accused of parking for 14 hours.

Jamie said he had searched online and had found other people who had been fined for 'double dipping' - a term created to describe people who visit the same car park twice in one day.

The Hull man has appealed against the fine - which if paid within 14 days is reduced to £40 - and said he expects for it to be rescinded.

A Parking Eye spokesman said: 'We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/10/09/47B8CA0C00000578-0-image-a-1_1515575051784.jpg)
It comes after Sarah Walton (pictured) of Grimsby was fined £70 for her trip to Asda and was accused of parking for 14 hours

'In this case, we can confirm that this charge has been cancelled.'

Jamie threatened to do his future shopping in Morrisons instead, where he would not run the risk of a repeat fine.

He is now warning other motorists to be cautious of the car park.

'If that was my mum and dad, they would have rung up and paid it,' Jamie said.

'I knew I was not paying. I would have let them take me all the way to court before I parted with any money.

'My advice to other people would be always dispute it - if you know it is wrong don't just pay it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5253693/Shopper-fined-overstaying-visiting-store-twice.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5253693/Shopper-fined-overstaying-visiting-store-twice.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 01:15:33 PM
#126

ASDA BE A JOKE Couple who visited Asda twice in one day slapped with £70 parking fine after store accused them of staying there 14 hours straight

Baffled mum Sarah Walton hit out at ASDA after its high-tech camera system thought she'd been there for 14 hours after a 40-minute shop

A COUPLE have been hit with a £70 parking ticket – for visiting an Asda car park twice in one day.

Baffled mum Sarah Walton hit out at the "incomprehensible" fine after bungling inspectors assumed she'd clocked in for a 14-hour stay at the store in Grimsby.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nintchdbpict000375921933.jpg?w=960)
Baffled Sarah Walton has hit out at ASDA after its high-tech camera system claimed she'd been there for 14 hours after a 40-minute shop

In fact, her car was there twice that day - once briefly in the morning, and then again later at night.

Husband Dennis had briefly stopped there to use the cash machine on the way to work in December - before she returned that evening for the weekly shop with her daughter.

Sarah thinks Asda's hi-tech camera system didn't pick up Dennis leaving, and assumed the car spent 14 hours there when she drove out later.

She said: "I think that this is a massive joke, who would possibly want to leave their car in Asda car park for 14 hours.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nintchdbpict000375921966.jpg?w=960)
Sarah believes Asda's hi-tech camera system didn't pick up Dennis leaving - and assumed the car spent 14 hours there when she drove out in the evening

"Even if you were using it as somewhere to park while you were at work somewhere nearby, you aren't going to be there for 14 hours it is ridiculous.

"My husband has the information that shows when he clocked into work and when he clocked out, so we are able to prove that he has not left the car there for that length of time.

"I just would have thought it would have clocked onto someone that this must be a mistake."

The error comes just weeks after a hairdresser was fined £50 when a malfunctioning camera system fined him £50 for overstaying when didn't even park because of heavy traffic.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nintchdbpict000375921956.jpg?w=960)
The Asda store in Grimsby where the Waltons were fined

And last year a motorist was stung for £100 after cameras failed to notice that his car was parked on top of a tow truck.
Asda have since spoken to Sarah and apologised for the error.

A spokesman said: "We would like to apologise to Ms Walton for the mistake made by our parking operator and we are pleased that the fine has been cancelled."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5265801/couple-asda-carpark-fine-14-hour-shop/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5265801/couple-asda-carpark-fine-14-hour-shop/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 June, 2018, 01:22:58 PM
#127

Wonder how many people paid up without question?

=======================================

Driver fined £100 after parking for two hours at retail park - when sign said it was free

Tracey McConville, from Blackley, parked at Cheetham Hill Retail Park on Saturday, December 19, for a shopping trip with her daughter

(https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10785977.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/parking-ticket.jpg)
Tracey McConville received a £100 parking charge - despite saying she was only parked for two hours

A woman has spoken of her anger after she was fined for parking for two hours when a sign said it was free for THREE hours.

Tracey McConville, from Blackley , parked at Cheetham Hill Retail Park on Saturday, December 19, for a shopping trip with her daughter.

She arrived at the car park just before 2pm and stayed until 4.18pm, keeping to the three hours maximum stay rules, which is advertised on a sign.

Ten days later she was shocked to receive a parking fine in the post from car park firm Parking Eye Carpark Management.

The letter said she remained in the car park for longer than the two hours limit and she must pay £100 within 28 days.

Tracey, a hairdresser, was convinced something was wrong and drove back to the car park to check the signs.

She took several photographs to prove the signs inform drivers they can park in the carpark for a maximum of three hours, with no return in two hours.

(https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article10785975.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS80144131.jpg)
The parking sign at Cheetham Hill Road Retail Park

Tracey is now refusing to pay the £100 parking fine after discovering the signs are giving motorists the wrong information.

A number of workers in the surrounding shops said they believe their customers are being incorrectly fined.

But they were unable to help Tracey as the management firm controls the car park and not the retailers.

Tracey said she has attempted several times to call Parking Eye to explain her case but can only reach an automated system. She has also sent a letter of appeal, including the photographs, to the firm.

Tracey, 51, said: “It happened just before Christmas - how many more people have had that letter through the door?

“People need to be made aware of it. I have tried to call up and complain but it is just an automated system. Every shop is saying everybody is complaining to us, they say it is nothing to do with us we have got new landlords.”

She added: “They are really naughty for doing this, we have sent a letter of appeal it clearly states three hours. We had gone into PC World to buy a camera, we decided to come back on Boxing Day to get it cheaper.

“We spent £1,000 in PC World, but then after everything we saved we get that letter for a £100 fine.”

After Parking Eye were contacted by the M.E.N., a spokeswoman said the parking charge has since been cancelled.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/driver-fined-100-after-parking-10785633 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/driver-fined-100-after-parking-10785633)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: DBC on 27 June, 2018, 07:11:44 PM
Fury as motorists ‘fleeced for £60’ for driving through a car park

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/979916/parking-fines-burton-workout-gym-washlands-social-club (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/979916/parking-fines-burton-workout-gym-washlands-social-club)

Dozens of disgruntled visitors claim to have received charges of £60 and more after driving through the gym car park to get to the social club - one of the only two routes to access the popular sport venue.

Washlands Social Club chairman, Matt Seaborn, said: "I had a first ticket in January but I appealed it and got it quashed.

"We've just been driving through the car park. There's something not right with the camera system.

"The majority of people will drive through the car park now the bridge has shut."

There are two car park cameras in the Workout Gym car park and on the bridge towards the social club.
One is to clock whether cars are actually staying in the gym car park and the other is to recognise whether a vehicle is just passing through to get to the club instead of staying.

Father-of-three Simon Rushton, of Stretton, said he was taking his son to a junior football match at the Washlands Social Club back in February when he received an unexpected parking fine 10 days later.

He believes the parking camera in The Workout car park picked his vehicle in on the way in but claims the camera on the bridge failed to recognise that he was only passing through.

The 48-year-old said: "It's the camera on the bridge which is the problem, are far as they are concerned I parked there.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 28 June, 2018, 08:39:57 AM
#128
You missed a bit DBC. Here is the full article.

=====================================

Fury as motorists ‘fleeced for £60’ for driving through a car park

ANGRY drivers are allegedly having to fork out charges of £60 and higher after spending just seconds driving through a car park.

Motorists say they have been slapped with hefty parking fines after driving through the Workout Gym car park in Wetmore Road, in Burton, to get to Washlands Social Club behind it in Meadow Road, Burton.

Dozens of disgruntled visitors claim to have received charges of £60 and more after driving through the gym car park to get to the social club - one of the only two routes to access the popular sport venue.

Washlands Social Club chairman, Matt Seaborn, said: "I had a first ticket in January but I appealed it and got it quashed.

"We've just been driving through the car park. There's something not right with the camera system.

"The majority of people will drive through the car park now the bridge has shut."

There are two car park cameras in the Workout Gym car park and on the bridge towards the social club.

One is to clock whether cars are actually staying in the gym car park and the other is to recognise whether a vehicle is just passing through to get to the club instead of staying.

Father-of-three Simon Rushton, of Stretton, said he was taking his son to a junior football match at the Washlands Social Club back in February when he received an unexpected parking fine 10 days later.

He believes the parking camera in The Workout car park picked his vehicle in on the way in but claims the camera on the bridge failed to recognise that he was only passing through.

The 48-year-old said: "It's the camera on the bridge which is the problem, are far as they are concerned I parked there.

"I went into the car park twice and came out twice, but they only gave me one ticket which was very generous.

"I put a post on the Spotted Burton Facebook page and had a few replies from others with the same issue.

"People have even paid the fines just to stop the hassle and threatening letters.

"I'm still in the appeal process. The appeal has been turned down and then they employ a collections company, they will be knocking on doors soon and then it goes to the courts."

Premier Park, the parking company which operate the cameras in The Workout gym car park, said it is unaware of any motorists driving through the site receiving unfair charges.

In a statement, it said: "Prior to our involvement the gym often found their car park full of non-members causing inconvenience to genuine users and the issue was also starting to affect their business.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/car-park-979916.jpg?r=1530041206750)
Motorists say they have received hefty fines after driving through the car park

"We implemented an ANPR system linked into a touchscreen terminal for members to register when visiting the gym and this system has resolved the issues with non-member parking.

"There are two cameras to cover the entrances and exits at each end and we are not aware, from the thousands of vehicles using the site over a period of time, of any issues of vehicles driving through the site receiving charges.

"Premier Park are members of the British Parking Association and also offer a full independent appeals service via POPLA.

"We would urge anyone who believes they have been issued a charge incorrectly to contact us through the correct channels indicated on the Parking Charge Notice."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/979916/parking-fines-burton-workout-gym-washlands-social-club (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/979916/parking-fines-burton-workout-gym-washlands-social-club)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 28 June, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
Turns out that Premier Park have got form for this type of thing, which makes the statement "...we are not aware, from the thousands of vehicles using the site over a period of time, of any issues of vehicles driving through the site receiving charges" sound hollow to say the least.

See here:

Family fined £100 after pulling into Exeter car park for six minutes
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Family-fined-100-pulling-Exeter-car-park-minutes/story-26612690-detail/story.html# (http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Family-fined-100-pulling-Exeter-car-park-minutes/story-26612690-detail/story.html#)
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.msg34498;topicseen#msg34498 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.msg34498;topicseen#msg34498)

and here:

Premier Park Ltd is also a member of the BPA. They issued Ian Peat with a parking charge without him even parking.

Ian Peat had gone the wrong way on a holiday in Cornwall. The first port of call for him was to use the car park he saw on the side of the road to turn around. He was in and out of there in around 3 minutes - He received a ticket.

Despite the BPA code saying that parking companies should allow drivers a reasonable “grace” period to leave without actually parking – Ian received a £60 charge after just three minutes.

Premier Park said he’d entered a restricted area. And Ian noticed that the charge soon began to rise, with a threat of reaching £150 if he didn’t pay within 28 days. Ian says he thinks it is ridiculous. Ridiculous maybe, and arguably against the BPA Code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4jKcc6g2sd9rqR9sFZKCBjQ/private-parking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4jKcc6g2sd9rqR9sFZKCBjQ/private-parking)
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.msg34494;topicseen#msg34494 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5768.msg34494;topicseen#msg34494)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 July, 2018, 12:02:44 PM
#129

This is a bit of an unusual one, but I'm confident that this is the right thread for it, as they could not enforce this scam without using ANPR. If you know differently please let me know and I will sort it out.

And by the way, it seems that for once IPC Ltd hold the moral high ground over BPA Ltd, which obviously isn't saying much given the low level of morals that have been achieved by both companies.  <cash>

==================================

Why did JustPark charge me £100 because I couldn’t input a letter ‘O’?

However much I tried, the voice recognition on its payment app kept coming up with zero

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/934a1645ca778e43eee74d2575b70caa62e3663e/0_0_3000_1800/master/3000.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=b7ad8536c6e65f7451a70305fd33fc5a)
Confusion over Os and 0s is rife in car parking apps. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

When I parked in Brighton Metropolitan College car park the voice recognition system used by its payment app refused to let me input a letter ‘O’ for my registration plate, repeatedly insisting it was a zero. After several attempts I gave up and went with the zero. I’ve now received a £100 penalty.

CC, London


You had the presence of mind to make a recording of your attempts and it makes bizarre listening. Four times you enunciated O and four times it declared it heard a zero.

I’ve received many letters from motorists over this issue but your experience is the most ludicrous.

JustPark declares you experienced a “unique bug” and blames you. “Our internal system alerts us when our telephone system fails. However, as he confirmed the letter as a zero, our customer service team did not get the warning that this booking was incorrect. The driver could have contacted our customer service team by email or phone and we would have fixed the error,” it insists.

The independent appeals service used by JustPark, the IPC, has advised all its members that a confusion over Os and 0s should not be deemed a breach of terms and conditions and it will overturn any charges issued for that reason.

Its rival, POPLA, on the other hand, claims it can’t uphold appeals for that reason, although it encourages members to cancel charge notices as a “goodwill gesture”. JustPark has withdrawn its demand.

If you need help email Anna Tims at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Include an address and phone number. Submission and publication are subject to our terms and conditions: see http://gu.com/letters-terms (http://gu.com/letters-terms)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/25/justpark-app-zero-letter-o-fine-numberplate (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/25/justpark-app-zero-letter-o-fine-numberplate)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 October, 2018, 11:24:42 AM
#130

Sylvia Newham, 60, received a £70 penalty charge after a private firm claimed she had been in an Aldi car park for more than 18 hours.

In fact, what had actually happened is she visited the supermarket in Nuneaton in consecutive days in July 2018.

She said: 'I would think that the camera didn't pick me up leaving on the first day – or they are trying it on.'

She did not have a charge stuck on her windscreen, but received a letter through the post a few days later asking her to pay £70 within 14 days.

The retiree from Wolvey, Leicestershire, contacted her bank to prove she had made two separate transactions over two days, showing she had shopped twice.

Instead of appealing to the private parking firm running the car park, she went directly to Aldi, who investigated her case and came back saying that the charge had now been suspended.

She said: 'What distresses me are the folk who aren't able to deal with challenging these notices and end up paying out – even when they don't have the funds to do so.'

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6251825/Fight-against-private-parking-tickets-campaign-stop-sharks.html (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6251825/Fight-against-private-parking-tickets-campaign-stop-sharks.html)