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.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13944793.mans-shopping-trolley-gets-100-parking-fine/ (https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13944793.mans-shopping-trolley-gets-100-parking-fine/)

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
#68

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: Web Admin on 12 September, 2016, 02:54:38 PM

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
#74

'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
#79 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

(https://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/images-a.jpimedia.uk/imagefetch/http://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/webimage/Prestige.Item.1.86940413!image/image.jpg?crop=982:524,smart&width=640)

(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: Web Admin 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: Web Admin 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)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 October, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
#131

PARKING MAD Driver charged £50 for spending TWO minutes in car park before realising it was full and driving off
Patrick Barry, 30, was outraged after being fined for trying to leave a parking lot in Portsmouth - despite never having parked there


A DRIVER has been slammed with a £50 parking ticket – while trying to leave a chaotic car park with no free spaces.

Patrick Barry hit back at the “ridiculous” fee after he was held up trying to exit the car park in Portsmouth, Hampshire, by the queue of vehicles ahead of him.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/nintchdbpict000371350944-e1512564426363.jpg?w=960)
Patrick Barry was fined £50 for trying to exit a busy car park in Portsmouth

Unable to find a free space, the hairdresser tried to leave the lot - a process which took 12 minutes, 120 seconds longer than the parking rules permitted.

The 30-year-old described the scenes of chaos as the car park failed to accommodate the spike in visitors coming to watch a charity run in the city.

"Inside it was absolute bedlam – there were cars parked outside of bays, cars just abandoned everywhere, there was even a traffic jam inside,” said Mr Barry, who had headed out to go Christmas shopping.

"It was like something out of The Walking Dead - like a scene from an apocalypse movie.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/nintchdbpict000371350940-e1512564683650.jpg?w=960)
NCP attempted to fine Mr Barry £50 - who had never actually parked in that lot

"I knew there was no space from the moment I drove in, so got out as quickly as I could and thought no more of it."

Mr Barry was forced to think about it again, however, when he later received the ticket from the NCP.

"When I opened the letter I couldn't believe what I was reading,” he said.

"I am being forced to pay £50 for the sake of two minutes, on what was one of the busiest days of the year – it's absolutely outrageous.

"That time of 12 minutes is the fastest I could get out of the car park – why they didn't have any contingency plan in place for a busy day is beyond me."

After car parks operator NCP were approached for comment they cancelled the fine – after causing Mr Barry significant distress.

"After taking in to account the fact the car park was very busy on the day in question, we feel there has been an error on our side,” a spokeswoman said.

"We do support city events and take delays into account as a company, but on this occasion, we failed to do so and we apologise for that error."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5079362/driver-charged-50-for-spending-two-minutes-in-car-park-before-realising-it-was-full-and-driving-off/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5079362/driver-charged-50-for-spending-two-minutes-in-car-park-before-realising-it-was-full-and-driving-off/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 October, 2018, 12:40:54 PM
#132

PARKING MAD Driver baffled after receiving £100 parking fine when his broken down car was on the back of a TOW TRUCK at service station

He only pulled into service station because his car had overheated and it wouldn't start again

A DRIVER'S day went from bad to worse when he was given a £100 parking fine -- while his car was on the back of a TOW TRUCK.

James Cook, 22, was on his way to a romantic break in Scotland with his girlfriend when his car overheated.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict000274431363.jpg?w=960)
Ridiculous ... James Cook's parking fine correspondence

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict000274431361.jpg?w=960)
Driver ... James was on his way to Scotland for a romantic getaway with his girlfriend

His journey ended at Knutsford Service Station in Cheshire -- half way from his home in Leamington Spa to the Scottish border -- when steam started billowing from his car's bonnet.

He called the RAC who tried to fix the motor but had to tow it away three hours later.

Not only was his holiday ruined, but days later James received a letter from a car park operator saying he was being fined £100.

CP Plus Ltd said he had overstayed the two hour parking limit -- despite the fact his car had clearly broken down.

The company demanded he pay the fine, which could be reduced to £60 if he paid within two weeks.

Mr Cook, who works as a photo processor, said: “I just burst out laughing.

“The first thing I saw was the pictures. I thought ‘someone is having a laugh here’.

“I couldn’t believe it. I appealed it straight away.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict000274431369.jpg?w=960)
Apology ... Parking company saw its error after James fought back

“They asked me to send them the evidence, so I just wrote to them and said ‘you have sent me the evidence you jokers’.

“Two days later they wrote back to say they were cancelling the fine.”

He added: “It doesn’t look like an automatic thing to me. It looks like someone has put those pictures in the boxes and it’s been through a person.”

An email from CP Plus to Mr Cook sent on Monday confirmed the fine had been cancelled.

It read: “In light of your claims, the representations stated in your appeal have been noted and upheld.

“We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience and can confirm that this notice has been cancelled in full and no further action will take place on this occasion.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1971770/driver-baffled-after-receiving-100-parking-fine-when-his-broken-down-car-was-on-the-back-of-a-tow-truck-at-service-station/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1971770/driver-baffled-after-receiving-100-parking-fine-when-his-broken-down-car-was-on-the-back-of-a-tow-truck-at-service-station/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 October, 2018, 01:03:14 PM
#133

Grandfather fined £100 for spending too long in McDonalds car park - after visiting twice in one day

Robert Newton was shocked after he was hit with the fee after he had his lunch at the fast food venue and then went back later to buy his grandchildren a happy meal

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8737261.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/PAY-Robert-Newton-handed-fine-at-McDonalds.jpg)
Robert Newton drove off but came back 10 minutes later with his grandchildren

A granddad claims he was handed a £100 fine for spending too long in a McDonald's car park after he went twice on the same day.

Robert Newton popped into the fast-food chain's restaurant on his way to pick up his grandchildren.

Feeling peckish, the 59-year-old had a deli chicken wrap and eat it in the car park , before driving off 10 minutes later.

After picking up his granddaughter and grandson in nearby Gillingham, Kent, he then went back to the restaurant to buy them a Happy Meal.

Once he had ordered, Robert again parked in the restaurant car park in Sittingbourne, Kent, so his grandchildren could eat their meals and left shortly afterwards.

But he was shocked to receive a letter from company which operates the car park claiming he owes them £100 for spending more than two hours on the land.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8737260.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/PAY-Robert-Newton-handed-fine-at-McDonalds.jpg)
The 59-year-old was shocked to receive a letter from the car parking management company in the post

Robert said: "I drove though the drive-thru and parked up in the car park to eat it and then drove off and out of the car park about 10 minutes later.

"I then drove to Sheerness to pick up my grandson Connor and granddaughter Ellie as they were staying with my wife Deborah and I for a week during the summer holidays.

"I decided I would pop back into the McDonald's on the way back to Gillingham to get them both a Happy Meal.

"A week later I got a letter from the firm which operates McDonald's car parks which stated I had overstayed my allowed time in there.

"The letter said I'd been parked up there for 123 minutes - that's more than two hours.

"It is stupid their cameras can clock me going in for my meal but not going out again but can then clock me going out later with the grandchildren.

"The system does not work properly and getting a letter telling me I owe £100 is not a laughing matter.

"I don't understand how the camera didn't see that I had exited the car park and then drove back in later."

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8737259.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/PAY-Robert-Newton-handed-fine-at-McDonalds.jpg)
The letter allegedly said he had been parked for 123 minutes

Robert, who suffers from arthritis, said he intended to appeal.

A McDonald's spokesperson added: "At a number of our restaurants, parking restrictions are in place to ensure there is adequate parking for all customers.

"Where restrictions are in place, we work with industry-approved contractors to ensure any restrictions are clearly signposted and communicated.

"McDonald's does not profit from any penalty charges and if a customer feels they have been wrongly ticketed we would encourage them to get in touch with the third party contractor who issued the ticket."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grandfather-fined-100-spending-long-8737244 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grandfather-fined-100-spending-long-8737244)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 October, 2018, 01:20:39 PM
#134

Mum ‘told it’s against the law to visit retail park twice in a day’

(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/mg_lymington_retail_gm.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C416)
She parked at this retail centre (Picture: Google)

A woman says she was told it’s against the law to shop at a retail park twice in one day. Keri Ewins, 42, said she visited the out-of-town shopping area in the morning, parking her car to pick up some things at Home Bargains on the morning of November 10.

She drove off, then got on with the rest of her day including going to a doctor’s appointment and the school run. Later in the afternoon, she returned to the retail park to go to Halfords at Christchurch Retail Park near Bournemouth. Just a normal day, right?

Why are we telling you this? Well, apparently going back to the retail park was against the law. Obviously, it isn’t actually – but Keri, a healthcare assistant from Lymington, says that is what she was told when she received an £85 fine in the post.

(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/imgid89445102-gallery.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C360)

The private company which runs the car park said she had been parked there for six hours and forty minutes, even though she had actually driven off and come back during that time.

Highview Parking said they weren’t able to rewind the CCTV to find out if she had left the area and returned, according to Keri. ‘When I phoned them, they were so rude, saying I had to pay the £85,’ Keri told the Bournemouth Echo.

‘They also said that once you have been to the car park, you couldn’t return within four hours. ‘I mean what if I was an elderly person and forgot to get dog food or something and then had to go back? They said that was breaking the law. It’s just ridiculous. ‘I’ve been back to the park and taken a picture of the signs. All they say is that you can’t park for longer than three hours and return within one.’

Keri added: ‘It also doesn’t allow for if you are dropping someone off or picking them up. ‘I can prove I wasn’t there for six hours because of the appointments I had.

‘£85 is a lot of money; I’m just not paying it. If they want to take me to court they can. ‘I’m really worried vulnerable people have had the same happen to them and hope this might warn people.’ Metro.co.uk has contacted Highview Parking for comment.

Commenting on the original article, others said they had experienced similar problems at the same retail park. Carol Faulker wrote: ‘My elderly disabled parents received a fine here because they had parked for over three hours. They had parked outside Costa in a disabled space and gone for a coffee, then moved the car to outside Petsathome into a disabled space to do some shopping.

‘After this they then decided to eat at Pizza Hut, so moved the car there. So yes they were there for more than three hours because they were using all the retailers!

‘I wrote on their behalf and the fine was canceled but it should never have been given. They are elderly and it worried them terribly.’

https://metro.co.uk/2016/11/27/mum-told-its-against-the-law-to-visit-retail-park-twice-in-a-day-6285413/
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 29 November, 2018, 12:46:35 PM
#135, 136 and 137

From Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

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

Sir Greg Knight
 
#135 The hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) mentioned one of many cases in which usually pensioners, although not always—some of the cases that have come to my attention have involved pensioners—type one digit of their registration number into the machine incorrectly and the machine does not allow for any correction of the details already entered. The fee is nevertheless paid, but a ticket is issued. So, for many people, parking on private land can be a traumatic and expensive business.

#136 One of the reasons why we need a mandatory code now is that technology is being used to provide evidence. The growing misuse of automatic number plate recognition cameras is a particular worry to me. Cameras ostensibly enable private parking companies to keep a record of exactly how long a motorist has remained in a car park and provide photographic evidence if they exceed the time they have paid for. They say that the camera never lies, but things are not always as they seem.

In one car park at a fast food restaurant in Nottinghamshire that is policed by CCTV, drivers are told they must not enter the car park when the restaurant is closed. However, the signage telling them that is ​located inside the carpark itself, along with the details of the opening times of the restaurant, making it impossible for a motorist to know before they enter the car park whether they will receive a private parking notice.

#137 At another private car park at a fast food outlet in Enfield, a driver was recently issued with a parking charge notice for overstaying. In this case, the motorist visited the restaurant twice in one day. The ANPR cameras recorded her leaving the car park on the first visit and returning for the second. By using the photos the wrong way around, the car park operators tried to charge her a penalty for a period when she was not even in the car park.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 04 February, 2019, 10:01:50 AM
#138

Drivers 'fined in error' at Crowborough station car park

Motorists say they have been given tickets for parking in a car park they haven't actually left their cars in.

Since the introduction of new cameras which read number plates, many people doing drop-offs and pick-ups at Crowborough claim they have wrongly received £100 penalty notices.

Thameslink Govia said this was due to dirty number plates or cars driving too close together, and anyone who believes they have been wrongly fined can appeal.

CLICK ON LINK TO WATCH VIDEO
<iframe width="400" height="500" frameborder="0" src="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/embed/p06zt445/47104827"></iframe>


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-sussex-47104827/drivers-fined-in-error-at-crowborough-station-car-park (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-sussex-47104827/drivers-fined-in-error-at-crowborough-station-car-park)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 06 February, 2019, 03:59:00 AM
Hmmmm.......... as well as using a monumentally useless ANPR system, Indigo are also ignoring the monumentally useless BPA Ltd's monumentally useless Code of Practice.

(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5768.0;attach=6453;image)


14 Misrepresentation of authority

14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority.This includes using terms such as ‘fine’,‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.


I suspect that the BPA Ltd's top investigator is ready to spring into action as we speak

 <Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 February, 2019, 10:41:05 AM
#139

Any system that allows a driver to register a number plate that has not been picked up by the ANPR cameras is not fit for purpose.

What is even more scary is that if you went to the magistrates court and lost, you would earn a criminal record.

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

St Albans driver forced to pay “unfair” parking fine after number plate mix-up

(https://www.hertsad.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5884822.1549637997!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)

A frustrated driver has spoken out about automated parking systems issuing “unfair” tickets at St Albans City Station.

(https://www.hertsad.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5884823!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
A copy of Sally Cartwright's PCN. Picture: Sally Cartwright

Sally Cartwright and her husband were going into London one evening, parking in St Albans City Station Car Park on Station Way and paying for the right date and time period with her card.

A couple of weeks later, she was shocked to receive an £100 parking fine in the post - reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days.

It read: “The Byelaws were made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 as amended under the Railways Act 2005, and an offence has been committed by breaching Byelaw 14.

“Having identified that an offence has occurred, your data has been released by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as our client has reasonable cause (under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002).”

Calling the appeals number listed, she was told her registration plate was inputted incorrectly and, despite having proof of payment on her bank statement, the fine still stands.

She said: “I would never dream of not paying for a parking ticket and I did buy a ticket - maybe there was something wrong with the number plate but it doesn’t mean I didn’t pay. It was quite an aggressive letter and they were so unhelpful saying ‘If you appeal it, the fine will be more, you will have to pay £100 and there will be no way back’.”

Seeing as Sally’s car number plate is similar to her husband’s, she believes it was a simple mix-up.

Worried by the legal threats in the letter however, Sally reluctantly paid the fine - plus a handling fee. She said: “I was really upset and stressed at the audacity of it, that they can get away with it.”

Sally was shocked to discover a number of people recounting the same ordeal on a Facebook group called All About St Albans.

“A lot of people haven’t paid it but I was too nervous to do that and I think that is what happens. A lot of people are so frightened by it they pay, and so they are going to keep getting away with it. I will never park in that car park again. I will walk in the rain if I have to.”

A GTR spokesman said: “Our parking contractor advises customers who believe they have been issued with a penalty notice wrongly to make a formal appeal in order to avoid the penalty being increased.

“If the customer can show through the appeal process that they did pay the correct parking charge, the notice will be withdrawn.”

https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st-albans-driver-forced-to-pay-unfair-parking-fine-after-number-plate-mix-up-1-5884825?utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons (https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st-albans-driver-forced-to-pay-unfair-parking-fine-after-number-plate-mix-up-1-5884825?utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 12 March, 2019, 01:05:56 PM
#140


York Costa drive-through customers fined - by cameras at car park next door

(https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/9320355/)

COFFEE lovers using a Costa drive-through in York are being hit with parking penalties - from the camera system at the car park next door.

A CCTV security system at the car park next to the Costa branch in Layerthorpe - which is used by customers at the neighbouring Travelodge - is believed to be snapping people using the coffee drive-through in error.

Helen Appleby, 53, says she received a £100 penalty after the cameras mistakenly captured her entering the drive-through on Christmas Eve and leaving the drive-through on New Year’s Eve, despite visiting the cafe several times in between.

The camera is run by parking management company APCOA, which says that where a “technical problem” occurs, it will cancel a parking charge notice. Travelodge doesn’t own or run the car park, although its guests park there.

Mrs Appleby, from Market Weighton, travels into York to work at York Hospital every day.

She said: “I go to Costa most mornings to get a coffee on the way to work.

“I got the penalty letter through the post saying that I had been staying at the Travelodge hotel for a week without paying.

“The camera is capturing drivers as they enter the drive-through as though they are hotel customers using the car park but not when they leave the Costa car park. So, when I next go back through and drive out it thinks I have been there all the time.

“I understand this is a mistake but if you are not from the area you may just take the penalty and pay it.

“I have got 28 days to pay the fee which means ringing the company to try to get a rebate.

“People who are working fulltime do not have time to seek refunds from the company. It has put me off going back to the Costa at Layerthorpe.”

Billy Morfitt, 22, from York, a CCTV and security installer for FRS York, said he received a letter last week for a penalty of £60 for allegedly leaving his car at the car park between December 17 and 18.

He said: “I went to Costa drive-through on December 17 and 18, after I dropped my girlfriend at work. However, on the letter I received from APCOA last week, they said that I arrived on the 17th and left on the 18th. But, the photo they sent is of a different car leaving the car park on December 18.

“Consequently, I have received a £60 penalty that will rise to £100 if I don’t pay it. The camera is for the Travelodge hotel, not Costa, but due to this fiasco we don’t even go to Costa anymore on a morning because it isn’t worth the hassle.”

A spokesman for Costa said: “We understand how frustrating this must be for our customers. The car park is operated by a private parking company and unfortunately we have no control over any action they have taken. We have been in touch to make them aware of the issue and we’re hoping for a swift resolution.”

In a statement, Travelodge said it did not own or run the car park.

An APCOA spokesperson said: “APCOA operate a fair and proportionate appeals process for parking charge notices in accordance with our membership of the British Parking Association. Where a technical problem occurs, APCOA will cancel a parking charge notice.

“We do not comment on ongoing cases, but will take the necessary steps to ensure a proportionate approach is taken.”

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17376409.york-costa-drive-through-customers-fined-by-cameras-at-car-park-next-door/ (https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17376409.york-costa-drive-through-customers-fined-by-cameras-at-car-park-next-door/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 12 March, 2019, 06:59:46 PM
They've done this on purpose hoping that some people will just pay up to avoid the hassel! All these parking companies are scum.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2019, 11:00:42 AM
#141

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

Shopper wrongly fined [by Horizon Ltd] after Vangarde parking camera blunder

(https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/7808227/?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen)

A SHOPPER was wrongly fined £80 for parking too long at a York shopping centre after her car was mistaken for another one with an almost identical registration number.

Yvonne Mulvaney said she drove to the Vangarde shopping park to visit the John Lewis store on April 12.

She said she stayed there for less than two hours and so was shocked when she received a parking charge notice in the post a few days later, claiming she was parked for more than five hours and exceeded the maximum permitted time.

The letter from Horizon Parking stated he had breached Vangarde terms and conditions after arriving at 10.40am and leaving at 15.50, adding: "Overstay duration: 1hr, 10mins."

But accompanying photographs used to justify the fine showed two different cars entering and leaving the car park.

The first correctly showed her red Vauxall Corsa, with a registration number of YH64CVR, entering at 10.40.

But the second showed a black car of a different make, with one different letter in the registration plate, leaving at 15.50.

The letter said her registered keeper details had been obtained from DVLA and she was liable to pay £80, although this would be reduced to £45 if she paid within 14 days.

Shocked by the demand, she decided she wasn't going to accept the fine and made a complaint to Vangarde, where a member of staff took the matter up.

She said she had now received confirmation in writing from Horizon Parking that they had cancelled the Parking Charge Notice and removed her details from their database, and also sent her a gift voucher, but she was still unhappy she had been put through the experience and it had put her off returning to shop at the store.

"I feel these companies are very quick off the mark to issue these demands but, in this instance, haven't checked the facts carefully and have pursued an innocent motorist needlessly," said Yvonne, from Leeds.

"What had been a nice trip now has unpleasant connotations attached to it. It has caused me stress and a great deal of annoyance.

"I have written to DVLA requiring them to explain why they issue personal data without checking the validity of the request."

Will Dickson, director for Horizon Parking Limited, said all its Parking Charge Notices (PCN) were checked and verified by its head-office team prior to them being issued.

"Having investigated this situation, we’ve unfortunately made an error with the vehicle registration differing between photographs by one character," he said.

"Considering more than 30,000 cars pass by the cameras at Vangarde Shopping Park in a week, this is a rare occurrence.

“As soon as we were notified that this error had been made, we immediately cancelled the PCN and, as a gesture of goodwill, also provided the customer with a John Lewis voucher to apologise for the inconvenience caused.

“We take accuracy of our car park management very seriously and have therefore taken further steps regarding our vehicle checks to avoid this reoccurring in future.”

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/16235880.shopper-wrongly-fined-after-vangarde-parking-camera-blunder/ (https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/16235880.shopper-wrongly-fined-after-vangarde-parking-camera-blunder/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2019, 11:19:22 AM
#142 and 143

If ParkingEye Ltd had proof that both of these people had done what they were accused of, you can bet your bottom dollar they would never have cancelled them.

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


Patients, visitors and staff are being 'wrongly issued' £70 hospital parking fines

Anyone who visits the hospital is asked to enter their car registration into a machine at reception

Staff, patients and visitors to a Cardiff hospital are receiving £70 parking fines from a private firm – despite claiming to have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Gary Snowball says he drove his 82-year-old mother Jean Snowball, who has dementia, to have her bloods taken at St David’s Hospital in Canton, Cardiff, on February 8.

He said he parked in a visitor space, inputted his car’s registration into the machine on reception as required, went to the appointment and then left the hospital 10 minutes later.

But Gary claims he received a parking charge notice (PCN) from Parking Eye, the company responsible for the hospital’s car park, a fortnight later, ordering him to pay a fine or face possible court action.

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article15853281.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Snowball-1.jpg)
Gary Snowball, of Pontcanna, Cardiff, with his mother Jean (Image: Richard Williams)

“I understand being given something like this if you park in the wrong place or you don’t input your registration – but I did everything correctly,” said Gary, who is a full-time carer to his mum.

“It’s just shocking. I’ve tried contacting Parking Eye and there is just nobody to contact to reason with.

“There is a CCTV camera at reception which would show me putting my registration into the machine. I’ve tried to obtain it from the security staff, but due to data protection they won’t give it to me.

“It was alarming to be sent this letter demanding money off me. My mum, who has advanced dementia, is very upset by it all.”

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article12438598.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/MSR_ECH_110117parking_01JPG.jpg)

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article15853282.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_St-Davids-Hospital-4.jpg)
St David's Hospital has very clear signs detailing what visitors need to do when they park on the site

The car park at St David’s Hospital, on Cowbridge Road East , has been operated by Parking Eye since December 12, 2016.

Anyone who visits the hospital is asked to enter their car registration into a machine in reception which allows them to park free of charge for two hours.

But if they fail to do so before they leave the hospital, Parking Eye issues the driver with a £70 fine which is reduced to £40 if it’s paid within a fortnight.

Drivers are also given the same fine if they spend longer than two hours at the hospital and fail to notify a member of staff that they need an extension.

Staff working at the hospital say the parking regulations have been a “nightmare” since they were brought in two years ago – and have reduced some visitors to tears.

Helen Pickett, from Bridgend, who works as a podiatrist at St David’s Hospital, also claims to have been given a PCN for no reason.

She said she parked in the staff car park as usual on the morning of January 17 but has since been sent demands for a £70 payment.

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article15852459.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_MSR_ECH_190219helen_01jpeg.jpg)
Helen Pickett, from Bridgend, works as a podiatrist at St David's Hospital in Cardiff (Image: Helen Pickett)

“I received a fine for parking in a patient and visitor space,” she said.

“I have never once, not even for five minutes, parked there as I know I’ll get fined, so I stick to the staff areas where there is always space.

“I appealed but that was unsuccessful as they said I failed to provide evidence that I had parked in the staff area on that day.

“I now have to take photographs of my car every time I park up so I actually have proof. It’s ridiculous.

“I’m happy to go to court and fight this if I have to as I’ve done nothing wrong. It doesn’t help that our bosses are not interested in helping us in any way. 

“I feel upset that the NHS has got contracts with a company that allows patients, visitors and staff to be bullied in this way.”

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article15854467.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_MSR_ECH_190219helen_02.jpg)
Helen says she feels 'bullied' by Parking Eye

Parking Eye, which also operates at the University Hospital of Wales and University Hospital Llandough, said they have no record of Gary Snowball inputting his registration into the machine in reception.

They also retain the belief that Helen Pickett parked in a visitor space at the hospital, although they have not confirmed whether they have photographic proof of this.

A Parking Eye spokesman said: “Our state-of-the-art automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems identify vehicles that enter and exit car parks under our management.

"Across the UK hundreds of thousands of motorists now use this user-friendly system every day without any issues.

“As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), we follow its strict code of practice in all car parks we manage on behalf of our clients.

“Once a parking charge is issued, every motorist has the opportunity to lodge a formal appeal with us using our BPA audited appeals process.”

The spokesman added that the fines of both people will now be cancelled as a "gesture of goodwill".

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/patients-visitors-staff-being-wrongly-15852478 (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/patients-visitors-staff-being-wrongly-15852478)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2019, 11:29:57 AM
#144

28th April 2017

More than 80 motorists wrongly fined in nightmare Northallerton parking fiasco

(https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/resources/images/6284391/?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen)

A ‘NIGHTMARE’ parking fiasco has caused stress for scores of motorists who have been wrongly issued fines and court threats for parking in Northallerton.

The Alpha Dental Studio on Brompton Road contracted the services of Smart Parking Ltd last year to monitor their car park in a bid to stop non-patients from taking up the spaces.

In recent months the system, which requires dental patients to enter their registration number when they arrive for an appointment, has led to more than 80 motorists being wrongly fined.

The partners at Alpha say they are “incredibly frustrated” with the situation and have made repeated attempts to get patients’ fines overturned by Smart Parking.

Ian Gordon, a partner of the Alpha dental group, said that initially Smart Parking would overturn incorrectly issued fines, but in recent months they changed that policy and have been virtually non-contactable ever since.

The dental surgery has even drafted in a solicitor as well as contacting the British Parking Association and POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) to try and resolve matters for those issued fines incorrectly.

Alpha has now cancelled its contract with Smart Parking and Mr Gordon described the situation as “an absolute nightmare”.

He added: “We are absolutely frustrated.

“We did it (controlled parking) with the best interests of our patients at heart and it has just backfired.”

Lynne Halls’ parents George and Joan Storey are among those who have wrongly received penalty notices of £100.

These were then followed up by debt recovery letters stating that the fine has risen to £160 with a recommendation that court action should be taken if not paid.

Mrs Halls, whose 70-year-old mother has a brain tumour, says the stress of the letters and court threats have been keeping her parents awake at night.

She said: “We have got letters absolutely petrifying them about going to court.

“I say ‘bring it on’ we have not done anything wrong.

“But my mum, instead of enjoying any time she has left, she is petrified of dad going to court.”

Despite repeated attempts to contact Smart Parking via telephone and email, nobody responded to our request for a comment.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15253376.more-than-80-motorists-wrongly-fined-in-nightmare-northallerton-parking-fiasco/ (https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15253376.more-than-80-motorists-wrongly-fined-in-nightmare-northallerton-parking-fiasco/)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2019, 11:34:58 AM
#145

Tele steps in after disabled woman wrongly fined £100 for parking at Costa in Carnoustie

(https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/02/5c766885789c30.33173365-846x564.jpg)
Melanie Forrest had been incorrectly fined for parking in the Costa car park

A disabled woman has expressed relief after the Tele stepped in to have a parking fine that was incorrectly issued to her cancelled.

Melanie Forrest, 56, visited the Carnoustie branch of Costa Coffee earlier this month to buy a drink.

When she left the customer car park, a camera system picked up her registration and issued a fine despite her being parked legitimately.

Melanie said she was shocked to receive the £100 fine at her home in Leven days after her visit.

When she initially received the fine Melanie submitted a copy of her receipt to show she had a right to park there to the operator Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Despite this proof, the company demanded she pay the fine or face additional fees and even legal action. It was then that Melanie asked the Tele to step in.

We tried to contact Civil Enforcement Ltd to ask why she was being chased for the money but were unsuccessful.

We then contacted Costa Coffee on Melanie’s behalf and the firm subsequently cancelled the fine.

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/costa-cancels-parking-fine-for-disabled-woman-who-was-incorrectly-penalised-in-carnoustie/ (https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/costa-cancels-parking-fine-for-disabled-woman-who-was-incorrectly-penalised-in-carnoustie/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 June, 2019, 11:44:36 AM
#146

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?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=551d98a4d5e393cc21aea2afeae58b56)

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. 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

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/23/fined-parking-shopping-aldi (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/23/fined-parking-shopping-aldi)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 10 July, 2019, 09:47:58 AM
#147

As usual, the camera alone cannot tell whether a vehicle is parked in contravention of terms and conditions.

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

Shell fined me for being in its forecourt waiting for a car wash

I paid for the car wash and then had to queue for my turn. Absurdly I received a £60 fine for overstaying

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/001b9bd4675078646384935edce599ceb33f0e7f/0_247_4200_2520/master/4200.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=51cbbf3874ef4a0b008e7564fe99138e)
Using a car wash came with a hefty fine from Shell.

I drove into a Shell garage in Kilburn (north-west London) to use the automatic car wash. I paid £5, and there were five or six cars in front and two behind me. It took ages – probably about an hour.

I have since received a £60 fine (rising to £100 if not paid within a set time) from Euro Car Parks saying I overstayed its maximum 20-minute waiting time. It rejected my appeal stating that the signs say clearly there is a maximum wait time. This is frankly absurd. Shell is selling this car wash and yet not using discretion about the fact that a line of cars will easily lead to overstaying this 20-minute period.

I don’t intend to pay the fine and have appealed, but surely Shell has to account for people waiting to use a service it has sold. SR, London


We got in touch with Shell which claimed it had not received a direct complaint from you. It said the format does not involve a strict queueing system but is a forecourt “where customers tend to park their cars and go into nearby shops. This is why there is a notice at the site that informs site visitors and car wash users to input their details into a car wash console, so that the waiting time registers as waiting for the car wash service. Unfortunately, there is no record on our side of [SR’s] details being input into the console, which is why the fine notice was sent.”

You appealed to Euro Car Parks, which refused to overturn the decision, but then you went further to Popla (the independent appeals service for parking charge notices issued on private land) and recently learned that your appeal was successful. Euro Car Parks did not respond to our request for an explanation. Your case seems to raise interesting questions. We’d be interested to hear if other readers have had similar problems.

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. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to terms and conditions

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jul/08/shell-fined-me-for-being-in-its-forecourt-waiting-for-a-car-wash (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jul/08/shell-fined-me-for-being-in-its-forecourt-waiting-for-a-car-wash)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 12 August, 2019, 08:38:36 AM
#148
Family fined despite never parking at notorious Plymouth car park

Britannia Parking fined the Fell family £100 for queuing in a car park - the company has since decided to drop the matter altogether

(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/incoming/article3194315.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_image1jpeg.jpg)
Happy family - Hannah and Andrew Fell with their six-year-old daughter Olivia

A couple were left in disbelief after they were fined £100 by a private parking firm - for spending too long queuing for a space in a car park.

Hannah and Andrew Fell thought it would be a lovely idea to take their six-year-old daughter Olivia to the National Marine Aquarium during their summer break away in the South West.

They drove up from their holiday cottage in Padstow, Cornwall, and thought it'd be a good idea to drop their BMW 3 Series off in Plymouth's multi-storey Harbour Car Park.

But that's when their ordeal began.

"We started queuing as we went through the door - there weren't any signs to say it was full or that there weren't any spaces available," Hannah, 42, said.

(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/incoming/article2275421.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_harbour11.png)
The Fell family failed to find a space in the Britannia Parking operated car park - yet still received a fine

"We went all the way up to the top of the car park, and at that point I threw my husband and daughter out, saying head on over to the aquarium whilst I try to find a space.

"It was another 20 minutes that went by before I managed to get back down again because the queue was so big."


 
Flustered, Hannah managed to get out and find a space at Drake Circus' car park before walking all the way back up to the aquarium to meet her family.

Hannah says she was then left in total disbelief after a £100 fine courtesy of Britannia Parking dropped through the door back home in Cambridgeshire.

(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/incoming/article3194340.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_image2jpeg.jpg)
Olivia thankfully still managed to enjoy a trip to the aquarium - whilst her mum tried to park the car (Image: Hannah Fell)

The firm said its cameras had clocked them travelling in at 11.50am on July 30 and leaving at 12.23pm - having not paid for a ticket.

But Hannah says she never found a space so the fine seems ridiculous.

She said she was inspired to speak out after Catherine Lovell revealed she too had been fined by Britannia Parking after failing to find a parking space at the Harbour Car Park.

The company stood by its decision to fine Ms Lovell because she had spent 50 minutes in a queue.

"I never stepped foot out of my car to park," Hannah said. "I was impacted in that I couldn't actually leave.

"I was stuck in traffic, worming my way out after I had reached the top just like everybody else, we were all trying to get out."

Hannah said she and her husband have desperately tried to appeal the fine issued to them in the post on August 9.

She said the reference number wasn't recognised online and staff weren't taking her calls.

But now it's emerged the fine isn't actually valid anymore.

Britannia Parking told Plymouth Live it has decided to cancel the Fell family's penalty charge notice after carrying out an investigation into the circumstances. But the Fell family said they had not been told until contacted by Plymouth Live.

All of our signs and procedures meet the industry’s Approved Operators Code of Conduct, including those at the Harbour Car Park in Plymouth.

“We are a reputable car park operator and manager of more than 25 years’ standing, and a member of the British Parking Association.”

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/family-fined-despite-never-parking-3192659 (https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/family-fined-despite-never-parking-3192659)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 September, 2019, 12:04:28 PM
#149

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


Outraged mum slapped with £100 fine for visiting car park twice in one day

Paula Jeffery tried to prove to car park operators that the car visited on two separate occasions, but they refused to change the decision

Alahna Kindred
8 Jan 2019,

A FURIOUS mum was hit with a £100 parking fine after her car visited the same car park twice in one day.

Paula Jeffery left her car near a Pure Gym and left an hour later, which was within the maximum two-hour parking limit.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NINTCHDBPICT000460529060.jpg?w=620)
Paula Jeffery was slapped with a £100 fine after her car visited the same car park twice in the same day

Her husband drove the same car later that afternoon to go a Home Bargains with their children after a swimming lesson at the Carnegie Retail Park in Dunfermline, Scotland.

The family have been slapped with a £100 fine after car park operators say they exceeded the two-hour limit despite visiting on two separate occasions.

Paula, from Carnock, Fife said she gave Civil Enforcement Ltd photographic proof that their vehicle entered the car park at two different times.

She told Dunfermline Press that the company is refusing the reverse its decision.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NINTCHDBPICT000460529061.jpg?w=620)
Paula claims her vehicle left the car park and did not overstay the strict two-hour maximum limit

Paula said: “They cannot get away with this.

“They are getting money off people when they haven’t done anything wrong at all.

“I wouldn’t mind paying if I had overstayed but I didn’t.

“I could not have left my car there all afternoon as I had to be back in Carnock to get my kids from school.

"I can’t be in two places at once and they haven’t even bothered to check.”

The couple paid the fine over fears it would affect their credit rating, but Paula vows to never park there again.

The Sun Online contacted Civil Enforcement Ltd for comment.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8150011/mum-fine-visiting-park-twice-day/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8150011/mum-fine-visiting-park-twice-day/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 September, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
#150 and 151

Asda-mad mum receives TWO parking charges in one week for visiting the store multiple times a day

(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article2126043.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/2_Parking_Eye.jpg)
Two people have come forward to complain about charges

A mum who received two parking fines in one week for her visits to Asda in Spondon has said the system is "barking mad".

Rae Whitehouse, 41, said she visits Asda "at least four times a day", and claims that Parking Eye cameras did not differentiate between each visit, therefore sending Ms Whitehouse charges for staying over the three hour time limit.

The Asda-lover, who is a mum-of-four from Spondon, said: "I'm always at Asda, it is like my second home.

"I go multiple times a day on the school run, passing through to get to my mum's house and at the end of the day. But I'm being punished for it.

"I've had three fines in a week now and it is so annoying. They are going to send it to someone who is just going to pay it. But I'm not paying anything. It's barking mad."

(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article2126080.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_AWR_TEM_191018parkingeye.jpg)

Parking Eye said the charges had all been cancelled and it has have "updated the camera settings in this car park".

Rae, who is a stay-at-home parent and carer for her mum, said she spents at least £150 week in the store.

She said the Asda manager has now registered her as a member of staff in order to stop her from receiving the charges.

But Rae insisted that she does not blame Asda for the fines, and said they "bent over backwards" to help resolve the situation.

Another aggrieved customer has demanded compensation from Parking Eye after he claims they charged him for visiting Asda in Spondon twice in one day.

Ciaran Williams, 30, says he visited his local store for petrol in the morning and for a birthday cake later that day.

He told Derbyshire Live he was sent a charge which claimed he stayed in the car park for nine hours and seven minutes.

If paid within 14 days, the charge is £40 instead of £70.

(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article2126079.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_AWR_TEM_191018parkingeye_result_result_result.jpg)
Ciaran Williams said the charge had caused him a lot of stress

Mr Williams, a Rolls-Royce engineer from Chaddesden, said: "I'm being punished for visiting Asda twice in one day. They need to get it sorted out.

"It has really stressed me out so I have asked for compensation in a letter. I'm definitely not going to pay it and I'll take them to court if I have to.

"It seems to be a regular thing at the moment and it has put me off shopping there. I am conscious that I'm going to get another one of these fines."

The customers claim that the Parking Eye cameras had not clocked them leaving the car park, which is why it thought they had stayed for up to 10 hours.

It is understood that this can happen when another car blocks the registration plate so it cannot be viewed by the camera.

A Parking Eye spokesperson said: “We have always been a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and follow its strict code of practice in all the car parks we manage on behalf of our clients. We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances.”

A spokesperson for Asda confirmed that they were investigating the issue and were pleased that the charges had been cancelled.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/asda-mad-mum-receives-two-2120958 (https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/asda-mad-mum-receives-two-2120958)


Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 September, 2019, 12:44:20 PM
#152

Shopper who called at Asda twice in two days is charged for staying 18 HOURS

Fury over £40 Parking Eye penalty

A Derby driver who visited Asda twice in two days was charged for parking for 18 HOURS.

John Burns, 43, from Chaddesden, said that while he was on holiday in Turkey, his step-dad Brian saw the penalty and paid it within 14 days, to make it £40 instead of £70.

But John, a train driver, said that his partner Hannah had only visited the Asda store in Spondon on August 12 for petrol and August 13 for milk and bread.

The couple believe a parking camera thought the car had stayed for the entire time between the two trips.

(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article1946759.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/3_AEW_TRM_ASDA_240818_result_result_result.jpg)

Parking Eye said there was a "severe failure" at the car park on August 12, and customers who were wrongly fined will have their charge cancelled.

John said: “My stepdad has just been made redundant and it made me very angry that he had to pay the fine.

“It makes me wonder how many other people have been fined wrongfully and paid it. I have no faith in the system, it is only there to make money. I will now be shopping elsewhere.”

He added that he has received a letter from Parking Eye saying that the charge had been cancelled, but he has not yet been refunded the money.

John said: “It has cost me phone calls from Turkey, and a day of my holiday stressed about the issue.”

Hannah said: “I’m gutted that my local shop would treat their loyal customers in this way.”

Parking Eye confirmed that Mr Burns' charge had been cancelled.

An Asda spokesperson said: “We would like to apologise to Mr Burns for any inconvenience caused and can reassure customers that while this type of incident is rare we are investigating the matter.”

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/shopper-who-called-asda-twice-1933370 (https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/shopper-who-called-asda-twice-1933370)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 September, 2019, 01:56:08 PM
#153

Paying the penalty for B&Q visits

A PLUMBER hit with a £110 parking fine claims he has been told he cannot visit his local B&Q twice in the same day.
John Taylor is one of a number of drivers to be sent penalty notices by Parking Eye after the firm said its cameras had caught him staying longer than the permitted three-and-a-half hours at the Hermiston Gait retail park.

But when the 59-year-old called the company to say he had made two separate visits to the store, he claims he was told that there was a "strict no returns rule" which stops motorists returning to the car park twice in the same day.

The self-employed tradesman, who makes a number of visits to the DIY retailer every week, said he had gone to the store early in the morning and returned in the afternoon to pick up supplies for the following day's work.

But Parking Eye said it had photographic evidence to show his car entering and leaving the car park only once in the day.

The company said it had "clear records" of Mr Taylor making multiple visits to the store on other days, but said it was adamant he had overstayed on the day in question, December 9.

Mr Taylor said: "I'm in that store every other day, but Parking Eye told me there's a 'strict no returns rule'. It was the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard.

"I see their point about stopping people using the station parking at the shops. That's fair enough, but I'm definitely not paying for a ticket I got for visiting the place to go to B&Q."

Mr Taylor also claimed to have receipts showing he was elsewhere when Parking Eye said his car was parked at Hermiston Gait.

Last week there were calls for the state-of-the-art parking system to be scrapped after a number of drivers came forward claiming to have received tickets in error.

Among them was driver Bill Colborne, who was sent a penalty notice for dropping his daughter off to work at Tesco and collecting her six hours later.

Parking enforcers thought the 53-year-old had overstayed the maximum wait of three-and-a-half hours after his car was picked up by automatic number plate recognition cameras, when he had in fact made two separate visits to the store.

The car park is monitored by automatic number plate recognition cameras, which were brought in to deal with the problem of people parking in the retail park and then using Edinburgh Park train station or the adjacent business park.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/paying-the-penalty-for-b-amp-q-visits-1-1190466 (https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/paying-the-penalty-for-b-amp-q-visits-1-1190466)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 18 October, 2019, 06:34:41 AM
#154

Here is an admission that charges are generated automatically and not reviewed by a person.
\
====================================================


Sheffield funeral director gets parking fine while picking up six-year-old girl’s body from hospital
A Sheffield funeral director received a parking fine after picking up a six-year-old girl’s body from outside the children’s hospital.

Michael Fogg parked his private ambulance outside Sheffield Children’s Hospital on Friday, October 4, to pick up a girl’s body following her death.

Ealier today, Mr Fogg received a letter in the post informing him that he had been fined £60 for parking unlawfully.

In the letter, Civil Enforcement Ltd said that this would rise to £100 if the fine was not paid within 14 days.

(https://www.thestar.co.uk/jp-ct.co.uk/image/onecms:69fbc464-2608-46ee-9ae2-cd2132b93ddc:11a8d340-ce23-46d4-929a-99fb9b659db6/image.jpg?&width=640)

Mr Fogg took to Facebook to complain about the fine, saying the company knew ‘exactly what they were there for’.

He wrote: “Today we have received this parking fine from the company who is in charge of parking at the children's hospital in Sheffield“This is our private ambulance. We were attending the hospital to bring a child into our care.

“I will gladly pay the fine providing every penny is spent on the children and not a private company who “know exactly what we were there for.

“To charge a funeral director who is simply bringing a child into care is just totally disgusting.”

(https://www.thestar.co.uk/jp-ct.co.uk/image/onecms:156ee435-49c2-4326-b172-0f36d6a72fda:6bdf9144-8842-4879-81e9-cfa735ec7ee5/image.jpg?&width=640)

On its website, Sheffield Children’s Hopsital said it uses Civil Enforcement Ltd for the administration of all its Parking Charge notices and that motorists can appeal these fines.

However, after Mr Fogg’s post was brought to their attention, the hospital said they contacted the company to ‘immediately cancel’ the fine.

A hospital spokesperson said: “As soon as this was brought to our attention, we contacted the company that handles our car parking and the fine was immediately cancelled.

“The fines are automatically generated, but can be prevented by letting us know on the day in circumstances like this.

“Alternatively fines can be appealed, and in legitimate cases like this we will ensure no fine is paid. We will be reviewing our processes to avoid a similar situation in future.”

Mr Fogg, who does not charge families who have lost children under the age of 16 for funeral services, said that the fine should never have been issued in the first instance.

He said: “You can quite clearly see on the picture that the van says ‘private ambulance’. Someone will have seen that and still decided to print it out.

“We are not there to park and then go shopping. We are there to bring a six-year-old girl into our care who has just passed away.

“We don’t profit out of a child passing away so why should anyone else?

“It’s not a lot of money but if this is not highlighted then this could go on and on and on.

“If by me posting this and bringing it to people’s attention it makes the company think twice then it might save someone unnecessary stress at a difficult time.”

https://www.thestar.co.uk/health/sheffield-funeral-director-gets-parking-fine-while-picking-six-year-old-girls-body-hospital-814598 (https://www.thestar.co.uk/health/sheffield-funeral-director-gets-parking-fine-while-picking-six-year-old-girls-body-hospital-814598)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 19 November, 2019, 01:27:04 PM
#155(+?)

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


Station car park fines cancelled after camera error

(https://www.echo-news.co.uk/resources/images/10685823.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
Rayleigh train station car park

PARKING tickets dished out over three months at a train station will all be cancelled following a major “technical issue”.

Huge numbers of tickets have been handed out at Rayleigh Train Station, with the Echo covering serious concerns over a camera fault earlier this week.

Now, car park managers, NCP, have issued a “sincere apology” to all customers – insisting no new tickets will be handed out.

All tickets handed out between July 1 and October 13 will be cancelled or refunded.

It is believed the issue relates to cameras not picking up when cars are arriving and leaving, with people subsequently fined for dropping people off at the station.

Rayleigh resident Gemma Holden, 57, received three tickets in the post at the start of the month dating back to August.

She said: “It is is fantastic they are backing down, but why has it taken so long?

“Everyone has had to deal with the stress already just to be told, ‘oh no, don’t worry it is fine’.

“It is not good enough, and I am sure they will still make some money out of this.”

A spokesman for NCP said: “Having received an unusual number of customer queries related to penalty charge notices (PCNs) being issued at Rayleigh Station car park we have thoroughly investigated the matter to understand the underlying reasons. We have established that the issues are related to technical difficulties with our cameras.

“This matter is limited to Rayleigh Station car park and the number of incidents were isolated and infrequent.

“NCP would like to assure customers that we are taking all necessary steps to rectify the situation and, in the interim, will be suspending the issue of PCNs at this particular site.

“We are making every effort to resolve this matter in a speedy fashion.

“Customers who have been affected by this matter need take no further action as our processing team will automatically refund or cancel notices as appropriate to the individual case.”

“Any customers who have not heard from NCP within the next two weeks should contact us directly at: GaAppeals@ncp.co.uk

“Finally, on behalf of NCP I would like to offer our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused by this unfortunate matter.”

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/18042570.station-car-park-fines-cancelled-camera-error/ (https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/18042570.station-car-park-fines-cancelled-camera-error/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 28 December, 2019, 06:02:37 AM
#156

Pensioner fined £145 and threatened with court over parking ticket after car broke down

He went over the designated free parking limit because he had to call out the RAC to fix his vehicle

23 December 2019

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article17462151.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_WML_221219_Parking_Fine_06JPG.jpg)
Beryl and Bernard Rowlands contested their fine and now face court

An 83-year-old man says he is facing court after his car broke down at a private car park in Cardiff , causing him to exceed the alloted free stay period.

Bernard Rowlands from Penarth , had visited the Capital Retail Park in Leckwith with his sister Elizabeth earlier this year and, after only an hour, the pair decided to leave.

However, upon discovering his Toyota Corolla wouldn't start, Bernard called his breakdown service who arrived to fix the problem. It meant that by the time the pensioner managed to drive away he'd exceeded the designated three hour 'no pay' window by 35 minutes.

As a result, he was later issued with a £50 fine from the site's operators which, despite appealing, has now risen to £145. And if it's not paid by the end of this month, it could result in him being taken to court.

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article17462147.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_WML_221219_Parking_Fine_10JPG.jpg)
Capital Retail Park in Leckwith, which has a three hour free park period

"Bernard's been going to the Leckwith Retail Park with Elizabeth every Friday for years," says his wife Beryl, 79.

"He parks up, she goes in and does her shopping, he waits for her in the car, they go home again - that's it. But because the car wouldn't start he had to get the RAC out and it took them several goes to get it working again.  We didn't think anything of it until we got a letter telling us he'd be fined for staying there too long."

Told to pay up within 14 days, the couple contested it - via Popla, an independent appeals service for parking charge notices issued on private land. But they still face having to pay or incur legal proceedings.

"We've showed them all the RAC paperwork as proof we weren't lying, but it doesn't seem to have made any difference," adds Beryl.

The same car park was in the news earlier his month when a number of people were incorrectly issued with fines after the free stay period was halved due to a big football match taking pace at the nearby Cardiff City Stadium. 

Shoppers successfully appealed against the charge, claiming there were no signs warning the match was being played.

Premier Park - which manages more than 850 car parks across the UK, including the Leckwith site, has been contacted for comment.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/pensioner-fined-145-threatened-court-17461166 (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/pensioner-fined-145-threatened-court-17461166)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 28 December, 2019, 06:16:44 AM
#157

Mum 'wrongly' fined £100 for parking in Iceland has to pay up on Christmas day

Susan Murray has proof that she paid the £1 parking charge

10 December 2019

A Hull mum has a Christmas message for a major supermarket after she was wrongly handed a parking fine due on December 25.

Susan Murray, 53, of Marfleet Avenue, was issued with the £100 fine after a visit to Iceland in Holderness Road despite paying the parking meter.

She said: “The deadline for the fine is December 25, Christmas day. Well happy Christmas to you Iceland, looks like they’ll be getting £100 off lots of people on Christmas day.

“I work full time on minimum wage and it obviously stresses me out having this at this time of year.”

Ms Murray, who lives in east Hull, went to Iceland to do her weekly shop on Tuesday, November 26, while on her day off from her factory job.

(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article3625468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JWE_HMB_09122019Icelandparking_011JPG.jpg)
Susan Murray from east Hull was given a parking ticket at Iceland car park, Holderness Road, when she had already paid for a ticket.

Ten days later she was slapped with a charge notice stating that she had “parked without payment” from 9.37am to 9.55am.

But Ms Murray has proof that she paid the £1 parking tariff and was entitled to stay in the car park until 10.38am.

She said: “I always put a pound in the metre when I go to Iceland on Holderness Road but I came home the other day and I’d got a fine.

"I am disgusted, I know I always buy a ticket. I shop at Iceland every week. I was praying and hoping I’d paid for a ticket, but I had done."

Ms Murray found the receipt of her payment in her car but despite having evidence contradicting the charge she has not managed to resolve the problem.

(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article3625458.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Iceland-ticket.jpg)
The parking charge and Ms Murray's proof of payment

She said: “There is a phone number which I tried ringing but it costs and I was left on hold for ages and then I tried on my landline, but I still couldn’t get through.

“I have this fine for £100, it’s costing me money - but I’ve done nothing wrong.

“Thankfully I keep all of my tickets in my car but I’m worried that if they do it to old people they might not still have their ticket and just pay it."

(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article3625367.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_parking-meter-icelandjfif.jpg)
The parking meter at Holderness Road Iceland

After being approached by Hull Live Iceland have since dropped the £100 charge.

A spokesman from Iceland said: "We can confirm that this ticket has been cancelled, and regret the inconvenience caused."

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/iceland-fine-mum-parking-charge-3624766 (https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/iceland-fine-mum-parking-charge-3624766)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 28 December, 2019, 06:34:08 AM
#158

40% of Northern Ireland parking fine appeals successful

12 December 2019

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/10159/production/_110118856_parkingsign.jpg)

Forty per cent of Northern Ireland parking fines appealed to an ombudsman since last spring have been successful, figures released to BBC Newsline show.

The Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) has been taking appeals from NI motorists since May.

It has received 190 appeals - 40% of which have been successful.

Fines issued by private parking companies are not enforceable by the police or local authorities.

The companies operate throughout Northern Ireland at sites including shopping centres and retail parks.

They can issue a ticket a called a parking charge notice - which is technically an invoice - for what they deem to be a breach of their parking contract.

Among those appealing fines are Londonderry man Alan - a clerical error left him with thousands of pounds worth of fines.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/14F79/production/_110118858_parkingalan.jpg)
Alan was issued a £13,000 fine due to a clerical error

His company rents a parking space from a company called Smart Parking.

After getting a new car, his registration was initially incorrect on their systems.

His company rectified the mistake - and continued to pay for his parking space - but the fines kept coming.

"Whenever I contacted them, because my car was about to get clamped at the time, they informed me there was a fine outstanding of £13,000," he said.

"I can't even see how they would legitimately allow a bill to get to that level without any due diligence, without any comeback to go to the landlord, go to the companies that park there and say 'look somebody's accruing a large amount of money'."

The Consumer Council has since told BBC News NI that Alan's fines have been resolved.

Des Brown parked at a car park off Belfast's Ormeau Road last December.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1AE1/production/_110118860_parkingt.jpg)
Des Brown said he entered his car registration, but the machine printed just a single letter of it

He says he entered his car registration, but the machine printed just a single letter of it.

Smart Parking, which manages the site and monitors it using cameras, issued him with a £60 fine.

He is still trying to appeal the fine which has since gone up to £170.

Mr Brown is now receiving letters from a debt recovery company.

"Very surprised, I displayed my ticket on the dashboard of the car as you would normally do on any pay and display and I just assumed it was a clerical error," he said.

"The bit that I find hard to take is that I'm able to prove that I've more than sufficiently paid for the time I spent in the car park.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/6901/production/_110118862_parkingdes.jpg)
Mr Brown said he had been fined despite the fact he could prove he had paid to stay in the car park

"There's an issue over the ticket, but Smart Parking are refusing to marry the ticket that I purchased to my vehicle registration."

Craig Ineson of the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service said: "A tremendous number of what we see does revolve around certain themes which is signage not being adequate or, indeed, motorists who have paid and maybe not entered the correct registration."

POPLA, which is run by Ombudsman Services, says that anyone who receives a fine should not ignore it.

Newsline made several attempts to contact Smart Parking but have so far received no response.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50756938 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50756938)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 January, 2020, 09:15:02 AM
#159

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/man-willing-go-court-after-3732485 (https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/man-willing-go-court-after-3732485)

UPDATED: Why this man is willing to go to court after getting ‘scandalous’ parking fine

Levente Apagyi received a £100 parking charge notice from ParkingEye Limited after shopping at Lidl in Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham

ByRobin JenkinsChief Cheltenham Reporter
08:58, 13 JAN 2020UPDATED11:12, 13 JAN 2020


A Cheltenham resident says he is prepared to go to court if necessary to get a “scandalous” parking fine quashed.

Levente Apagyi received a £100 parking charge notice from ParkingEye Limited after shopping at Lidl in Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham, on December 30 2019.

The company said he had parked his Fiat car there for more than three hours, which is the maximum it allows at the car park at Cotswold Retail Park. The site has a Lidl supermarket and a Starbucks coffee shop.

(https://i2-prod.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/incoming/article3732550.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2_RJR_GLO_130120levente_01.jpg)
Levente Apagyi with the parking charge notice he received after shopping at Lidl in Cheltenham

Mr Apagyi was sent the notice through the post, saying he had to pay £100 or £60 if he paid it by January 17.

The demand said he had parked the car for four hours and 41 minutes, arriving at 12.42pm and leaving at 5.23pm. It included two images from cameras in the car park that it said showed the vehicle arriving and leaving at those times.

But Mr Apagyi says this is not true and that the company must have made a mistake.

The 47-year-old, of Pates Avenue, said he spent a total of about 20 minutes at the site.

(https://i2-prod.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/incoming/article3732557.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_RJR_GLO_130120cotswold_01jpeg.jpg)

He said he did about 15 minutes of initial shopping at lunch time and then, when his girlfriend asked him to go back to pick up some flour at tea time, he was there for a further five minutes.

He said a Google maps timeline facility on his mobile phone, which shows location history, showed he was telling the truth.

He said: “I think this is scandalous. I feel extremely badly treated.”

Mr Apagyi, who is from Budapest in Hungary but has lived in England since 2007 and in Cheltenham since 2012, added: “I appealed because I don't intend to pay and I am willing to go to court to prove I’m right and also to expose this company.

“I am wary about going back to Lidl after what happened.”

The issue is the same one that other shoppers complained about publicly last year at the Gallagher Shopping Park, which is also in Tewkesbury Road, Cheltenham, although that involved a different parking enforcement company.

The motorists involved at that time wondered whether there was something wrong with the cameras used to monitor vehicles’ registrations.

Full details are in the links to related stories above.

Update: ParkingEye Limited has this morning given us the following statement:-

“ParkingEye is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and operate a fully audited appeals process which all motorists are entitled to use. Anyone with mitigating circumstances is encouraged to appeal highlighting this.

“In this case the motorist used our appeals system, and after our team reviewed the case, the appeal has been accepted and the parking charge has been cancelled.”

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/man-willing-go-court-after-3732485 (https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/man-willing-go-court-after-3732485)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 22 January, 2020, 07:49:27 AM
#160

Warning over parking 'fines' wrongly issued by ANPR cameras as taxi driver fined for Aldi stay

British Parking Association says car park operators 'should now be checking all ANPR transactions' to ensure that motorists are not being wrongly sent Parking Charge Notices

ByKelly WilliamsMax ChannonLive and Trending Editor
16:21, 18 JAN 2020

(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/article3753305.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_ICP_DPW_170120fine_06JPG.jpg)
Taxi driver Hugh Jones with a Parking Eye letter demanding payment of £70 for a Parking Charge Notice

Thousands of motorists - including a taxi driver who made several trips to an Aldi store to pick up customers - may have wrongly received Parking Charge Notices or 'fines' because of a flaw in Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera systems.

The British Parking Association (BPA), a body that represents the UK parking and traffic management profession, has acknowledged the issue and says car park operators "are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions" to ensure that motorists are not being sent Parking Charge Notices when they haven't overstayed.

However, a taxi driver who made several trips to an Aldi to pick up and drop off customers was hit with a £70 parking ticket for a six-hour stay he says he never had.

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued automatically after Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras logged his taxi going into the car park - and leaving again five hours and 55 minutes later.

However, Hugh Jones went to Aldi store in Rhyll, North Wales, twice to pick up customers and once to pop in for something to eat on his break.

Hugh's booking log, which has been seen by North Wales Live, lists the 15 jobs he did during his shift that day.

The 64-year-old from Rhyl , who works for Busy Bee Taxis has sent the log off to ParkingEye as proof in his appeal against the fine and has raised concerns that the cameras could be faulty or not married up with another exit from the site.

(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/article3753314.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_hig2.jpg)
Hugh Jones said he won't go to Marina Quay again (Image: Ian Cooper/North Wales Live))
He also fears that other customers, who may also be incorrectly given fines, won't be able to prove that they hadn't parked there for longer than the two-hour time limit.

However, the British Parking Association website says: "Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’.

"Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

Hugh, a taxi driver of 21 years, said: "I was working on January 4 and was called to a fare at Aldi in the morning and then again at 2.55pm.

"After picking up the 3pm fare, I went on to do nine other jobs before going back to the store to grab something to eat at around 9pm.

"I was shocked when I got a £70 fine from ParkingEye saying I'd been there for six hours.

"The final insult was when the letter stated I could only appeal in English."

He added: "I think it's disgusting.

"There is clearly an issue with their cameras if one of them hadn't picked my car up leaving shortly after 3pm.

"How many more people has this happened to and how can they prove it if they weren't parked there for longer than two hours?

"I'm lucky that I work for a company that keeps a log of my fares but it was a hassle for my boss to gather the information for me to appeal the fine.

"But it's not the first time he's had to do this for drivers who have gone to Marina Quay so I'm boycotting that retail park from now on.

"It's not worth the hassle."

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “In this case the motorist used our BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process.

"This is available to anyone who believes they have mitigating circumstances.

"This process will be followed and once a decision has been made, the motorist will be notified of the outcome.”

Parking 'tickets' issued by private companies in private car parks are often referred to as fines, but they are not. They are actually an invoice requesting payment for charges the driver may be liable for under contract law.

In general, only councils have the power to issue parking fines – or Penalty Charge Notices. These powers are granted by legislation passed by Parliament and cover various parking misdemeanours, such as breaching the terms and conditions of parking in council-controlled car parks and parking spaces.

Private landowners and car parking firms have no such legal power. They cannot issue 'Penalty Charge Notices', and so they issue 'Parking Charge Notices', which often look and read like the legitimate fines issued by authorities – and both are abbreviated to 'PCN', which adds to the confusion.

Failing to pay a parking  fee is a a breach of contract and the car parking firms can use the small claims to court to recover their losses and excess 'parking charges' levied when there has been a breach of contract.

Regarding APNR Cameras, the BPA website admits: "As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

"Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

"Some 'drive in/drive out' motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates 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."

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/warning-over-parking-fines-wrongly-3753292 (https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/warning-over-parking-fines-wrongly-3753292)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 22 January, 2020, 08:14:40 AM
#161

Driver gets two fines within minutes – although spots were miles apart

 2019-07-09

Twice-suspended private parking firm strikes again by fining foster carer, 48, for £100 twice in seven minutes for same car they claim she had parked in spots five miles apart

EXCLUSIVE: Samantha Lowe, 48, fined by controversial firm UK Parking Control

One fine was in Streatham, south London, and the other in Elephant and Castle

UKPC claimed she was in both locations within seven minutes of each other

£11m-a-year firm has been suspended twice by DVLA for aggressive tactics

Have you been wrongly fined? Send evidence to rory.tingle@mailonline.co.uk


(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764584-7215177-image-m-25_1562576689092.jpg)

Samantha Lowe, 48, said she was furious at UK Parking Control Ltd and wanted the controversial Coventry-based company to immediately cancel both the tickets

A twice-suspended private parking firm has struck again by fining a foster carer for £100 twice in seven minutes for the same car they claim she had parked in spots five miles apart.

Samantha Lowe, 48, went to Tesco in Streatham, south London, on May 24 and parked at 10.53pm outside a nearby children’s centre, where she said parking was normally free and could not see any signs saying otherwise.

She was ‘annoyed’ to receive a fine in the post – but completely bemused when it was followed by another for supposedly parking at another spot 7 minutes earlier, even though it would have taken three times as long to drive from there.

‘At first I thought the first ticket had double printed but then I saw they were different – it’s so ridiculous,’ she told MailOnline. ‘There’s no way I could have been in two areas 21 minutes apart within seven minutes.’

Ms Lowe, from Crystal Palace, is appealing both fines from UK Parking Control Ltd.

UKPC is a private company employed by landlords to enforce parking restrictions, which has regularly caused controversy in the past by wrongly issuing fines that were later overturned on appeal.

At the first site where Ms Lowe was fined, UKPC was managing parking for 388 Streatham High Streatham Hub Children’s Centre, which offers childcare in a former church.

There, Ms Lowe used live dashcam footage to show how hard it was for drivers to see the ‘permit holders only’ sign, which she insists should have been lit up at night.

The second place where she got a ticket, 8 Walworth Road in Elephant and Castle, is 5.2 miles away by car and takes at least 21 minutes in light traffic, according to Google Maps, and 38 minutes at rush hour.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764930-7215177-image-m-28_1562577173170.jpg)

Ms Lowe’s first ticket (8 Walworth Road) was at 10:46 and the second one at 10:53. However, the distance between both locations means she could not have visited both of them in the time UKPC suggests, as this map illustrates

The two parking tickets she received both showed a close-up image of her car.

‘You can see it’s the same picture just taken from a different angle because of the angle of the lights,’ she said.

‘I’d been to that first spot lots of times and never had any trouble. I couldn’t see the sign at all because it was so dark, as you can see from my dash cam footage.

‘Then that next ticket was clearly fake. I just want UKPC to cancel both these tickets straight away, I’m fuming at them.’

Private parking firms have repeatedly been criticised for their aggressive and unfair tactics, with UKPC frequently at the centre of controversy.

The ten major private parking companies operating in Britain revoked at least 33 per cent of the 14.7million charges they issued in the last four years, a report by consumer group Which? given exclusively to This is Money last month showed.

The Government is currently drawing up a code of practice to regulate rogue companies following a boom in private parking sharks in recent years.

UKPC has regularly found itself under fire for its aggressive and sometimes legally questionable tactics – which netted the Coventry-based firm an £11million turnover last year.

It has been suspended twice by the DVLA, which provides the firm with drivers’ addresses so it can successfully enforce fines.

Have you been wrongly ticketed by UKPC or another private parking firm?
Contact rory.tingle@mailonline.co.uk

The first suspension came in 2015, when UKPC was caught faking time stamps on tickets.

Driver Neil Horton was given a ticket after parking his car in a UKPC site for just 15 minutes – despite the car park providing 90 minutes for free.

When he received photographic evidence over the fine, the pictures included timestamps suggesting he had left his vehicle at the site in Newcastle-under-Lyme for almost two hours.

But Mr Horton noticed the photos showed the same car behind his with its boot open in both pictures – suggesting they had been taken at the same time.

UKPC later admitted some of its employees had altered time stamps to make it look like drivers had overstayed when they actually had not.

The DVLA suspension meant UKPC was effectively banned from chasing drivers for fines, because using the government agency’s data is the only legal way to work out their addresses.

But the company was suspended again in 2018 after its wardens were caught telling drivers they would still be pursued for fines during the original suspension period.

In response, UKPC claimed its staff misunderstood an email regarding the suspension.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764588-7215177-image-a-23_1562576605225.jpg)

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764580-7215177-image-m-22_1562576597989.jpg)

The tickets for 8 Walworth Road (left) and 388 Streatham High Road, which were issued by UKPC

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764596-7215177-image-a-17_1562576570713.jpg)

At the first site, 388 Streatham High Road, she used live dashcam footage to show how hard it was for drivers to see the ‘permit holders only’ sign, which she insists should have been lit up

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764594-7215177-image-a-16_1562576568110.jpg)

What the sign looks like during the day. 388 Streatham Hub is just opposite a Tesco Extra which is open until midnight on weekdays

Revealed: Controversial history that has seen £11m-a-year UKPC suspended TWICE by the DVLA for its aggressive tactics

UKPC has regularly found itself under fire for its aggressive and sometimes legally questionable tactics – which netted the Coventry-based firm an £11million turnover last year.

It has been suspended twice by the DVLA, which provides the firm with drivers’ addresses needed to successfully enforce fines.

The first suspension came in 2015, when UKPC was caught faking time stamps on tickets.

Driver Neil Horton was given a ticket after parking his car in a UKPC site for just 15 minutes – despite the car park providing 90 minutes for free.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/09/08/15809316-7215177-image-a-2_1562658256150.jpg)

UKPC, which had a turnover of £11m last year, has been suspended twice by the DVLA for its questionable practices. Pictured is its website

When he received photographic evidence over the fine, the pictures included timestamps suggesting he had left his vehicle at the site in Newcastle-under-Lyme for almost two hours.

But Mr Horton noticed the photos showed the same car behind his with its boot open in both pictures – suggesting they had been taken at the same time.

UKPC later admitted some of its employees had altered time stamps to make it look like drivers had overstayed when they actually had not.

The DVLA suspension meant UKPC was effectively banned from chasing drivers for fines, because using the government agency’s data is the only legal way to work out their addresses.

But the company was suspended again in 2018 after its wardens were caught telling drivers they would still be pursued for fines during the original suspension period.

In response, UKPC claimed its staff misunderstood an email regarding the suspension.

Although the second suspension has now expired, the firm has rarely found itself far from controversy.

This year, a couple successfully sued the company for illegally fining them £2,500 over trips to see his sick two-year-old daughter.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/09/09/15809864-7215177-image-a-10_1562659425509.jpg)

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/09/09/15809862-7215177-image-m-9_1562659418809.jpg)

These photos of Neil Horton’s car in 2015 included timestamps claiming it had been in the same spot for nearly two hours. But Mr Horton noticed the same car had its boot open in both photos – suggesting they had been taken around the same time

Recruitment professional Myke Parrot and his wife Gemma, 34, were hit with several fines between February 2014 and July 2018 after leaving their car in West Middlesex University Hospital’s parking area.

However, when UKPC took them to court the case was thrown out as it emerged the company’s contract to run the NHS Hospital’s parking expired in November 2012.

And in June, the company was forced into an embarrassing U-turn over a controversial technique to snare shoppers at a retail centre in Stratford-upon-Avon.

A series of shoppers complained about receiving fines from the Maybrook Retail Park, saying notices warning people not to leave the site where small and unclear.

There were claims parking wardens were waiting for drivers to leave the site to visit stores on a nearby shopping street before swooping to slap tickets on their cars, reported The Stratford Herald.

After an outcry UKPC removed the signs and said leaving the site would no longer be punishable by a fine.

UKPC is based in Coventry and provides parking enforcement at around 2,000 commercial and residential sites across the country.

The Association of British Drivers told MailOnline: ‘These companies need to be brought to book when they get things wrong.

‘They are targeting motorists because they are seen as easy prey.’ 

MailOnline contacted UKPC for comment yesterday but has not heard back.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/07/08/10/15764604-7215177-image-m-15_1562576562188.jpg)
The second place where she got a ticket, 8 Walworth Road in Elephant and Castle, is 5.2 miles away by car and takes at least 21 minutes in light traffic. It is seen in a file photo

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7215177/Parking-firm-hands-driver-two-100-fines-minutes-locations-15-miles-apart.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7215177/Parking-firm-hands-driver-two-100-fines-minutes-locations-15-miles-apart.html)

https://mystylenews.com/world-news/driver-gets-two-fines-within-minutes-although-spots-were-miles-apart/ (https://mystylenews.com/world-news/driver-gets-two-fines-within-minutes-although-spots-were-miles-apart/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 22 January, 2020, 02:48:56 PM
#162

From twitter (click on attachment to see larger picture):


Jonny Salmon
@steerwithmyrear
 · 21/01/2020
Yes @ParkingEyeLTD I spent nearly 20 hours in my local @AldiUK because I noticed a bargain bucket deal on used Mitsubishi ASXs. It took me 19 hours to get it out of the store and 52 minutes to fit DIFFERENT PLATES. 🤦🏼‍♂️


(http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5768.0;attach=6473;image)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: acer on 26 January, 2020, 10:34:44 PM
#162

From twitter (click on attachment to see larger picture):

If someone with a Twitter account could DM this driver and ask him to complain to the ICO that would be excellent.


Jonny Salmon
@steerwithmyrear
 · 21/01/2020
Yes @ParkingEyeLTD I spent nearly 20 hours in my local @AldiUK because I noticed a bargain bucket deal on used Mitsubishi ASXs. It took me 19 hours to get it out of the store and 52 minutes to fit DIFFERENT PLATES. 🤦🏼‍♂️





([url]http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5768.0;attach=6473;image[/url])
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 February, 2020, 06:48:23 AM
#163

ANPR is not fit for purpose if it allows entry of a VRN it does not recognise.

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

Nurse's anger at £60 parking fine for making tiny mistake after gruelling night shift

Hull Royal Infirmary nurse Karen Stockdale was hit with the fine after parking outside a train station after a night shift. Parking firm Smart Parking have refused to cancel the whole fine.

(https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article21448602.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS205565653.jpg)
Karen was hit with the barmy fine in January

A nurse has hit out at a private parking firm which slapped her with a £60 fine even though she paid for a ticket.

Karen Stockdale, 58, was charged after entering her registration details incorrectly following a gruelling night shift at Hull Royal Infirmary.

She was fined after parking at Paragon Station before a trip to see her brother in Norwich.

Karen claims she can prove she paid for the ticket, and says the car left within the allotted time.

But weeks later, she received a letter demanding she pay a £60 parking charge after she failed to enter her details correctly.

(https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article21448599.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS205565743.jpg)
She told HullLive: “I’m fuming. I was getting a train and I’d just come from a night shift at the hospital.

“I put money in and thought I’d put the digits in and the ticket came out. I got the ticket and put it in the car and thought nothing of it.

“And then a few weeks later, I got the letter saying I was charged £60.

(https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article21448600.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS205565749.jpg)
Karen kept the ticket as proof

"They know my car and they know my ticket belonged to it. Why allocate the ticket if I’ve not entered the registration?

“I’d normally just pay it but I’m that p****d off about it. I put the time in and they have footage of the car but it’s just because I didn’t put three digits in the machine.”

After receiving the charge Mrs Stockdale wrote back to Smart Parking to appeal the fine.

The firm acknowledged the fact that she purchased a ticket, and wiped £20 from the fine – but demanded that she pay the rest.

She added: “It was an honest mistake. It’s ridiculous."

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/nurses-anger-60-parking-fine-21448639 (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/nurses-anger-60-parking-fine-21448639)






Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 21 February, 2020, 08:54:11 AM
#164


PARKING MAD Furious dad hit with £70 parking ticket during son’s hospital visit because it took him 45 minutes to leave car park

James Gratton
20 Feb 2020, 15:03Updated: 20 Feb 2020, 15:03


AN OUTRAGED father has been hit with a £70 parking ticket after it took him 45 minutes to leave a hospital car park.

Scott Michael Clarke was visiting Lincoln County Hospital for an appointment for his one-year-old son who had broken his leg when he was struck with the harsh penalty.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NINTCHDBPICT000563912844.jpg?w=620)
Scott Clarke was fined £70 after being stuck in a queue to exit Lincoln County Hospital

The 31-year-old from Sleaford, Lincolnshire, paid £1.70 to park outside the hospital during the check-up, before returning with 30 minutes to spare.

But banked up traffic in the car park made it almost impossible to leave his space, with it taking 45 minutes to reach the exit where the automatic cameras recorded his registration.

He was shocked when he received the ticket last week, which stated he could face legal action if he failed to pay.

Scott said: "We got in the car with the ticket and went to leave but then that's when we noticed all the traffic.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NINTCHDBPICT000563756919.jpg?w=620)
The 31-year-old was taking his one-year-old son for an appointment after he broke his leg

"The main road was packed and not moving. It took us 45 minutes to get out of the car park.

"We didn't think anything of it as we had paid, but then a few weeks later we received the letter.

"We tried phoning but there was no way of calling them, so we sent a copy of the ticket and a letter to Parking Eye thinking it was all sorted until we got another letter."

Scott plans on fighting the ticket with the parking firm.

He said: "Getting the ticket in the first place when we know we paid and the fact that getting it was due to something out of control with the traffic is horrendous.

"I definitely believe the system needs changing because if it's happened to me, who else will be next?

'Some little, old lady that will just end up paying as she doesn't know how to use the internet and can't appeal."

A Parking Eye spokesperson said: "In this case the motorist was 28 minutes over the time purchased.

"We are not aware that there were any delays in exiting the car parks on this date.

"In the event that a motorist stays beyond their time purchased they are able to pay for additional time via the good2go website up to 24 hours after leaving the car park."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/11004776/dad-hit-parking-ticket-during-sons-hospital-visit-car-park/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/11004776/dad-hit-parking-ticket-during-sons-hospital-visit-car-park/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 25 February, 2020, 07:12:45 AM
#165

Parking Eye admits 'technical problem' led to people being wrongly charged for parking at the Moor Park Health and Leisure Centre in Bispham

A pensioner was sent a parking ticket following a trip to the Moor Park Health and Leisure Centre in Bispham - despite staying there for just 39 minutes.

By Michael Holmes
Monday, 17th February 2020, 5:00 pm - Updated Monday, 17th February 2020, 6:50 pm


Garry Hamer accused the Parking Eye cameras of being out of order, saying he should have been fine to park at the Bristol Avenue facility for two hours.

The 82-year-old, of Boston Avenue, a retired bakery sales manager, said: "If they are faulty, they should switch them off."

Parking Eye initially insisted Mr Hamer had "parked in the emergency drop-off zone", which has a 20-minute limit, but later admitted: "A technical problem was identified with our systems and was resolved later that day and no further issues have since been identified.

(https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/sttms.blob.core.windows.net/images/QVNIMTEzNjc2MDc3.jpg?&width=640)
Garry Hamer, 82, was sent a demand for 70 after parking at the Moor Park Health and Leisure Centre, in Bristol Avenue, Bispham, for 39 minutes. Parking Eye has now admitted an error with its system and cancelled the fine

"Affected motorists have now been notified in writing and we expect no further complications to arise."

Mr Hamer, who drives for Trinity Hospice and also helps with maintenance at the All Hallows church, said he was sent a £70 ticket after a trip to the centre on Wednesday, January 15.

He took it into the reception desk, where he said a worker took out a wad of complaints and told him to "join the queue" of disgruntled motorists.

"Even the staff are being fined for parking," Mr Hamer said. "Apparently the cameras have been faulty for quite a while," he added, saying those ticketed since the malfunction should now be refunded.

The centre has a council-run swimming pool, gym, and library, as well as three GP practices and a pharmacy, and a cafe. A children's play area and small all-weather sports pitch are outside.

Its 230-space car park is owned by pharmacy and medical real estate firm Assura, which tore up tickets handed out to confused drivers after the cameras were installed by Parking Eye in August 2017.

The restrictions, brought in because the car park was regularly rammed, leaving people struggling to find a space, allow for two hours' free parking - or three if drivers enter their details - in a regular space.

Some 61 signs warn of the limits.

Mr Hamer insisted he did not park in a disabled spot or the short stay area, saying he was "right round the back" of the car park.

Another man, David Wood, got a ticket after his daughter, Red Marsh School teacher Heather Wood, 34, used his Seat Ibiza to take her son Paddy, one, for a doctor's appointment on Monday, January 20.

The 63-year-old, of King's Walk, Cleveleys, said photographs showed her driving into and out of the car park, with the ticket claiming she parked in either a disabled space or the short stay zone. He said there was "no evidence" that she did, and said: "She is vehement that she parked in a proper space. They parked round the back."

Mr Wood said he wrote about his experience online, and heard from several others who said they have been in a similar situation.

"Some people have paid because they did not want the hassle," he said.

Mr Wood said his daughter stayed in the car park for an hour and one minute. He said he was prepared to take his fight to court, although Parking Eye cancelled his ticket after being contacted by The Gazette.

"I wonder if they are going to cancel all the other tickets they have issued when they were having technical issues," Mr Wood said.

An investigations team was "looking through the cases to double-check", a spokesman for the firm said, and will "automatically cancel and let people know".

Writing on Facebook, Luce McMillan urged Mr Wood to take his ticket into reception at Moor Park, and added: "They will deal with it. They said the camera is faulty. I got a fine for driving off the car park. I made the mistake of paying the fine in a panic. I hate owing anything, then I got another so I went to ask and the lady at the desk had hundreds all piled up and ready to sort out."

Ann Burton added: "I have had four this week. Apparently they have an issue with cameras. I am taking my latest two in tomorrow; reception just take them off you. [They] accused me of parking in a disabled bay for two hours - rubbish. They are a damn pain."

And Jenny Slater said: "Mum's had a few as she's a member there. They've been sorted by the reception."

Norbreck councillor Maxine Callow, who helped get Mr Hamer's ticket thrown out, said she has dealt with several complaints about the cameras.

She said: "What concerns me is we have vulnerable people going to the doctors who don't feel very well and are waiting for test results, and the last thing you want is a parking system that appears not to be working properly."

Assura, which owns the car park, said: "We're sorry to all patients who have received tickets in error due to the current problems with Parking Eye’s cameras.

"We have asked Parking Eye to ensure that these are cancelled immediately. The system is there to ensure that all users of the building can get a space when they need to, so we are working to make sure these issues are resolved quickly.”

Local MP Paul Maynard, who represents Blackpool North and Cleveleys for the Conservatives, wrote to the company when motorists were caught out by the new rules in 2017.

An aide today said his office will help those who have been affected if they get in touch.

Last week, a picture was posted to the Facebook group Bispham Chat, which has more than 10,000 members.

It purported to be a notice from the council's leisure department and warned: "Parking Eye will be doing patrols of the car park and ticketing cars that have been illegally parked."

Mike Pollard said in a comment: "It appears 'some' people had been parking on the hatched areas, taking up two bays, blocking doorways and restricting free access for ambulances."

Mr Pollard, who has spoken out against the use of parking cameras elsewhere on the Fylde coast in recent years, added: "It's no wonder they've brought a patrol in."

PROLIFERATION OF AUTOMATIC PARKING CAMERAS

ANPR cameras work by automatically scanning the registration plates of vehicles. Traffic police officers use them to tackle uninsured drivers and dangerous vehicles, with their on-board system checking reg plates against a huge database and flagging up any that don't appear to be taxed, insured, or have a valid MoT. They are also used on motorways to track suspects and solve and prevent crime.

But they are also now being used, on an increasingly regular basis, to enforce restrictions on car parks. In the past, motorists had to hope eagle-eyed wardens didn't clock them parking for too long where they should not have been. But now every single vehicle can be checked by one or two cameras in an instant, with invoices sent through to the post to their registered keepers.

Supermarkets, hotels, and leisure parks all now use the cameras.

Last year, the introduction of cameras at the Festival Leisure Park in Rigby Road, central Blackpool, caused controversy.

Some drivers were caught out and fined after a three-hour restriction was brought in, though people can register to stay for longer.

Those in favour of the cameras claim they crack down on those who take up spaces they shouldn't, freeing up much-needed spaces for customers and patrons.

But others claim they are simply cash-cows, targeting motorists for money.

Coun Tony Williams, the opposition leader at Blackpool Council, said previously: "They are not issuing 'fines'; they are private parking charges issued by aggressive private parking companies who then bully those who they state have over-stayed their welcome by threatening them with court action."

HOW TO APPEAL A PARKING EYE CHARGE

Parking Eye said it does not take appeals over the phone. It said they must be done "in writing to ensure a fully audited" process.

They can be filed online at www.parkingeye.co.uk/contact-us (http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/contact-us), or by post by writing to: Parking Eye Limited, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.

"You must attach any evidence with your appeal and we will aim to respond within 21 days."

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/health/parking-eye-admits-technical-problem-led-people-being-wrongly-charged-parking-moor-park-health-and-leisure-centre-bispham-1757184 (https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/health/parking-eye-admits-technical-problem-led-people-being-wrongly-charged-parking-moor-park-health-and-leisure-centre-bispham-1757184)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 April, 2020, 11:59:47 AM
#166

Man’s fury after getting a parking ticket at Lincoln County Hospital despite paying to park

He was not happy

ByAshley Franklin
13:31, 4 APR 2020 UPDATED13:32, 4 APR 2020


(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article3924077.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Lincoln-Hospital-Stock-3.jpg)
The man got the parking charge while attending an appointment at Lincoln County Hospital

A man has told of his confusion after being slapped with a parking fine at Lincoln County Hospital despite paying for a ticket.

The man parked up in the hospital’s car park to attend a medical appointment on January 29 earlier this year.

He headed up to the machine outside the main entrance and paid for four hours on his card.

But to his astonishment, less than a week later, a letter arrived at his Lincoln home from ParkingEye, the private firm who govern the car park, with details of a £60 parking charge, which he was told would rise to £100 if not paid on time.

The 62-year-old, who didn’t want to be named, said: “I was rather annoyed when I got the letter as I knew I had paid.

“Why should I then have to pay a £60 to a £100 fine for attending a hospital appointment, which was actually quite critical to my health?

“Why was I being penalised for parking in a hospital car park that I had paid to park in?

“There was no chance I was paying it.”

The man instantly launched an appeal, including proof of his bank statement, which clearly showed he had paid to park.

(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article3985514.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2_PWR_HMB_240320pix_33.jpg)

After further bouts of correspondence, the firm wrote to the man to explain that the charge had occurred because the registration plate entered had not matched up.

Although the man says he is not sure how that could be the case when a picture of his car came up on the screen while paying.

He said: “I don’t know how I could have been in the wrong because the picture of my car came up when I was on the machine.

“If I had typed in the wrong registration plate wouldn’t a different car have come up?”

ParkingEye has since agreed to scrap the fine as a “gesture of good will”.

In a letter to the man seen by Lincolnshire Live, the company wrote: “We understand that receiving a parking charge notice may be inconvenient. However, issuing parking charges for breaches of the parking terms and conditions at this car park is necessary to ensure a better overall parking experience for all users of the facilities.

“As a gesture of good will, we can confirm that this parking charge has now been cancelled and there is no outstanding payment due.

“To avoid potential future inconvenience, we would kindly request you follow the parking terms and conditions displayed on the signage throughout the car park and ensure the correct vehicle registration details are input on any future visits to this car park.”

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/mans-fury-parkingeye-lincoln-hospital-4020224 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/mans-fury-parkingeye-lincoln-hospital-4020224)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 April, 2020, 04:52:25 PM
#167

Evesham drivers refuse to pay 'wrongly' sent out parking tickets, including one claiming a car was parked there 24 hours

9 April 2020 By Sam Greenway
Senior Reporter/Business


(https://www.halesowennews.co.uk/resources/images/11244093.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)

FRUSTRATED drivers, hit with car parking tickets on an Evesham car park, are demanding they are cancelled after claiming the cameras on the site are not working properly.

Dozens have people have said they have wrongly received tickets for stays allegedly over the allowed limit of three hours, on the Sinclair Retail Park's car park near to Aldi and TK Maxx.

And one reader has even told us about a ticket from Car Park Management (CPM), demanding a £60 payment rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days, given for an alleged stay over 24 hours.

Mellieha Colmer said: "My mum visited on the morning of March 19, and went back on March 20 morning.

"Yet they've said she was there the whole time.

"My mum is in her 70s, she has been trying to go out in the morning to shop when it is less busy. But this is just added stress at this time.

"There are at least 40 people (with similar stories).

"The problem is, as I guess no one is working in their office, you phone their number and all it says is you can appeal.

"We are appealing - she wasn't parked there 24 hours."

Sarah Emily Watt, from South Littleton, said her husband popped out to visit Aldi and Home Bargains, on Sunday, March 1.

Mrs Watt said: "He went at 9.15am, but with everything happening at the moment, he had forgot shops don’t open until 10am on Sundays so left.

"He was only on there to turn around and drive straight out.

"He went back around 12.15pm, went into Aldi quickly - only around 10 minutes - and left at 12.26pm.

"He has now been sent a ticket saying he was on there three hours, 13 minutes.

"They have sent a photo of our car entering 9am, and then one of it leaving at 12.26pm.

"There is no way we are paying it - they just need to check the CCTV.

"We spoke to the shops there, but they say it is private land, managed by CPM.

"This must have been going on throughout March.

"It has put us off going there now."

On social media Evesham residents posted pictures of tickets they had wrongly received.

This paper has attempted to contact CPM through an email to their head office about the claims,

No one responded before our deadline.

https://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/regional/18368867.evesham-drivers-refuse-pay-wrongly-sent-parking-tickets-including-one-claiming-car-parked-24-hours/ (https://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/regional/18368867.evesham-drivers-refuse-pay-wrongly-sent-parking-tickets-including-one-claiming-car-parked-24-hours/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 05 July, 2020, 01:14:27 PM
#168

KFC customers receive £100 parking fines after queuing at drive-through for too long

17 June 2020

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/_DTRI6gsxT2SHwVNCpfYBA--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-06/100bac30-b089-11ea-ae5f-2f15c40f8a73)
Hungry KFC fans queuing up at a Wirral drive-through for their favourite takeaway

KFC customers were shocked after they received £100 parking fines for waiting too long at a drive-through.

The unsuspecting chicken lovers did not realise they were queuing in a privately owned car park in Wirral, Merseyside, to buy their meals.

The parking charge notices were issued to people who waited longer than the 75 minutes permitted at the reopened takeaway in Rock Ferry.

This was despite long queues that left people with waiting times of more than two hours.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/WgZlPs4qQj5SUV0kfAtX0A--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-06/8e1943d0-b089-11ea-bcff-e668df0a2d34)
Customers were shocked to be hit with £100 parking fines for waiting too long in the privately-owned car park

Even though none of the customers were in parking bays, they were automatically hit with fines because their registrations were caught on CCTV when they entered and left the KFC site.

The first people knew about it was when a letter landed on their doormat from private car park operator Civil Enforcement a few days later, ordering them to pay a £100 parking charge – reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

Read more: Crocs launches a KFC shoe that looks and smells like fried chicken

Mum-of-two Hayley Abbott, who was waiting in the KFC queue for 90 minutes, said it was “the most expensive KFC I've ever had in my life”.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/3Ce6q1x6lXl72QDxCcTbbA--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-06/4f76b810-b089-11ea-b9df-299cdf6741fb)
KFC has cancelled the fines.

Abbot added: “There was a security guard bringing people into the car park and there was no mention of there being a time limit and a possible fine.

“Once you're in the queue, you can't get out of it. The cars were bumper to bumper.

“I was fuming when I got the parking ticket through the post a few days later. I was thinking, ‘this is the most expensive KFC I've ever had in my life.’”

Read more: Surprise reopening of KFC causes 'two-hour queues' and 'manic scenes'

Instead of paying the fine, Abbot challenged it – and her appeal was upheld.

Another victim of the fines, who gave her name as Alisha, said: “It wasn't my fault I was waiting in a queue.

“If KFC knew people were going to be fined, they shouldn't have let that many people in.”

There was also a strong response when news of the fines was posted on a Facebook group's page, with many others saying they had had the same experience and were refusing to pay.

After being inundated with complaints from angry customers, KFC said it had now cancelled the penalty notices.

A KFC spokesperson said: "It's great to be back and we're flattered by how much our Rock Ferry fans have missed us!

"Our longer than usual queues did result in a few unfair fines for the car park but we've put that right now by cancelling the charges."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kfc-drive-through-parking-fines-merseyside-110742018.html
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 05 July, 2020, 09:11:28 PM
Don't go to drive through takeaways. Go home and cook a proper meal!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 July, 2020, 01:03:40 PM
#169, 170, 171

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

Note that in a clear attempt to distance themselves from previous criticism related to the name ParkingEye Ltd they have set up a different company (CarParking Partnership Ltd) under whose name they now trade. See: https://www.carparkingpartnership.co.uk/terms-conditions/ (https://www.carparkingpartnership.co.uk/terms-conditions/)

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

Three drivers hit with £100 fines despite claims they paid for parking at UHCW

The hospital is reviewing feedback and will be looking at ways to improve parking for visitors

By Bethan Shufflebotham
05:00, 16 JUL 2020

(https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article18600883.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/4_escenic-53.jpg)

Three motorists are appealing parking fines after saying they visited University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire and paid for parking.

Each driver said they had entered their number plate registration at the machine, which failed to identify their cars.

As a result, they say they selected and paid for the amount of time they thought they had parked for- but weeks later found themselves slapped with £100 fines.

A number of drivers contacted CoventryLive after Anna Bradley had her fine overturned by ParkingEye after we reported her story.

The hospital visitors say they are still receiving fines from parking enforcement company Car Parking Partnership.

Colette ordered to pay £100 fine over 40p price difference

Colette Brown, from Coventry, rushed her partner, Dennis, to UHCW after attending a walk-in centre.

The 47-year-old waited in her car whilst Dennis attended the A&E department before being diverted to the main hospital.

But when it came to paying for parking, she says the machine was unable to tell her how long she’d parked.

She said: “At first it wouldn’t take my registration so I entered it again. A man told me it wasn’t working and that he’d selected the free 10 minutes. I wasn’t going to do that, so I clicked one hour.

“I tried to add another hour, but it wouldn’t let me, so I entered my registration again and added a second hour. I thought nothing of it until I got the letter in the post last week.”

(https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article18595647.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Untitled-design-23.png)
Colette's fine from CPP for parking at UHCW

Colette sent CPP the bank statement which she says shows the parking she paid for. She paid for two hours of parking on June 17, but the latter shows she parked for two hours and 42 minutes.

She said: “I paid for two hours because I wasn’t sure how long I was there - the machine couldn’t tell me. I’m happy to pay the 40p difference between two and three hours of parking.

“I can’t afford to pay the £100 fine as I’m currently off work as I’ve been furloughed. I’m worried I will end up with two fines as I’ve got to take my partner for a check up next week.”

Visiting ill dad with family

Tim Bowers, aged 35, was visiting his dad at UHCW following two brain haemorrhages.

His father had been taken to hospital on June 29 following a suspected stroke, and is still recovering on the ward.

Tim, from Allesley, said: “A few days later we were allowed to visit dad due to him being in a private room on July 1. My wife dropped my mum off at the hospital and I joined them later that day.

“When leaving we went to pay, one machine was completely out of order, one was turned off and so we used the remaining machine in the hospital. No matter how many times we searched for the car registration, the system would not find it.

“Eventually I asked a member of staff - who also helped the elderly couple in front of us - for assistance. We weren't sure when we had arrived, as due to the stress we hadn't been paying much attention. I think the staff person clicked for two or three hours for us.”

(https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article18595676.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Untitled-design-24.png)
Tim's parking fine from CPP for parking at UHCW

Tim has been visiting his dad at the hospital most days and says he had always paid for his parking.

He added: “It’s a really emotional time and the last thing you need is a threatening sounding letter saying you owe money. It doesn't appear to acknowledge that we’ve paid anything at all. We’ve used the car park three or four times since and it’s worked correctly and I’ve been able to pay.”

ParkingEye have not cancelled the fines for Colette or Tim, as their appeals are still in review. The company has asked the drivers to wait until the appeal process is complete.

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “All motorists are able to appeal using our BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process to highlight any mitigating circumstances they may have. On this occasion both motorists have recently submitted an appeal which will be reviewed in the coming days."

Pregnant Stephanie's fine

Stephanie White, from Nuneaton, was heavily pregnant when she attended an appointment at UHCW on June 3.

The 32-year-old says she had a similar experience where the machine was unable to locate her vehicle registration.

She said: “ I entered my vehicle registration details at the pay station. The terminal advised me it did not recognise my vehicle details and asked me how much I would like to pay. It gave me a tariff against particular times. I estimated three hours and duly paid the displayed amount and left the hospital grounds. CPP have since advised me I was parked for 3 hours 34 minutes.”

A week later on June 11, Stephanie received the £100 fine in the post, which she attempted to appeal.

(https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article18600811.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Untitled-design-25.png)
Stephanie White's parking fine from CPP at UHCW

She added: “Why am I being charged a disproportionate amount because their terminal could not recognise my correctly entered details?”

Her appeal was unsuccessful, but ParkingEye have since cancelled the fine as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ after being asked to comment by CoventryLive.

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “Every appeal is reviewed by our dedicated appeals team and on this occasion, this has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill. The motorist will shortly receive a letter to confirm.”

Stephanie's dad, Ian Jones, from Coventry is not impressed with the company.

The 67-year-old said: "The exact same thing happened to my son three months ago, and his appeal was upheld.

"They haven't apologised for the inconvenience caused. She's a new mum and didn't need to be stressed out in her third trimester, nor pay a £100 fine when that money could go on the baby."

The hospital says it is reviewing feedback and will be looking at ways to improve parking for visitors.

A spokesperson for University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) NHS Trust said: “We would like to thank members of the public for bringing these matters to our attention.

“In light of this feedback, we will review whether the processes and accompanying information for inputting estimated length of stay into our machines can be enhanced further.

“We understand that attending hospital can be a stressful time and are continuously looking at ways to improve the parking experience at University Hospital.”

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/three-drivers-hit-100-fines-18595508 (https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/three-drivers-hit-100-fines-18595508)


Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 09 August, 2020, 08:12:26 AM
#172

Anger as pensioner told to pay £100 parking fine despite paying right fee

By Richard Guttridge | West Bromwich | News | Published: Sep 9, 2019

A pensioner has been left furious after she was told she must pay a £100 fine for accidentally entering the wrong registration number on a parking machine.

(https://www.expressandstar.com/resizer/yrCKSsJUirhN_Ocgsh6Hjz-_ccE=/1000x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-expressandstar-mna.s3.amazonaws.com/public/QHHSJIQC3JFIFP6CQQZIC7PPX4.jpg)
Jo Turner was furious when her appeal was refused

Jo Turner, aged 81, was appalled when she discovered her appeal against the fine had failed, even though it was accepted she had paid the correct amount and not overstayed.

Smart Parking, which manages the machines at the Astle Retail Park in West Bromwich, said her mistake "breached the advertised terms and conditions" and that it was the "responsibility of the motorist" to ensure details were entered correctly.

The retired nurse, from West Bromwich, paid 80p to stay 20 minutes at the retail park but didn't realise she had held down one of the keys for too long and therefore typed in her registration incorrectly.

ANPR cameras confirmed she stayed for 20 minutes, complying with the rules of the car park.

That was not good enough for Smart Parking, which decided to uphold the parking charge notice, originally issued in May, meaning Mrs Turner must stump up the £100.

However the bullish pensioner, who had parked for a quick visit to the bank, has so far refused to pay up despite receiving a notice from a debt collector.

And she said: "I put my 80p in. They can put me in prison if they want.

"I think they are being unreasonable. I produced my ticket to show I put the right amount in but they said it was the driver's responsibility to put in the correct details.

"I would have done if I could see it. It was so small and I have got cataracts. It doesn't affect my driving but it does affect my reading.

"I understand the computer doing that but I expect a human being not to act like a machine."

A letter sent to Mrs Turner informing her the appeal was being refused said: "Please be advised that as detailed on the car park signage it is the responsibility of the motorist to enter the full and correct VRM (vehicle registration mark) when using the payment machine, and ensure payment has been made against the full and correct vehicle registration for the total duration the vehicle is on site."

It continued: "There are numerous signs located around the site that inform motorists of the advertised terms and conditions.

"The terms and conditions clearly state: 'Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine' and 'failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100 discounted at £60 if paid within 14 days'."

Smart Parking has not responded to requests for comment.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/sandwell/2019/09/06/pensioners-anger-over-unfair-parking-fine/ (https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/sandwell/2019/09/06/pensioners-anger-over-unfair-parking-fine/)









Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 09 August, 2020, 08:23:39 AM
#173

Man fined after hospital ANPR cameras didn't recognise his car

There are fewer incidents being reported at the hospital following the installation of ANPR earlier in the year

ByLaura HartleySenior Reporter
15:13, 13 SEP 2019


(https://i2-prod.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article16895951.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_JS192217382.jpg)

A pensioner received a £100 fine after he says ANPR cameras at University Hospital Coventry didn't recognise his car's number plate.

John Green, 89, is a disabled badge holder, and has been using the hospital car park on a regular basis.

However, the former Magistrate recently experienced a problem when his number plate wasn't recognised.

John said he went to the hospital mid-August to take his wife for a scan, however when he went to type his registration into the pay machine, his car wasn't recognised.

The hospital has said that following the initial problems when the ANPR system was installed, the cameras have now improved and pick up 98 per cent of registration numbers.

A spokesman invited John to contact the hospital to discuss the fine.

'Upset and angry'

John said: "I'm really quite angry about this, as we are unfortunately regulars at the hospital.

"It happened on August 14 when we went in for an MRI scan at 7.45am and came out a couple of minutes after 9am.

"I put my registration plate in and it said it doesn't recognise it, so I put it in again, and I was beginning to think I was doing it wrong.

"It was then I went in to security and explained what happened and the man did come out with me and put it in for me. But he said the same.

"We had not long bought the car so I did check if the plate for right and it was. I tried at least five times.

"The man from security said, you go and I will deal with this.

"However I then got a fine for £100. I wrote a letter to them as instructed to appeal and explain, and all I had was an extension to pay the fine.

"When I received it, I was upset, and angry. I'm a retired magistrate, why would I riddle with the system."

What UHCW said in response

A spokesman for University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust said: “We have no record of these matters being raised with us but would be more than happy to speak to and assist the gentleman in question.

“Our cameras are now picking up 98% of registrations, meaning there is a minimal window for error.

“On the rare occasions registrations are not read, due to the number plate maybe being dirty or possibly modified in some way, a number of options are available to enable visitors to pay for parking.

“Security staff have been trained to provide help and guidance to members of the public having any difficulties.

“We understand that attending hospital can be a stressful time and are continuously looking at ways to further improve the parking experience at University Hospital.”

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/uhcw-car-park-anpr-fine-16889462 (https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/uhcw-car-park-anpr-fine-16889462)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 August, 2020, 08:38:07 AM

“Our cameras are now picking up 98% of registrations, meaning there is a minimal window for error.


Imagine if police told you their speed cameras were correct 98% of the time but 2 out of 100 motorists would be wrongly accused of speeding and therefore forced to prove their innocence.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." William Blackstone - c1760
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 October, 2020, 04:39:28 PM
#174

Families frustrated after ‘unfair’ parking fines at hospital

PUBLISHED: 18:59 23 January 2020Sophie Barnett

(https://www.eadt.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.6480644.1579800775!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)

Patients and their families have hit out at a “frustrating” automatic number plate recognition at Colchester Hospital’s car park, which they claim has left them facing unfair fines.

Karen White, aged 55, from Dedham, is one of many people "confused" by the system at the hospital's general car park, receiving a £70 parking fine on three occasions.

"The system should work the same every time," said Karen. "But it is so unpredictable and frustrating, as one day it will recognise my registration and the next it won't."

Fiona Sparrow, head of facilities East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust - which runs Colchester Hospital - encouraged people to contact the trust directly with their concerns.

Karen has received three parking fines which she has tried to appeal - one from a visit in September and two in the space of a week in October, where she was visiting her mother up to three times a day.

The hospital introduced the ANPR system back in October 2018, which records a vehicles licence plate on arrival and means that visitors no longer have to take a ticket from a machine.

Drivers then enter their licence plate and pay by card or cash before returning to their vehicle.

According to Karen and a number of other customers, the ANPR systems sometimes fail to recognise the number plate upon arrival, meaning guests have to manually enter their details and select the time they were parked for.

Then, a few days later, customers have reported receiving parking fines through the door.

Karen says she has also written to the company, her local councillor and even asked a parking attendant for help.

The 55-year-old, who has spent many trips to the hospital to visit her sick mother, is now making a conscious effort to note down the time she arrives, in case the system fails.

Ms Sparrow said: "We're grateful to visitors for bringing this to our attention and we are sorry for any inconvenience the ANPR system at Colchester Hospital has caused.

"If they would like to get in touch with us directly we will happily look into these cases further and consider their appeals.

"We do have an appeal process in place for anyone who thinks they've been unfairly fined."

One of Karen's three appeals has been successful but, as it stands, she may be forced to pay £140 - which she claims is "unfair".

Other customers have shared their similar experiences online, with Michelle Skinner stating that the situation made her "furious".

She said: "I am currently sending off another appeal which has been denied once already."

Others admitted they "caved in" and paid the fines, after sending multiple appeals off and "giving up".

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/colchester-hospital-general-car-park-fines-anpr-system-1-6480645 (https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/colchester-hospital-general-car-park-fines-anpr-system-1-6480645)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 25 October, 2020, 09:36:41 AM
#175

From Pepipoo

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



Hi

I foolishly didn't read up before putting my first appeals in at UKCPM. I've now read the NEWBIES thread and seen that I should have used the template there.

Situation: Driver parked at small city centre car park near workplace several times within 2 weeks. Has used in past and not had issues but it has changed to ANPR over lockdown. Entered Reg & Paid at machine for time needed, machine does not give ticket but says Processing. I checked UKCPM site and it says this should whitelist your Reg on their system. Cleary this did not happen because I have received 6 PCNs since. I now know these are NTKs.

I promptly put in appeals as I'm aware that companies now pursue unpaid tickets and naively thought ticket was paid, machine fault, surely they'd check that and correct it. I was mistaken, and they rejected all the appeals.

I put the appeals in through the online form and checked Registered Keeper box, but didn't take screenshots. In it was simply stated something to effect of 'Parking charge was paid at machine as per signage. There must be an error with your system. Please investigate'. I don't believe I ever alluded to who driver was so think I did that bit right.

Question: The T&Cs were followed, but I have no proof because they do not give tickets. As I didn't use the template, I didn't request the PDT machine details outlined in it. I am now wondering, could I submit the First appeals through the UKCPM form again using the template to try to force them to check the machine logs or would that create more issues for me later on? Everywhere here says not to bother with IAS.

My main concern is with 6 PCNs/£600 of fines, and no ticket to prove payment, that they will definitely take this to court.

As this is one of those gravelly plots of land in a city centre, I have no clue who the landowner is to contact them. I expect others must have had same issues and stopped parking there now so maybe they'll notice revenues are down.

I have the same letter as this thread (no scanner right now) - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77246627#Comment_77246627
Signage:



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6194134/6-pcns-from-ukcpm-anpr-car-park-paid-cash-every-time
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 November, 2020, 01:32:44 PM
#176

"...he spent three minutes parked in a private car park behind the hotel on Tombland - just long enough to read the sign and opt not to stay."

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


‘Common sense prevails’ - Court case over three minutes of parking is thrown out

PUBLISHED: 09:01 21 December 2019 | UPDATED: 15:06 21 December 2019

(https://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.6435758.1576877921!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
Lewis Taylor was taken to court over three minutes of parking. Pictured with wife Nikki and son Finley. Pictures; Lewis Taylor/Denise Bradley

A new father who was hauled before a court over a three minute parking charge has said he feels like he’s been “given an early Christmas” after his case was dismissed by the court.

Lewis Taylor, of Sprowston, was taken to Norfolk County Court by National Parking Enforcement, after he parked for a grand total of three minutes in the car park of the Maid's Head Hotel in Norwich almost two years ago.

Mr Taylor attended court on Friday, after weeks of stress anticipating the possibility of a court defeat and heavy costs to pay - just days before Christmas.

However, instead, the case was dismissed by the court and his £100 parking charge rescinded - much to the 28-year-old carpenter's relief.

He said: "I definitely could have done without the stress of attending court, but in the end the case was dealt with in less time than I was actually in the car park for.

"It's like I've been given an early Christmas present. I was really pleased to see that common sense prevailed in the end."

Mr Taylor, who is preparing to celebrate his new son Finley's first Christmas with wife Nikki, was summoned to court after ignoring a £100 charge issued by the controversial private parking firm.

It related to an incident on March 15, 2018, in which he spent three minutes parked in a private car park behind the hotel on Tombland - just long enough to read the sign and opt not to stay.

He said: "It has been a big stress, but I always knew I hadn't done anything wrong. The court obviously felt the same way, so happy days.

"My advice to anyone else in the same situation would be if you believe you are in the right, stand up for yourself.

"If I had been in the car park for three hours then of course I'd have held my hands up to it, but what I did wasn't unreasonable.

"The charge wasn't astronomical and we could have coped but it was a matter of principle and I'm glad I saw it through."


https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/sprowston-father-parking-charge-dismissed-1-6435760 (https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/sprowston-father-parking-charge-dismissed-1-6435760)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 08 November, 2020, 02:51:50 PM
He should have been awarded compensation equal to the amount they were trying to thieve off him.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 01 January, 2021, 12:58:14 PM


The British Parking Association for car park operators told The Sunday Telegraph that ANPR was “99 per cent accurate”.

A spokesman said: “Problems can arise when they drive very close together if there is a queue or the weather is poor. There can be instances where old plates are not read properly.”


See full article below for context

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


Free car parking loophole is being exploited by classic car owners - Here’s how it works

CLASSIC car owners in Britain are exploiting a parking loophole in Britain which allows them to avoid paying any parking charges.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Classic-car-parking-loophole-1110267.jpg?r=1554467105868)

Classic car owners in the UK are getting free parking due to the exploitation of a loophole. Certain car parks across Britain use high-technology cameras to enforce fines and punishments. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) software is used to scan the car registration plate when it enters and exits the car park, noting down the time and details of the plate. Some car parks do not even have barriers in place to prevent drivers from entering and exiting the car park.

Classic car owners are managing to get away without paying these fees due to the usual non-standard number plates allowed on vehicles made before 1975.

Rules introduced in 2015 allows the use of the silver and black number plates on ‘historic vehicles’.

This move has caused some confusion with the technology which is failing to pick up the licence details as it does not follow the standard plate format.

The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs told The Sunday Telegraph that as many as 20 of its members had been exploiting the loophole.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/parking-1814241.jpg?r=1554467111191)
The silver and black number plates aren't being recognised by ANPR cameras (Image: GETTY)

“In the cases of supermarkets you wouldn’t be challenged at all because the system simply wouldn’t recognise you had ever been there,” a spokesman said.

Editor of the Classic Car David Sinister detailed how has been enjoying the free parkignbeneftis of owning a classic car.

The vintage MGB GT driver told The Sunday Telegraph: “The car park I used wasn’t barrier-operated, so when you drove in it had a little LCD matrix screen which will tell you your registration number and how long you were allowed to park there – but it would never recognise it.

“I could park there at 8am, go shopping all day, leave it there for a week and nobody would be any the wiser.

“For me personally, it’s not been a bad thing, but I appreciate it does have more serious implications.”

Despite the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) admitted that the plate could be misread, they are really involved in any criminality as they are often very easily identifiable.

The British Parking Association for car park operators told The Sunday Telegraph that ANPR was “99 per cent accurate”.

A spokesman said: “Problems can arise when they drive very close together if there is a queue or the weather is poor. There can be instances where old plates are not read properly.”


https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1110267/Classic-car-parking-loophole-UK-free-ANPR-cameras (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1110267/Classic-car-parking-loophole-UK-free-ANPR-cameras)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 27 January, 2021, 12:46:27 PM
#178

War veteran wins battle to get 'monstrous' £100 parking ticket cancelled
Car park owners Falmouth Harbour Commissioners cancelled the fine issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd in their car park after Cornwall Live contacted them

13:24, 20 JAN 2021UPDATED13:47, 20 JAN 2021

(https://i2-prod.devonlive.com/incoming/article4894476.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/137682666_401186857825774_113989624055710357_n.jpg)
94-year-old Henry Philp, with his wife outside his car in Helston

A Cornish Second World War veteran who received a £100 parking charge after incorrectly entering a small part of his number plate at a car park has had the fine cancelled after Cornwall Live intervened in his case.

Henry Philp, 94, who served with the Royal Artillery in the Second World War was given the “monstrous” fine after he mis-input two letters of his registration plate when visiting Custom House Quay car park in Falmouth in November. After receiving a number of fine letters branded from the private company, Civil Enforcement Ltd, which enforces parking at the car park owned by Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, his daughter contacted Cornwall Live.

Falmouth Harbour Commissioners cancelled the parking fine after contact was made by the family with the guidance of one of our reporters, leaving Mr Philp “delighted” by the result.

He said: “I feel excellent, absolutely delighted to hear that the fine was cancelled. I felt it all left a bit of a bad taste and I learned that I am far from the only one to have received one. It feels like motorists are a threatened species.

"I’m so pleased Cornwall Live did what they set out to do after my daughter got in touch and brought a bit of sanity to it all. I was incensed and so was my daughter and that’s why she contacted you.

“I’m so pleased it’s something less to worry about. As you get older when this sort of thing happens it can get to you as things worry you more.”

Mr Philp also felt that the system involving registration plates unfairly punished older motorists. “When you get older, things get a bit harder to do than for younger people, such as those who probably designed this system don’t realise," he said. "They were small, silver buttons placed low and it’s harder to see if you’re my age, so it’s much easier to make a mistake.

“I think it’s bad how you can be punished for a slight error without any consideration given into the fact that you tried to act honestly, and could prove that. Most people go to the machine, pay their dues and pay for their space and don’t think anything else of it.”

(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article4879004.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_IMG_5431_censored.jpg)
The parking fine letter, with "Civil Enforcement" branding that Mr Philp received.

While he felt that Falmouth Harbour Commissioners were “extremely helpful” in how they dealt with the complaint once brought to their attention, Mr Philp described the actions of Creative Parking Ltd, also known as Civil Enforcement, as “like that of a money-making racket”. He said: “The Civil Enforcement were disgraceful. They thought they were being magnanimous in offering a small discount to the fine after the circumstances were explained but frankly it wasn’t good enough because they were still aiming to get their money.

"I think something needs to be done about issues like mine where I’ve paid their dues and just made a mistake, although I’m pleased the commissioners did the right thing I suspect there’s many that don’t get the same luck. It feels wrong to me.”

Mr Philp added as words of caution to others: “Always make sure you keep your tickets. I’m glad I did. I did reflect on that afterwards, that sometimes people get rid of their tickets because they thought, 'Parking paid, been and gone, it’s all done' and if I’d done that I would have no way of proving I paid for my ticket. Keeping the car tidy could have cost me £100."

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/war-veteran-gets-monstrous-100-4894481 (https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/war-veteran-gets-monstrous-100-4894481)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 28 January, 2021, 07:38:55 PM
Many years ago when I was in business, I employed a couple people and one of them always had trouble with numbers. He always managed to transpose figures in the part numbers. This is quite a common problem and can easily happen when inputting registration numbers in ticket machines.  These machines and their ANPR equivalents should be taken out of service. They're no fit for purpose.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 01 February, 2021, 10:11:41 AM
I one four could not agree more!
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 02 February, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
#179

A photo taken when entering and exiting a car park IS NOT PROOF OF PARKING

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

23rd January 2021

Driver’s warning after £100 fine from north Carlisle car park he couldn't park in


(https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/resources/images/12244263.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
No spaces: Heads Lane car park, Carlisle. There was no spaces available at the time

A MOTORIST is warning others after he received a parking fine for entering a city carpark to look for a space, leaving minutes later because it was full.

Hilton Sanderson entered the Heads Lane car park, at West Walls, Carlisle in December, he drove around the car park for five minutes before leaving because there were no spaces available.

Much to Mr Sanderson’s shock a letter arrived in the post only days later informing him that he had been charged for his five minute stay in the car park, despite him not parking, leaving his vehicle or anyone entering his vehicle.

He explained: “I was on West Walls and when I went into the car park to park and there were no spaces so I came back out again and a week later I got a ticket. So I wrote to them telling them I hadn’t parked, I’d just gone into park and there were no signs telling the car park was full.

“I didn’t get out the car and no one got in the car and I didn’t park. I just went in turned, waited until another car went passed me and then came out again.”

After Mr Sanderson wrote to the Carparkingpartnership (CPP) they turned down his appeal. Now, Mr Sanderson has written to the company parking on private land appeals (POPLA) and is waiting for a form to a appeal the decision.

He has been charged £100 for the charge and doesn’t intent to pay this. Mr Sanderson is wanting to warn others that they could fall victim to the same thing.

When he first received the letter in the post this was quite a shock to him, especially because he didn’t park and doesn’t believe he has committed a crime.

‘It was a real shock because I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Mr Sanderson.

“If I’d been parking when I should have been or there was some parking offence I would have just paid up and admitted to it. You can see I entered at 12.30pm and left at 12.35pm. I’m not disputing the fact I was there, just the fact I didn’t park.”

Mr Sanderson’s hope was that when he wrote to CPP and explained what had happened they would quash the parking charge and he would be able to move on.

In the letter he wrote to them he said: “On the date and time stated on your parking charge notice I did enter the car park but was unable to find a vacant parking space.

“I waited until I was able to turn and leave the car park. As your cameras will show I did not get out of the car and no one got in. This was reflected in the short time I was there, five minutes. I consider this parking demand a complete waste of time and have no intention of paying such a ridiculous amount for something that was beyond my control. Also, there was no indication that the car park was full.”

Mr Sanderson then received a letter back which read: “I advise you that your recent bill has been unsuccessful.”

A Parkingeye spokesman said: “The motorist on this occasion chose to appeal via POPLA, an independent body which reviews all parking disputes. It ruled against the motorist and upheld the PCN.”

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19028372.motorists-warning-100-unfair-charge-carlisle-car-park/ (https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19028372.motorists-warning-100-unfair-charge-carlisle-car-park/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 22 February, 2021, 11:06:22 AM
#180

Hemel man warns others after receiving 'ridiculous' parking fine at Tesco
Horizon have now cancelled the parking charge notice

By Holly Patel
Tuesday, 2nd February 2021, 12:09 pm


A man from Hemel Hempstead is warning others after receiving a 'ridiculous' parking fine for exceeding the maximum stay period at Tesco.

Tony received the parking fine notice from Horizon Parking Ltd on Friday, January 22, after visiting the supermarket at Jarman Park.

The letter says he stayed from 2pm on Friday, January 8, through to 1pm the next day (January 9).

(https://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/webimg/T0FLMTI4NjQ3OTA0.jpg?&width=640)


He said: "I had gone to Tesco on the way home from work on the Friday lunchtime and forgot a couple of things so had to do a repeat trip the next day.

"From my address, which they obviously had since they sent me a letter, it would have been pretty clear that I would not have left a car at Jarman Park, made my way several miles home (with or without shopping) and returned the next day.

"It's a ridiculous fine, perhaps it's not their fault, just faulty software – but they are happy to send out a quite threatening letter demanding £70, reduced to £30 'if paid within 14 days of the days of the date of this letter'.

"I want to share my experience and raise awareness so if anyone else has to go through this, it might save them a bit of time.

"I filled out an online form to contest the charge, but would have to wait up to 45 days for an answer. I tried phoning the store and it's an automated phone system which pretty much said 'not our problem, contact the parking firm'.

"I then went to the store and the manager told me it was not their problem, but eventually they took my letter and said they would contact the company.

"No apology though, and no acknowledgement that if Tesco have subcontracted parking checks they might actually retain some responsibility for their customer experience.

"I want to make people aware of this issue so they don't have to experience this very frustrating situation.

"From my experience contacting Tesco by phone was pointless, but going to the store, the staff were helpful in the end, and it may have influenced Horizon to back off, or they might have cancelled it without Tesco helping."

Tony was contacted by Horizon this week, informing him that the Parking Charge Notice had now been cancelled and no further action would be taken.

He said: "I received an email from Horizon saying that after investigating they have cancelled the fine.

"It said there was an error with the technology, which resulted in the fine, they did also say that they are constantly trying to improve the system.

"I understand these things happen but I just want to save someone else the time if this happens to them."

Tesco say there have not been any other reports of parking charges issued incorrectly at the store

A Tesco spokesperson said: “In car parks where there is a high demand for spaces we place a time limit on parking so that we can make sure our customers are able to find a space.

"In this case, a parking charge notice was issued in error and we are sorry that this happened.”

The Hemel Gazette has contacted Horizon Parking for a comment on this story but is yet to receive a response.

The Gazette called Horizon Parking and was directed to the websiteas the customer service helpline was currently unavailable due to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/people/hemel-man-warns-others-after-receiving-ridiculous-parking-fine-tesco-3121028 (https://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/people/hemel-man-warns-others-after-receiving-ridiculous-parking-fine-tesco-3121028)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 03 March, 2021, 08:33:50 AM
#181

It has to be wrong when the law has been twisted to the extent that a private parking company can force you to prove your innocence in a court, when everyone else has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

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



Woman charged £160 after stay at NCP multi-storey car park in Portsmouth city centre vows to take her fight to court

A WOMAN who claims she was unfairly ticketed in a Portsmouth car park says she will take her fight to court – and she is calling on others affected to form an action group.

Monday, 22nd February 2021, 9:47 pm


Joanne Etherington, of Hayling Island, received a parking charge from car park operator NCP after she parked in its multi-storey car park in Crasswell Street on August 16.

The 52-year-old carer had stayed for just under two hours, however when she went to pay, she said the machine would not accept her card.

She said: ‘I went to go and pay but the machine would not take my £2 coin as it was not accepting change due to Covid.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOjJmNDRhNzNkLTA5ZDMtNDAyMS1hYWRjLTA3MzZjYmRiZDk5MzpiMGQ3ZjA1Ni0zMGM3LTRhNjktYjgxMy02YjVhYzdmOWRkM2U=.jpg?&width=640)

‘I went to put my card in instead and it just wouldn’t work.

‘Originally it would not accept it, and when I tried a second time, the transaction seemed to go through but two weeks later I received a charge notice saying I owed £160.

‘I have appealed but they say as several other payments had been made by other people on the same day then my appeal was not successful.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOjk3MzY3OTgyLThiNTgtNDE1NC04ODAwLTBlYWNjN2RjNDFkNzoyOGQ5Nzg2YS05ZTUzLTQ1MzctYjlmNS0zYWQ2MDhhZjRkOTE=.jpg?&width=640)
NCP car park in Crasswell Street, Portsmouth.

‘Now they are threatening to take me to court. I am more than happy to go in front of a district judge and say my case.

‘There is obviously a problem with the machine. I would like to get a group together to show that it’s not just me, that there are many more people having this problem.’

Joanne, a mum of three, got in touch with The News after reading about a similar case, where Allan and Sheila Birt, from Southsea, experienced problems paying by card in December, so left the car park after 11 minutes and still received a charge.

They said the machine was faulty, and that others had also been experiencing problems, however parking firm NCP said this was not the case. They have now settled their case after NCP agreed to drop the charge to £20.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOmY2ODZiYjVlLWMxZTQtNDkyZC04YWNkLTZlZjE3MTQzM2NhYjo4NGMyZjQ1Ny0zMTNiLTRjYTctYjE3ZS02NWRhMjM1ZTllYTA=.jpg?&width=640)

Joanne said this was just one of many other cases that she has heard about.

She said: ‘It is just an easy way for them to make money, especially when fewer people are using their car parks due to the pandemic.

‘My case happened in August, Mr and Mrs Birt’s happened in December, so it just shows that NCP was aware there was a problem but that it has not been fixed.

‘How much money have they made in that time? It is a lot of hassle to appeal and the letters can come across as very threatening and official so other people may pay up.

‘I hope I can help others.’

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/consumer/woman-charged-ps160-after-stay-at-ncp-multi-storey-car-park-in-portsmouth-city-centre-vows-to-take-her-fight-to-court-3143177 (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/consumer/woman-charged-ps160-after-stay-at-ncp-multi-storey-car-park-in-portsmouth-city-centre-vows-to-take-her-fight-to-court-3143177)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 28 March, 2021, 06:09:41 PM
#182  Courtesy of Mr Mustard

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


22 March 2021
Barnet Hospital - ANPR - designed to cheat?

Mr Mustard doesn't get heavily involved in private parking charges as they can end up in the county court and he has no desire to spend half a day sitting around and he doesn't have audience rights without requesting them.

Sometimes though a friend wanders along with a demand which is so patently wrong and unreasonable that he has to put fingers, both of them, to keyboard.

Here are the images which were on the demand for £100

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wo8SK9q6i-U/YFimyFFU_aI/AAAAAAAAQHU/tZ4SSEUDrqUpVsEn9ZHhnGuXELUJ2gPQQCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h200/in%2Bout%2Bphotos.jpg)

Let us call Mr Mustard's friend, Miss V. She was dropping her friend at the fracture clinic and then going back later to collect her, hospitals not liking extra people who aren't strictly necessary for medical or safety reasons, with the patient. Accordingly there were two or more other unseen photos both at around the same time as the two which were selected, which didn't prove that anyone was in any car park, staff or otherwise, for 1 hour and 52 minutes, Miss V (and her car) being safely at home enjoying a cup of tea and a read of the newspaper whilst she waited for a phone call.
Mr Mustard posted this letter off in the name of Miss V on 16 March.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bexUmjAoca0/YFioEW43mOI/AAAAAAAAQHc/fpjmzDq7l0sfbNHfjcer2v6U0iMxNIXhgCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h362/miss%2Bv%2Bchallenge.png)

Fast forward two days and Parking Eye have slammed the ANPR into reverse.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gK4X6jbJhYs/YFiokAYs0FI/AAAAAAAAQHk/q2n4O7fV4dkqp00mL8J1TDt6ysOKBCfIACLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h414/pe%2B18%2Bmar.png)

Their willingness to immediately cancel points to the veracity of the facts, there being two visits, not one and thus the alleged breach of contract did not take place and no parking charge was due.
If the same has happened to you, follow Mr Mustard's lead and demand all of your data. The interest of Parking Eye in your wallet or purse may rapidly wane.

ANPR is only as good as the way in which the data has been manipulated, clearly disgracefully in this instance in a one sided manner to suit their purpose of revenue raising.

https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2021/03/barnet-hospital-anpr-designed-to-cheat.html
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 31 March, 2021, 06:34:10 AM
#183

“We suspect that human error may be the cause of the problem.”

No mate. It's the cameras that are the problem. If a human being was seen slapping tickets on legally parked vehicles this scam would have been nipped in the bud.

And the worst thing about this is that the new legislation (Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019), won't stop this kind of abuse.


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

£100 fine for parking to get Covid jab in Telford
By Deborah HardimanWellingtonCoronavirusPublished: Mar 20, 2021

Motorists parking near a coronavirus vaccine centre have been inadvertently issued with penalty tickets.


(https://www.shropshirestar.com/resizer/0nozQPJzIxY-UCRPSP7iM5Br0yo=/1200x0/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mna/J6DEVTBBHRB3HLVKAVUUTE3TZM.jpg)
Terry Rickard, 62, was stunned to get a £100 parking ticket after visiting the coronavirus vaccination centre at AFC Telford

People travelling to AFC Telford, which is being used as a jab hub, are allowed to use a nearby car park with the vehicle registration details collected by centre staff and volunteers on arrival.

However, vaccine centre operators Wellington Pharmacy said they were mystified by complaints that £100 fixed penalty notices were being issued and added that human error may be to blame for the mix-up.

Terry Rickard, 62, of Church Street, Hadley, and his wife Christine, 61, received a notice after leaving their car near the Whitehouse Hotel on March 3.

“We drove there and followed the yellow signs for the vaccine centre. When we pulled in a young lady wrote down our registration number in a big book.

“We assumed we were doing everything right. We were there for less than 30 minutes.

"We were very surprised to get a fixed penalty ticket. We were now wondering if other people have received them.

“We’re concerned that some older people will feel a bit worried if they get one and might pay it without querying it,” Mr Rickard said.

Vaccine site manager Kishan Mehta said: “We are a little mystified about why people are getting parking tickets.

"The car park is managed by ES Parking and we have a device to log the registration numbers of the vehicles belonging to patients coming for their vaccines so there shouldn’t be any issues.

“We suspect that human error may be the cause of the problem.”

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/health/coronavirus-covid19/2021/03/20/telford-vaccine-centre-visitors-in-100-parking-penalty-mix-up/ (https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/health/coronavirus-covid19/2021/03/20/telford-vaccine-centre-visitors-in-100-parking-penalty-mix-up/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 31 March, 2021, 11:55:45 PM
Human error my arse. Looks more like a phishing scam to me in the hope of conning money out of vulnerable people who are too scared to contest it!! SCUM!!! :-ev-:
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 20 April, 2021, 06:12:48 PM
Holbeach area couple have fought parking fine at Boston hospital

By Victoria Fear - victoria.fear@iliffepublishing.co.uk
 Published: 16:00, 03 April 2021


The husband of a terminally ill woman has successfully fought a hospital parking fine.

Malcolm Munson (69) had tried to pay the £1 parking charge at Boston’s Pilgrim Hospital during a half-hour visit on February 26.

The machine had returned his coin, stating that he had 30 minutes free parking - but he later received a letter demanding that he pay £42.

(https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/542GIG43UU5EF4V9SZ8W.jpg)

After calls from the Guardian, United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust waived the fee and confirmed 30 minutes’ free parking is still offered at the hospital.

Mr Munson, who is also a Blue Badge holder, had been to hospital for a regular appointment with wife Sandra (69), who was diagnosed with a rare form of lung cancer and has defied doctors’ expectations.

Before the fine was rescinded, Mr Munson, of Gedney, said: “We were having such a good day as Sandra had her CT scan and we were in and out within 30 minutes.

“But we have been having a poor time ever since trying to sort it out.

“I went back to make sure that I was right, otherwise I would have paid it but I am right so I’m not paying it.”

The couple had arrived at 2.41pm on February 26 and were due to leave at 3.11pm.

Mr Munson said that he had been struggling with the parking machine and had approached the parking attendant to help.

He said: “The machine chucked out the £1, saying that we had 30 minutes free parking.

“Now they are threatening me with parking charges. If I pay within 28 days it is £42... but that goes up to £70.”

Mr and Mrs Munson have been married for 10 years after meeting five years before via the lonely hearts column in the Lincolnshire Free Press and Spalding Guardian.

She was diagnosed with a rare form of lung cancer six years ago.

Mr Munson said: “They gave her eight months and she is still here.”

Hospital chief executive Andrew Morgan said: “Parking for Blue Badge holders at our hospitals is free, once the vehicle has been pre-registered at main reception with the Blue Badge displayed in the windscreen.

“On this occasion we will contact Parking Eye to waive the Parking Charge Notice as a gesture of goodwill.”

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/just-the-ticket-9193654/ (https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/just-the-ticket-9193654/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 20 April, 2021, 06:37:54 PM
#185

There is so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start.

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

Swanley residents outraged after receiving town centre 'parking charges' for driving down Nightingale Way to access Aldi supermarket

By Sean Delaney
sdelaney@thekmgroup.co.uk
13:45, 23 March 2021 | Updated: 09:43, 25 March 2021


Residents are outraged after claiming to have received numerous "parking fines" for driving along a back road to reach shops and doctor appointments.

Motorists are refusing to pay a £100 charge for using Nightingale Way to access services in Swanley town centre.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/KYNUEY1E8DL97DLQJSJH.jpg)
Swanley Town centre's Nightingale Way car park.

Over the last few weeks shoppers attempting to access the Aldi supermarket - which has a free car park for customers - are said to have been stung by the fee at the adjacent Nightingale Way car park.

The parking facility is run by County Car Parks Ltd (CCP Ltd) which has numerous cameras operating on site and face the supermarket.

But various residents claim they have been snapped simply travelling through an access road, Nightingale Way, without stopping.

Diane Weekes lives locally and regularly shops at Aldi in the town centre.

The 63-year-old care worker was shocked to find a parking charge notice put through her letter box on Saturday.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/KNJWMI6ERJHLYDQIHWLS.jpg)
Diane Weekes, 63, was fined for driving down Nightingale Way to get to Aldi

"I normally go via St Mary's Road but that day I went round the back way.

"I only went to Aldi. I went round and you can see the cameras are facing their car park."

According to the parking charge notice, Diane's vehicle was recorded parking for more than 30 minutes in the town centre car park but she says the photos only show her entering and exiting Nightingale Way to access Aldi.

She added: "There must be hundreds of people and the thing is at this time people have not got that sort of money spare.

"Money is tight as it is without that sort of thing weighing down on you."

Julia Ovenell works in Swanley and regularly uses the side road to reach the supermarket.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/OVD3TWOJZ8W4YLVBM5E1.jpg)
Swanley residents claim they have been hit with parking fines for 'driving through' a road to access other services.

She said: "I got a parking fine at the weekend stating that I have 'parked’ down this road on March 10, which is false. I drove to get to Aldi and parked in the Aldi car park.

"I have been down this road another three times, so am I going to get issued another three fines to come through the post?

"I'm so angry about it. All I have done is drive down Nightingale Way to get to Aldi's car park, I’ve done my shopping and exited."

The office worker says she will now avoid the area for fear of future fines.

She added: "I certainly won’t be using the shops there again. Nobody needs this stress and worry at the moment with people losing their jobs and being furloughed and it will be the shops who lose out as they will lose trade."

Others shoppers and road users took to social media to vent their frustration after being snapped while dropping relatives off for doctors appointments.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/MJDSOWLYD228M89K2IMD.jpg)
Nightingale Way in Swanley which leads to the Aldi car park

Several residents have contacted Sevenoaks MP Laura Trott expressing their concerns.

A petition has also been set up calling for fines to be cancelled and has amassed more than 750 signatures in under 24-hours.

Blue badge holder Bob Wiltshere has lived in Swanley all his life but says he now avoids parking in the town centre for fear of such charges.

The 75-year-old former bus driver said: "There is going to be a lot of people not shopping there.

"There is no notice, it is a service road. Motorists are easy prey to anybody."

Swanley Town Council said it understood the "frustration and distress" and had been in "lengthy discussions" with both the car park management firm and the new town centre owners.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/SYCQ0N695GHYGGS2KQRD.jpg)
Swanley Town centre.Nightingale Way/Aldi car parking

Chief executive Ryan Hayman said they were "lobbying for changes to be made to the system, and for all fines issued to date to be cancelled".

In a further statement the authority said: "The parking firm have repeatedly made it clear to us that they do not believe any fines have been issued incorrectly and refuse to give a blanket cancellation of all fines to date as we requested.

"They state as the road is part of the private land, the cameras have been positioned deliberately to capture images correctly on entry and exit of the site.

However, it added "driving along the road is still free without stopping".

Property and investment company London Cambridge Properties (LCP), which manages Swanley Square on behalf of the landlord Evolve Estates Ltd, said the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system was installed in January prior to its acquisition of the estate, and it went live earlier this month.

New signage was also erected across the site in January to update users regarding the new ANPR system.

LCP says users can now pay for parking via the machine with cash or card or they can download an app to their mobile devices to pay.

A spokesman for the company said: “As manager for Swanley Square, we place great emphasis on the safety and security of our visitors.

"We have met with CCP Parking, which manages the parking at Swanley Square on LCP’s behalf, and have been assured that after reviewing each incident, where a fine has been issued, it confirmed that a breach has occurred.”

Last year, the owners of Nightingale Way had the road marked with double red lines at the request of Swanley Town Council, which had noted drivers ignoring the yellow lines and continuing to park along the road and kerbsides.

The town council says if anyone believes their fine has been issued unfairly then they can appeal here.

Those dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal can have this reviewed by POPLA, an independent body.

Car park management firm CCP Ltd have been contacted for comment.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/im-so-angry-all-i-have-done-is-drive-down-to-aldi-244368/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/im-so-angry-all-i-have-done-is-drive-down-to-aldi-244368/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 30 April, 2021, 02:45:45 PM
Have just noticed that this thread has passed the 200,000 views mark
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 05 May, 2021, 09:55:46 AM
#186

"If the customer had communicated with us, appealed and shown us the bank statement after the initial notice was issued, then we would have been able to understand why there was no payment recorded against their parked vehicle and could have cancelled this PCN a couple of years ago."

Yes, but if the anpr system didn't allow motorists to enter details for a vehicle that has never entered the car park, the ticket would not have been issued in the first place.  <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy:

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


Two-year battle over £2.50 NCP parking ticket mistake

Baljit Samra refused to back down, insisting the ticket had been paid

ByMatthew LodgeTrainee Reporter
05:15, 4 APR 2021UPDATED11:08, 5 APR 2021


(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article5264477.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Car-park.jpg)
Baljit Samra says he paid to park in Derby city centre but was still given a penalty ticket

A Derby man was threatened with court action after a simple mistake triggered a huge fine.

Baljit Samra says he was issued with the fine by National Car Parks (NCP) after his car was parked in the company's Siddals Road car park in Derby city centre on December 24, 2018.

He says since then he has been receiving letters demanding he pays a £268 fine, more than 100 times the £2.50 actually spent on the parking ticket.

The 52-year-old said the company had threatened to take him to court despite the fact he has a bank statement proving the ticket was paid for and money was deposited into the company's coffers on the day of the alleged violation.

NCP says that if Mr Samra had communicated with them earlier then the initial mistake could have been rectified. Instead the situation escalated until Mr Samra was facing court action.

Mr Samra, from Littleover, says when he and his wife initially began to receive letters a month after parking at the car park, they thought it was a scam.

"My wife was in the car, she went to town on December 24, 2018, parked opposite Intu Derby in the NCP car park," he said.

"She paid by contactless and she wasn't given a ticket, but it was on her bank statement as being paid.

"A couple of months later we got a message saying we hadn't paid, but we had.

"We thought it might be a scam so we ignored it, but then we started getting other letters from a company called BW Legal saying it we do not pay they were going to take us to court.

"I phoned them up to find out what was going on. I said we've paid it, look on our bank statement.

"We sent them the details, they came back saying there was no record of us paying."

The father-of-two says there was no way he was going to back down when he knows they had done nothing wrong.

"I got in contact with BW Legal again, I said I'm going to dispute this all the way, as our statement says we've paid," he said.

"The last letter I received from them they said the car wasn't registered and they couldn't find it and that we might have put the wrong registration in.

"I think the next step is court. They're threatening a county court judgement and I don't want that on my record."

A spokesperson for NCP told Derbyshire Live the parking charge notice had originally been issued in January 2019.

"We had no contact from the customer until February 2021, by this point the PCN had escalated through our debt recovery process back in 2019," she said.

(https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article4012979.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_DM_TEM_200819gv-2518gvJPG.jpg)
Mr Samra's car was parked in Siddals Road car park

"We have looked back through the logs for 2018 when the customer parked, since the customer has now sent us his bank statement and can see that the customer put in an incorrect registration plate into the machine when making payment and therefore no payment was recorded against his vehicle in the car park.

"So the PCN was correctly issued.

"When this happens we ask our customers to let us know if they feel the notice is incorrectly issued, we can then look into the case to understand why there is no payment registered.

"Despite the issuing of the PCN and all the information regarding how to appeal, we had no contact from this customer to any of our letters until 2021."

"We have now withdrawn this notice and recorded it as a customer error on inputting the registration plate," she said.

"If the customer had communicated with us, appealed and shown us the bank statement after the initial notice was issued, then we would have been able to understand why there was no payment recorded against their parked vehicle and could have cancelled this PCN a couple of years ago."

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/two-year-battle-over-250-5260774 (https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/two-year-battle-over-250-5260774)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 18 May, 2021, 11:05:15 AM
#187 to 190

The £100 fines at Llangrannog car park which are 'putting people off' from visiting

Llangrannog should be able to attract people from all over Wales and the rest of the UK, but there are fears that people are staying away because of the 'unacceptable' running of a car park

ByRobert Harries Senior Reporter
04:00, 8 MAY 2021 UPDATED 09:05, 8 MAY 2021


(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article20537413.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_RM_270918_Llangrannog_065JPG.jpg)
Welcome to Llangrannog - just be careful where you park

An infamous car park is still fining people £100 and “putting people off” visiting a Welsh tourist destination.

On a recent trip to Llangrannog in Ceredigion to discuss the impact of coronavirus and how the seaside village hopes to overcome the effects of a global pandemic, there was one thing that everyone wanted to talk about - and it wasn’t Covid-19.

“Are you here to talk about the car park?” one local woman asked, while one visitor said they couldn't stay long, leading to a business owner replying, without a second’s hesitation, “because of the car park?”

The privately owned car park sits right in the middle of the village, surrounded by shops, cafes, two pubs and a beach. Complaints have long flooded in about the car park, which is run and managed by One Parking Solution Ltd, a company based in west Sussex. They have installed a camera as you arrive, which clocks every car coming in and out, noting the exact time of their arrival and their exit.

#187 Back in 2019, the issue with the car park was a fairly simple one, or so it seemed.

The pay and display machine was regularly out of order, meaning that you could not pay with cash. There was no facility to pay by card either, so users would have two choices: phone a number to arrange payment or download and use an app on their phone to register payment.

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article20537423.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_RM_270918_Llangrannog_001JPG.jpg)
Signage at the car park, which warns people that they could face fines of £100

However, if there is one thing more infamous in Llangrannog than its controversial car park it’s the less than robust internet connection.

This, coupled with the fact that people could not get through to the number displayed on the machine, meant that visitors were stuck. They had already entered the car park and parked, all the while the camera attached to the side of the Ship Inn (the proprietors of which have nothing to do with the running of the car park) was recording their feeble attempts to pay.

“This system relies on a machine that works all the time and a reliable internet connection. That’s not possible here,” said one local.

As a result, people were fined £100, some even more than that. The issue was so febrile that Ceredigion MP Ben Lake became involved, while one tourist who visited the lovely west Wales village even wrote to the local welfare committee and said they would not be returning again, declaring Llangrannog a “no go zone”.

In December 2019, a thawing of the ice occurred, with the owners of the car park offering free parking over the winter months as a “goodwill gesture” to the people of Llangrannog. Furthermore, a card payment facility was then installed at the car park, something that is now in place and functioning. But issues clearly remain.

#188 One woman who drove to Llangrannog in recent weeks said she believes she paid enough to cover the duration of her stay. Getting the ticket at 1.36pm, she thought she would have been free to park at the site until 3.36pm. However, despite leaving the car park at 3.15pm, she later received a notice in the post demanding she paid a fine of £100.

“I went down to Llangrannog over the Easter holidays,” explained Sara Powell, a barrister with links to Ceredigion and who lives in Cowbridge.

“Then a couple of weeks later I got this letter in the post - it was a fine for £100. So I put a post up on Facebook to see if anyone else had had any similar issues and I couldn’t believe the amount of people that replied - there were so many people saying the same.

“My friend got fined wrongly before and challenged it - they got back to her and said they would let her off, but it was their mistake. There was no apology at all. Then I know someone else who was fined but didn’t receive a letter. The first she heard about it was when she received a chasing letter saying that the amount owed was now up to £180.

“It’s a huge problem because I’ve had people contact me to say they have ignored fines and they now have CCJs (County Court Judgements) to deal with. Others then are intimidated by these awful letters they send out demanding payment.”

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article20537428.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_AW270919WOparkingone002JPG.jpg)
Not a pretty sight: the entrance to the car park when the issue first raised its head in 2019

The issue for visitors is the potential of receiving a large fine in the post, but the wider issue for the people who live in and around Llangrannog and rely on its ability to draw people in is the idea that the car park can dissuade others from wanting a day at the beach, and therefore a day in the cafes, the shops and the pubs.

“I have three friends who all live in the local area, with young children, and they went to Llangrannog a couple of years ago,” said Sara.

“Two of them got fines in the post, so they haven’t been back since. One of them even admitted that she went over the time, so she went back to Llangrannog to get another ticket to cover what she went over, before sending it to the company to ask if they could, if you like, call it quits. They obviously said no and fined her £180 and ended up bringing court action against her.

“It’s putting people off going to Llangrannog. If you have mobility issues or small children you can’t really park anywhere else because the other car park is a bit of a walk from the beach and the village itself.

“I’m quite used to having parking fines over the years but this is definitely the highest I’ve ever experienced. £100 is huge. It seems like such an injustice; people can ill afford to pay these fines. How much money is the company behind it making? We’re talking potentially thousands of pounds.”

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article20537711.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_AW270919WOparkingone023JPG.jpg)
Signs previously placed at the car park advising people to turn around and park elsewhere

Sara is not alone in her dismay at the parking situation in Llangrannog.

#189 Edward Rees, from the Carmarthen area, drove to Llangrannog recently with his family for a day out. When they arrived, they couldn’t find a parking spot immediately so they waited in the car until one became available and then made their way over to the ticket machine to pay for parking. Simple enough, or so one would think.

“We got this letter in the post saying that we hadn’t paid for parking and that we owed the company £100,” Mr Rees said.

“I spoke to my wife because I was certain that we had indeed paid for parking - and she confirmed that and was able to find the ticket in the car. It turns out that when entering the full registration number we had input one of the digits incorrectly by mistake.

“I obviously queried that because it was an honest error, but we had still paid for parking. They then said that, despite acknowledging that we had paid, we had gone over their ‘grace period’ of ten minutes before paying. That’s because we were waiting for a space, with our children in the back of the car. Now we have to pay £100.”

Mr Rees has already lodged an appeal but has been told in no uncertain terms that it has been unsuccessful. One Parking Solution Ltd is demanding a payment of £100 by May 27, or a reduced rate of £60 if Mr Rees pays by May 13. Explaining their decision, the company said: “We find this parking charge to be issued correctly and we are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate (if applicable) passes it will not be offered again. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.”

(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article20537705.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_RM_270918_Llangrannog_003JPG.jpg)
The car park sits in the heart of the village of Llangrannog

A quick look at the TripAdvisor page for Llangrannog (the village as a whole) is inundated with complaints about the car park. One visitor called it “pathetic”, while another called it “stupid” and implored people not to use the facility at all.

#190 Another said they, similarly to Mr Rees, received a £100 fine despite paying for parking because they had taken too long to enter their details. They said: “There were at least six other people having difficulties with the meter when I was there and one elderly lady had to ask the staff at the ice cream parlour to help her.

"My visit was marred by the parking fiasco and all I could think of was to ensure that I left the car park on time. I cannot believe that the local authority are allowing this situation to continue as Llangrannog is going to be penalised when holidaymakers go elsewhere.”

Llangrannog Welfare Committee has even set up a dedicated page to help people who have received “unfair fines from One Parking Solution”. The committee goes on to warn people that: “If you cannot pay within 10 minutes of entering the car park, you should leave and not park there, or you will be fined. They do not listen to reasonable excuses. If the machine is broken, they still expect you to pay.”

The page also states that the committee and locals have “tried very hard to get rid of” One Parking Solution Ltd, but said those efforts have proved unsuccessful.

Concerns raised about the car park and its management have been put to One Parking Solution Ltd, which has not responded to requests for a comment. Efforts have also been made to contact the owner of the land, who employs One Parking Solution Ltd to manage the car park and administer fines. The owner has thus far not responded to attempts to clarify the ongoing issues at the car park.

Anthony Ramsey-Williams, a trustee of the trust which owns the car park, did speak in 2019 when he said a meeting took place with the local welfare committee to “review the car parking arrangements with them” - something that led to the introduction of a one-hour tariff (rather than a two-hour minimum).

Ceredigion Council was also asked to comment on the situation, although it should be noted that as the car park is owned privately it is not the authority’s responsibility to manage it or dictate how much is charged for parking or how much is in turn charged as a fine. The council did advise people who believe they have been wrongly issued with a parking notice to contact the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 03454 040506.

The council added that, while its trading standards team has "some powers available to them to investigate offences committed within the county", as the car park's operator is based outside the county, it "may be more appropriate that the home authority of the car park operator looks into the matter further".

One person who has already been contacted by numerous people left out of pocket after a trip to Llangrannog is Ceredigion MP Ben Lake. He has previously raised the issue with the British Parking Association and has called the issuing of some fines “unacceptable”.

“It has been two years since I first met with the local community to discuss their concerns about the parking system in Llangrannog,” said Mr Lake.

“I conveyed these concerns to the British Parking Association, who subsequently investigated and reported on the situation. It is therefore extremely disappointing that this private company continues to operate in such a way.

“There have been long standing concerns about the payment machines and lack of mobile signal, but more recently I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have received parking fines of up to £100 even though they successfully paid for a ticket and did not stay longer than the specified time slot. This is simply unacceptable.

“The situation is having a detrimental impact on the reputation of Llangrannog and the local community, and I am also concerned about the impact it is having on local businesses, who are often having to face anger from citizens for a situation over which they have absolutely no control.

“I shall be pursuing this issue again with the British Parking Association as we cannot allow one of Ceredigion’s most cherished seaside villages to be torn apart like this.”

The British Parking Association said it would investigate all complaints received.

A spokeswoman for the association said: “Nobody likes receiving a parking ticket, but if a motorist does that they believe was issued in error they should appeal to the operator in the first instance. If it is rejected the operator will provide details of the independent appeals service POPLA, which provides independent redress for motorists.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/llangrannog-car-park-fine-beach-20537396 (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/llangrannog-car-park-fine-beach-20537396)

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 24 May, 2021, 11:48:26 AM
#191

"We are however investing in further measures, including SMS notifications to customers who enter a vehicle registration when paying which doesn’t match a vehicle registration picked up by the cameras,..."

So it appears that the systems CAN be adapted so as to alert motorists they have entered the wrong VRM. Makes you wonder why all parking wea$els don't do this in all their car parks doesn't it?  :idea:

I believe that's called a rhetorical question btw.

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

Retired butcher angered by £100 fine for parking at The Mall in Maidstone which he says he paid for

By Rhys Griffiths rgriffiths@thekmgroup.co.uk
Published: 06:00, 20 May 2021 | Updated: 16:07, 20 May 2021


A retired butcher has hit out at a new parking system after receiving meaty bills in the post.

The new digital set-up at The Mall in Maidstone was launched to great fanfare earlier this spring - but John Jenner says he and other motorists are being hit with fines despite paying to park and some may even boycott the shopping centre as a result.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/8RLXKVOJHPBVP75GNES0.jpg)
Former Marden butcher John Jenner was fined after parking at The Mall in Maidstone - despite paying for his parking

The car park underwent a digital transformation to make it Covid-secure in February. YourParkingSpace.co.uk became its new operator and the company removed the barriers on both entry and exit to reduce the need for any physical contact.

At the time it was announced users of the 1,050-space car park would be able to pay on their mobile phone and could even use their phone to reserve a space in advance.

YourParkSpace.co.uk has admitted that a "small percentage" of customers have received a PCN due to entering their incorrect vehicle registration when paying, and are investing in further measures to prevent shoppers like Mr Jenner being shocked when they receive a hefty ticket.

His latest fine will be cancelled upon him contacting the firm, they have confirmed.

Mr Jenner used the car park for a brief visit to the Pads Hill shopping centre on April 30 and used his bank card to pay £2 to leave his Ford Focus while he shopped.

However, just days later, the 74-year-old was shocked to receive a demand for payment of a £100 fine.

Mr Jenner said: "I went to The Mall to buy something and was in there less than an hour. I paid the £2 parking fee by debit card and left.

"Then later I received a parking charge notice saying I had to pay £100, I assume for non-payment. I checked my bank and the £2 had been taken from my account.

"Many people have trouble with this firm's new payment system, especially the elderly. I have seen many people struggling with this system. Some have just paid their fine without appealing, you can only do this on their website.

"This should not be allowed to continue. This firm needs seriously sorting out."

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/TIOSAK0OU1DYPCBB87HI.jpg)
The Mall car park in Maidstone underwent a digital transformation earlier this year

Mr Jenner, who lives in Hedley Street in Maidstone, says he shared his story on a local Facebook group and many others came forward to say they had experienced similar issues.

"Many say they will boycott The Mall because of this," he said. "Which will badly impact the few shops that remain in the centre."

Grant Robbins, a senior account manager at YourParkingSpace.co.uk, said: "Since going live at The Mall we have become aware of a small percentage of customers that have received a PCN due to entering their incorrect vehicle registration when paying. This has affected just under 1.5% of customers, with over 98.5% of customers entering their correct vehicle registration when paying.

"Mr Jenner received three PCNs for entering the incorrect vehicle registration on three separate occasions. All three PCNs were cancelled. Unfortunately we can only provide the vehicle registration we are provided with to the enforcement company to whitelist.

"We are however investing in further measures, including SMS notifications to customers who enter a vehicle registration when paying which doesn’t match a vehicle registration picked up by the cameras, to eliminate the risk of customers not realising that they may have entered an incorrect vehicle registration.

"Importantly, any customer who paid but entered the incorrect vehicle registration when paying should notify us or the enforcement company directly. The PCN will be cancelled."

Mr Jenner said: "I'm wondering what has happened to the people who have paid £100 or £60 who haven't realised they could appeal.

"The penalty charge is excessive anyway. If they know you have made an error when entering your registration number, why send a penalty notice? I dread to think how many people have received these notices through simple errors."

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/many-will-boycott-the-shopping-centre-because-of-this-247534/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/many-will-boycott-the-shopping-centre-because-of-this-247534/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 30 May, 2021, 05:54:44 PM
#192


Woman, 85, slapped with £100 parking fine for seven-minute stay as meter ‘wouldn’t take cash’

Adriana Elgueta
13:06, 26 May 2021Updated: 15:27, 26 May 2021


A WOMAN was hit with a £100 fine for a seven-minute stay after a parking meter wouldn't take her coins.

Ann Bonnett, 85, had taken her husband Terry, 87, for a haircut when they tried to pay for parking.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NINTCHDBPICT000655578427.jpg?w=620)
Ann and Terry Bonnett were hit with a £100 parking fine

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NINTCHDBPICT000655578434.jpg?w=620)
The couple had only stayed at the car park in Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham for seven minutes

The couple battled to get a ticket for seven minutes before giving up and leaving to find another car park in Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham.

But to their disbelief, a £100 fine landed on their doormat around a week later after being clocked on CCTV.

Mrs Bonnett told Teesside Live: "My husband couldn't get the money in, I couldn't get it in, it just would not accept it.

"My husband said we can't park here, we will have to go to another car park, which we did.

"Last week we got a parking ticket, it says (we stayed) seven minutes.

"We just couldn't get the money in, we just thought it was ridiculous.

"It says 'time in car park seven minutes'. It's outrageous."

She added: "They said you can pay by mobile phone but we haven't got a mobile phone.

"If we had stayed there for two hours then fair enough.

"We tried £1 coins and £2 coins, we tried about 10 and it just wouldn't accept them."

Parking Eye cancelled the fine after the couple lodged an appeal.

A spokesman for the firm told The Sun Online: "The motorist used the car park without paying and therefore they were sent a parking charge notice.

"The car park has eight prominent signs throughout clearly stating that motorists need to pay for parking, as well as two payment machines and phone options provided for payment.

“All motorists are entitled to appeal via POPLA, the independent appeals service. Following an appeal by the motorist, the charge was cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.”

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NINTCHDBPICT000655578424.jpg?w=620)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/15072031/parking-fine-pensioners-haircut-cctv/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/15072031/parking-fine-pensioners-haircut-cctv/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 June, 2021, 04:04:28 PM
#193

Lawyer takes on parking company over ‘unfair’ fines

Wednesday, 5 May 2021 - Transport

(https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/images/news/2021/1215_so0605-Llangrannog-car-park.jpeg)
Lawyer Sara Powell said she was “shocked” by the number of similar incidents at the car park in Llangrannog

A lawyer who overturned an “unfair” parking ticket in Llangrannog car park says she is shocked at the number of people who have come forward to say the received unfair fines too.

Sara Powell, from New Quay, received a fine for overstaying in the car park, managed by One Parking Solutions, despite leaving within the time limit of her ticket.

Sara said she parked in Llangrannog car park on Friday, 9 April at 1.30pm. She paid for up to two hours of parking and left the car park at 3.15pm.

However, she was still issued with a £100 parking charge notice for overstaying.

Sara had retained her original ticket and so was able to prove that she did not overstay, and overturned the fine.

But she said many others would not have kept their ticket and said she was “shocked” by the number of people who have also received “unfair fines”.

“I received a fine from them for allegedly overstaying,” Sara explained.

“Fortunately I kept my ticket and as demonstrated by photos, the machine must be faulty.

“This is really serious as I know many people who have been accused of overstaying but haven’t been able to disprove it as they haven’t kept their ticket.

“I put up a Facebook post to alert people and was shocked by the number of people who had received unfair fines, ones they felt they shouldn’t pay.

“I’m a lawyer so familiar with the law and clearly if there is an issue with the machine then this may apply retrospectively.

“For all we know the machine may always have been faulty.

“I’m helping a friend out with her case now as the parking company have now taken her to court so I said I would represent her.”

One Parking Solutions has come in for heavy scrutiny recently.

In September 2019, Ceredigion MP Ben Lake met with “disgruntled” Llangrannog residents who said unfair parking notices were having a negative impact on the community.

The Cambrian News reported, in August 2019, that motorists were receiving fines because the ticket machine did not work and they did not have phone signal to pay via the app or phone.

“What concerns me is how this can be allowed to happen,” Sara added.

“This is not just a civil issue anymore. Who knows how long it has been going on for. In cases such as this there is usually a presumption that the machine is accurate.

“Clearly it is not but how many people have paid a fine because they didn’t keep their ticket?”

One Parking Solutions has been approached for a comment.

https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=135918&headline=Lawyer%20takes%20on%20parking%20company%20over%20%E2%80%98unfair%E2%80%99%20fines&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021 (https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=135918&headline=Lawyer%20takes%20on%20parking%20company%20over%20%E2%80%98unfair%E2%80%99%20fines&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 June, 2021, 04:11:03 PM
No apology for ‘stress’ of £100 parking fine mistake

Thursday, 21 November 2019 - Transport

(https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/images/news/2019/3033_AB2111-PARKINGTICKET107.jpg)
John and Terina Kidby of Aberystwyth were left angry after receiving an unjustified parking fine through the post. The fine was eventually cancelled but the couple are warning others about their experience

An Aberystwyth woman who was threatened with a £100 fine after parking in Llangrannog Beach’s notorious car park is warning fellow motorists to keep hold of their tickets.

Having left the car park with half an hour to go on their ticket, Terina Kidby and husband were shocked to subsequently receive a £100 fine through the post.

It stated they had either paid an insufficient fee or their ticket had not been displayed.

Fortunately the couple were able to prove their innocence by finding the ticket was still in their vehicle - three weeks after the event.

“We paid for our ticket within two minutes of arriving at the car park and displayed it on the dashboard – we did everything by the book,” Mrs Kidby told the Cambrian News.

“We often go to Llangrannog as it’s a special place for my husband’s cousin which carries precious reminders of her late husband.

“But now I’m afraid we will never go to Llangrannog again – certainly not in the high season when parking is non-existent.

“After we proved we had paid our parking fee we had a letter back saying the matter would not be pursued – there was no apology for the mistake they’d made and the amount of stress they’d caused.

“How many visitors who hadn’t kept their tickets would have paid up thinking they’d stayed beyond their allotted time?”

One Parking Solution has been asked to comment but none was received by the time of publication.

https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=131344&headline=No%20apology%20for%20%E2%80%98stress%E2%80%99%20of%20%C2%A3100%20parking%20fine%20mistake&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019 (https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=131344&headline=No%20apology%20for%20%E2%80%98stress%E2%80%99%20of%20%C2%A3100%20parking%20fine%20mistake&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 June, 2021, 10:44:19 AM
#195

Wicksteed Park 'sorry' after visitors wrongly given parking fines
They're revoking many fines which have been handed out

By Sam Wildman
Thursday, 10th June 2021, 10:56 am
Updated
Thursday, 10th June 2021, 10:58 am


(https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/webimg/T0FLMTMxMzkyOTUz.jpg?crop=982:736,smart&width=990)

Wicksteed Park has apologised and promised to revoke parking fines after a number of visitors were wrongly hit with a penalty charge.

Since the much-loved Kettering park re-opened earlier this year a new ANPR parking system has been in place without barriers, which is run by private firm Parking Eye after the operation was outsourced.

Visitors now have to enter their registration to pay for their stay before leaving the car park, with charges of £3 (up to two hours), £4 (up to three hours) and £6 (up to 24 hours).

But in recent weeks many people who visited the park off Barton Road and correctly paid have reported receiving a fine in the post.

This morning a park spokesman confirmed they would be revoking fines which were incorrectly sent out and apologised for causing worry.

They said: "It has come to our attention that our parking system providers have issued fines in error, which has meant some customers who have paid for their parking have received fines.

"Anyone who has received a fine between May 29 and June 6, please don't worry.

"We have arranged for every one of these fines to be revoked. You will receive confirmation of this shortly.

"We are sorry for any worry this may have caused, but please be assured that the fines from the above dates have now been revoked and will not need to be paid."

Many park users took to social media to complain about wrongly being given a fine.

One regular said: "Received a £70 fine through the post this morning, stating I had not payed (sic) for parking on a visit earlier this month.

"By good fortune we still had the ticket (how lucky is that) and our bank account shows the £3 was taken. Now all the hassle of sending an appeal to the company."

Another said: "It is stopping me wanting to go to the park. I have an annual pass and still got a fine (not during this period but at the beginning of May)."

And another said they would be appealing their £70 fine after paying in cash and not keeping their ticket.

https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/people/wicksteed-park-sorry-after-visitors-wrongly-given-parking-fines-3268022 (https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/people/wicksteed-park-sorry-after-visitors-wrongly-given-parking-fines-3268022)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 09 July, 2021, 06:51:49 AM
#196

Billy battled big parking fine after buying ticket from 'wrong' car park due to broken machine

He still got fined despite both car parks being owned by same firm, metres apart

ByKelley Price
12:49, 16 JUN 2021


(https://i2-prod.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article20828695.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Billy-Watson-was-fined-after-buying-parking-ticket-from-carpark-next-door-to-Brads-Bar-Car-Park-in.jpg)
Billy bought a ticket from the West Row car park, metres away from where he parked

A man was hit with a big parking fine for buying a ticket metres away, from the next car park - because the machine was broken.

Billy Watson couldn't get a valid ticket for the Brad's Bar Car Park in Stockton because the machine was out of use - so he bought one from the West Row car park next-door.

He still got slapped with a big fine, despite both car parks being operated by the same firm.

Read more : Fraud-accused family's home stripped of furniture as 'horrendous' two-year court case dropped

Car park operator Excel has since quashed the penalty.

But Billy, from Berwick Hills, says he was pressured by the firm after they initially threw out his appeal - and told him to go to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which would mean him losing the right to pay a reduced fine.

He refused to pay Excel, even saying he was prepared to go to court.

The company has since had a change of heart, agreeing to cancel his fine.

Billy said he felt like he was not being treated fairly "through no fault" of his own, when Excel's machine was "not fit for purpose".

To sign up for Teesside Live news updates, go here

He said: "I took a photo of the machine out of service but I also went to the adjacent car park operated by the same company and I purchased a ticket.

"The machine was 80 feet away from the broken one.

"I checked that the machine was from the same company and the fees were the same as I would normally pay.

"I purchased the ticket and displayed it as normal in my vehicle and went about my day.

"Over two weeks later, I received a parking fine which was out of the blue.

"I always keep my tickets just in case of an issue.

"I appealed and contacted the company and explained the above, sending them photos of the machine which I took on the day, a picture of the ticket and how close the machine was that I paid to my parked car.

"The company would not change as they said it was a different car park.."

Billy says the company pressured him, saying the £100 charge would be reduced to £60 if he paid early."

"I find the whole situation unreasonable, as I was only trying to pay my way to the same company and the letter they sent did not take any of this into account.

"I did not expect to at any point, nor did I, park for free and abuse their facilities.

"The notice was not clear that I was to park in another car park and with the machine and company being the same, I was sure that this was okay.

"In my opinion, the company isn't being proactive in fixing 'not in use' machines or making their expected procedures clear as they are profiteering from the fines they are issuing.

"If ten cars were to park there in an hour that's £10 in parking charges, if the machine isn't in use and they issue fines to all those customers that's £1000!"

Billy says he's been forced to shop elsewhere since the incident, taking "custom away from a much-loved local market".

"I wonder how many people got fines that day, it being market day," he added.

"I believe that my case is not an isolated incident.

"However only a few of us may keep receipts and photographs, my worry is that these companies are driving away a number of people from the already struggling market."

A representative for Excel Parking Services Ltd said: "The Brad's Bar pay and display car park enables drivers to park provided that they comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signage at the location.

"A key condition is that a valid purchase of the appropriate tariff is made no later than 10 minutes after entry to the car park; this is clearly specified on the signage.

"Upon further review we have agreed to cancel the charge in light of the motorist's attempts to purchase a ticket, albeit at a different site.

"We recommend users of the car park call our helpline number provided on our signage in such situations in future."

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/billy-battled-big-parking-fine-20827240 (https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/billy-battled-big-parking-fine-20827240)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 09 July, 2021, 06:59:19 AM
#197

'Outrageous': Terry and Ann slapped with £100 fine after 7-minute stay as meter 'wouldn't take cash'
Ann Bonnett described the situation as 'ridiculous' after receiving the letter in the post

BySamuel Jones
06:00, 26 MAY 2021UPDATED08:20, 26 MAY 2021


(https://i2-prod.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article20677857.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS235712186.jpg)
Ann and Terry Bonnett from Stockton who were given a £100 fine

Parking up for seven minutes and discovering the machine wouldn't accept her cash, Stockton pensioner Ann Bonnett thought nothing of it and headed to a different spot.

But to her disgust an unwelcome £100 fine landed on her doormat around a week later - something she's branded "outrageous".

Mrs Bonnett, 85, had parked her car in the Dovecot Street car park in central Stockton as she took husband Terry, 87, for a haircut.

The Hartburn pair discovered the machine wouldn't take their coins and drove off, only to be left in disbelief that a Parking Eye camera had clocked them and they'd been slapped with a hefty fine despite being there mere minutes.

She told Teesside Live: "My husband couldn't get the money in, I couldn't get it in, it just would not accept it.

"My husband said we can't park here, we will have to go to another car park, which we did.

"Last week we got a parking ticket, it says (we stayed) seven minutes.

"We just couldn't get the money in, we just thought it was ridiculous.

"It says 'time in car park seven minutes'."

She added: "They said you can pay by mobile phone but we haven't got a mobile phone.

"If we had stayed there for two hours then fair enough.

"We tried £1 coins and £2 coins, we tried about 10 and it just wouldn't accept them."

A letter sent to the couple's home informed them they face a £100 fine for the seven-minute breach, or £60 if it's paid promptly.

Mrs Bonnett said she feels the fact they are elderly was not taken into consideration and described the situation as "outrageous".

A Parking Eye spokesman said: "The motorist appealed on the 20th , which has since been reviewed and the PCN has been cancelled."

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/outrageous-terry-ann-slapped-100-20664370 (https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/outrageous-terry-ann-slapped-100-20664370)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 August, 2021, 10:52:47 AM
#198

Parking Eye says it follows 'strict' rules at RUH as Government backs crackdown on rogue operators
The company has come in for widespread criticism since it took over the car parks at the Bath hospital

ByAmanda Cameron-bathSenior reporter
17:30, 30 JAN 2018UPDATED17:32, 30 JAN 2018


The company which runs parking at the RUH has said it abides by a “strict code of practice” in the wake of news of a planned Government clampdown on shady private car parking operators.

Parking Eye has come in for widespread criticism from Bath residents since it began operating at the Royal United Hospital.

Numerous staff, visitors and patients have complained of being fined “unfairly” while parking at the hospital in Weston.

This week, the Government announced it will support new legislation aimed at raising standards in the private parking industry.

Under the plans, a stringent new code of practice will be developed by the secretary of state in conjunction with motorists’ groups and other experts.

Those falling foul of the rules would then be blocked from getting drivers' information from the DVLA and issuing fines, effectively forcing them out of the industry.

(https://i2-prod.bathchronicle.co.uk/incoming/article501036.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_RUH-car-park.jpg)

A spokesman for Parking Eye said: “We have always been a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and follow its strict code of practice in all the car parks we manage on behalf of our clients.

“Our clients’ parking, in areas such as hospital emergency units and retail operations, does need to be monitored to ensure that patients and customers can effectively access services.

“We welcome any additional government legislation that aims to drive consistency and improve processes across the entire private parking sector.”

The BPA did not respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment.

Bath resident Brenda Richards was so infuriated at being fined £80 for parking at the RUH in July 2017 that she was prepared to go to court.

Mrs 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.

They appealed the fine, first with Parking Eye, then with independent adjudicator POPLA – Parking On Private Land Appeals - but both were turned down.

At the time, Mrs Richards said she was determined not to pay the fine. “I presume they will take me to court,” she said. “I’ll go.”

The Bath Chronicle has contacted Mrs Richards to find out what happened.


https://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/health/parking-eye-says-follows-strict-1141200 (https://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/health/parking-eye-says-follows-strict-1141200)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 August, 2021, 11:04:58 AM
#199

Councillor slates difficulty paying for parking at The Mall shopping centre in Maidstone run by YourParkingSpace

By Alan Smith
ajsmith@thekmgroup.co.uk
Published: 06:00, 29 June 2021 | Updated: 15:52, 30 June 2021


A councillor has slammed a town centre shopping centre's new parking system after becoming the latest motorist to grapple with the troublesome system.

Since February the 1,050-place car park has been run by a new operator, YourParkingSpace, which did away with the barriers on exit and introduced new digital methods of payment.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/MEB4LZGWQ6Z5STBK28NU.jpg)

Motorists now have the choice of paying at the car park using a touch-screen kiosk or after they leave by paying online or using a mobile phone app, with the company using ANPR technology to determine the correct fee.

But by May it emerged that a number of people had received demands for a £100 fixed penalty charge, even though they had paid the fee.

John Jenner, 74, from Hedley Road, Maidstone, was among those who received a £100 demand, even though he had paid his £2 charge with his bank card.

One man had received seven penalty charges

Later Grant Robbins, the senior account manager at YourParkingSpace.co.uk, said the problem was caused by people entering the incorrect vehicle registration number.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/7BNYDEF7C5W2OQVWVOON.jpg)
John Jenner with £100 Penalty Charge Notice


He said: "This has affected just a small percentage of customers - under 1.5%, with over 98.5% of customers entering their correct vehicle registration when paying."

However he said the company would look to introduce improvements such as sending an SMS notification to customers who enter a vehicle registration when paying which didn’t match any vehicle registration picked up by the cameras.

Cllr Margaret Rose seems to have had a different problem paying her £2 fee.

She said: "I found the ticket machines in The Mall impossible to use as they kept saying: 'Sorry can’t be used, try our app.'

"I went home and tried to access the app. I was able to get onto the website, but found it mostly about booking car park spaces rather than help to pay the parking fee.

"Eventually I did get to parking payments. I input all my information and expected to be able to pay in the usual way by contact link with my bank. I then found that this method through the app was unavailable to me."

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/PNG331QPG42PSGYLL01E.jpg)
Cllr Margaret Rose: I couldn't pay

Cllr Rose was concerned that she too would get a £100 fine and set about contacting the company.

She said: "At first they denied there had been any problems, but when I pointed out they had already admitted to KentOnline that there had been, they agreed to waive my fee.

"But even now I'm half expecting a fine to land on my doorstep."

Cllr Rose said: "I found the whole situation a total fiasco and as a councillor, I am very concerned that residents and visitors to Maidstone are having to face these difficulties

On Tuesday last week, the company held an online forum with customers, staff and stakeholders to "learn more about what is and isn’t working well with parking at The Mall."

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/EZ2ZF03ML343LBQLYQT9.jpg)
Paying for parking at The Mall in Maidstone

Mr Robbins said: "Surveying our customers following each major site launch is a process we always follow.

"As a company focused on customer satisfaction, we are constantly looking for feedback to help us improve and streamline the parking experience.

"We were keen to discuss what members felt worked well, and areas they had difficulty with when parking at The Mall."

Mr Robbins said: "To combat the issues experienced by a small handful of drivers a few months ago, we’re updating the parking kiosks enabling them to auto-populate car registration numbers, alleviating the chance of a driver entering the wrong registration number."

"We’re also increasing the ways in which a driver can receive their receipt when paying for their parking session.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/OGM6IJYTF8VQFVOJKRFC.jpg)
Parking notices at The Mall in Maidstone

"Parkers at The Mall can now receive a receipt by SMS as well as by email."

He said The Mall has seen an increase in shoppers.

"We’ll be looking at pushing AutoPay so that registered customers are billed automatically rather than needing to pay for each individual parking session and we’re exploring ways of working with local stores to drive footfall to them with discounted parking for their customers."

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/councillor-blasts-parking-fiasco-249750/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/councillor-blasts-parking-fiasco-249750/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 18 August, 2021, 09:16:34 AM
#200

3rd August 2021

Dozens appeal against parking fines at Five Valleys Centre
By Huw Mabe
Reporter


(https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/resources/images/12862831.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
The Five Valleys Centre car park, one of the new pay and display machines and Rachel Pegler with her parking fine

DOZENS of shoppers claim to have been wrongly issued parking fines at the Five Valleys Centre in Stroud.

A number of angry motorists have taken to social media to complain about the £100 fines, which are reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. They have had varying degrees of success in appealing against the fines, with some vowing to go to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).

In many cases drivers say fines were issued weeks afterwards, meaning they had already disposed of their ticket.

They insist they paid and displayed tickets in the correct manner and left within the allocated time.

In November, the Five Valleys Centre introduced a new Automatic Number Plate Recognition system at the car park, as well as contactless methods of payment.

Since then the multi-storey has been managed by Creative Parking Ltd, with customers needing to enter their full registration number into the new pay and display machines, unless paying by phone.

Stroud artist Rachel Pegler is one of those challenging a fine.

(https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/resources/images/12862832.jpg?type=article-full)

A few days ago she received a £100 penalty notice after using the car park in June.

“I haven’t got the ticket as it was so long ago I’ve thrown it away,” she said.

“I’ve not had any problems previous to this so can only assume it’s some kind of error.

"I was really quite shocked to learn that the same thing has happened to many other people.”

Andy Coombes, 64, from Ebley said he had received a fine more than a month after parking at the Five Valleys Centre.

After finding his old ticket by chance Andy was able to successfully appeal the fine but said he thinks the parking machines are difficult to use and that he would not be parking there again.

A spokesperson for Dransfield Properties, which manages the Five Valleys Centre but not the car park, said: “We are sorry to hear that some customers have had a negative experience when using our car park.

"This is not the standard of service we aim to provide, and we would like to reassure everyone that we are working closely with the company that manage our car park to support our customers.

“We strongly recommend anyone who has a query regarding their Parking Charge Notice should go through the appeals process in the first instance.”

"Please head over to the ‘Parking’ section of our website where you can find detailed information, including a user-friendly video, on how to use our pay and display machines and the terms and conditions of using the multistorey car park. fivevalleysstroud.co.uk/car-parking

"Also, look out for the Five Valleys customer service team who are on site 7 days a week and are always available to assist with any issues or queries."

Creative Parking Ltd were approached for comment but were unable to provide a statement.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/19488753.dozens-appeal-parking-fines-five-valleys-centre/ (https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/19488753.dozens-appeal-parking-fines-five-valleys-centre/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 21 August, 2021, 10:45:16 PM
Why do you think they wait so long before sending out these so called fines? I suggest that the reason
is because they know that most people will have thrown their tickets away after they have left the car park and so will not have any proof that they have paid. Call me cynical if you like.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 22 August, 2021, 10:01:33 PM
Call me cynical if you like.

Ok. You're cynical.



You're also spot on.  <Thumbsup>
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 05 September, 2021, 05:56:52 AM
#201


Man gets £100 parking fine after entering wrong car reg on car park ticket machine
He says he entered his details correctly but the car park's machines have no way to show this

ByFinvola Dunphy
10:03, 1 SEP 2021


(https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article21452322.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_COR_01092021_parking_01JPG.jpg)

A driver says he was left with an "astounding" fine after being accused of entering his details incorrectly in a car park ticket machine.

Kanti Lad, 65, says he is sure he was correct but was given a 'Parking Charge Notice' of £100 for not entering the car registration number in full or correctly.

The tickets from the machine at the site in Leicester don't show the registration on them so his family says they have no way of proving they paid for the correct vehicle.

The son, who wishes to remain anonymous told LeicestershireLive, is challenging the ticket on his father's behalf: "My parents paid for an hour and we still have the ticket. They displayed the ticket clearly in the car.

"A week or so later a letter came through the post saying they had not entered the registration number correctly and they are seeking a stupid amount of money for their mistake.

"How would they even know if they made mistake entering it, if the number is not displayed?"

They still have the ticket for the time they were at the car park, but no registration number is displayed. The son maintains that his parents drove into the car park at 14.09pm, purchased a ticket and displayed it, before leaving at 14.41pm that day.

The driver's son said he contacted Gladstone Solicitors, whose client is Parallel Parking Ltd, the firm which runs the car park.

"I have had conversations on the phone and emails to and from the solicitor of the firm. It seems they don't want to know and want them to pay the astounding amount," he added

LeicestershireLive has seen the response from Gladstone Solicitors which states that "no ticket was recorded against the full and exact vehicle registration number."

The firm did however, say that their Client, Parallel Parking Ltd is willing to accept a settlement of £140 "without prejudice" as a gesture of good will.

LeicestershireLive has contacted Gladstone Solicitors for further information about this incident and are awaiting a reply.

"It is so upsetting that people who do the right thing are being fined like this," added Mr Lad.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-gets-100-parking-fine-21452352 (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-gets-100-parking-fine-21452352)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 October, 2021, 09:21:54 AM
#202


5th October 2021

Blue badge holders faced with parking fines from Cherry Tree Shopping Centre

(https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/resources/images/13071932.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)

Elderly and disabled motorists are being hit with fines from a Liscard shopping centre car park despite being blue badge holders.

In August this year, Smart Parking took over the car park at Cherry Tree Shopping Centre.

Previously, Cherry Tree allowed blue badge holders to use the disabled car parking spaces free of charge and said badge holders would still be eligible for free parking for up to three hours after new handover.

Legal adviser, Leanne Daly, has been helping residents with discrimination claims against the company after numerous where hit with £100 fines.

Leanne told the Globe: “People were driving into the car park, seeing the sign that says they just need to display their badge and then not getting a ticket.

“But with the new system, if you don’t purchase a ticket and enter your full correct registration into their machines, the cameras, which don’t recognise blue badges, will capture your license plate and automatically send a fine to your home address.”

Leanne said fines can take up to a month to come through meaning residents are left unaware of their mistakes until much later.

She said: “People might have parked in Cherry Tree four or five times before they’ve even realised that something is wrong.

“I’ve helped people who have racked up multiple fines and are being told they owe hundreds of pounds.”

Despite the car park signs informing residents displaying their blue badge is enough, to avoid the fine, residents have to alert smart parking that they are registered blue badge holders either online or via the Cherry Tree office.

Leanne said: “A lot of people who are being hit by these fines are elderly and don’t have access to a smart phone or the internet to register that they’re a blue badge holder.

“The office for Cherry Tree is up a flight of stairs with no lift so it’s impossible for a lot of badge holders to even access.

“That’s discrimination because it’s making it less fair for a disabled person to use the carpark because they’re more likely to end up with a charge which may or may not get cancelled.”

Leanne said she has helped over 60 local people contact Cherry Tree and Smart Parking to help appeal against the fines.

She said: “There are people I’ve helped that have been slapped with £300 worth of fines and then are having to appeal and worry for months if they are going to have to pay it or not.

“Those people have been put through an ordeal that they shouldn’t have to experience in the first place.

“People are getting really worried and confused. It’s a lot for people to process.”

Leanne has been helping residents through a Facebook group where those affected can share their experiences and offer support to one another.

She said: “A lot of people are coming to me worried that because of these fines they’re going to get something on their record and they’re not tech savvy so don’t have a clue where to start with appealing it.

“There’s quite a lot of people in vulnerable positions. They see this legal letter and get scared so I’m just hoping I can level the playing field and put it in everyday language for people.”

In response to the complaints, Cherry Tree Shopping Centre posted on social media: “Cherry Tree Shopping Centre is aware that some Blue Badge Holders have been sent Parking Charge Notices in error by our tenant, Smart Parking.

“We are presently working with Smart Parking to resolve this issue permanently, but in the meantime should any Blue Badge Holder receive a Parking Charge Notice they will be able to get this cancelled by following the appeals process on the back of the letter.

“As part of the appeal process, you will be required to upload a copy of your Blue Badge to Smart Parking's website and this file should be less than 3mb or the website will not accept it.

“We understand that these notices will have caused concern to our customers and would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused. Should anyone require any further information, please email info@smartparking.com.”

https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/19626016.blue-badge-holders-faced-parking-fines-cherry-tree-shopping-centre/ (https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/19626016.blue-badge-holders-faced-parking-fines-cherry-tree-shopping-centre/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 October, 2021, 09:32:07 AM
#203

People 'ripped off' by parking enforcement company outside Concourse in Skelmersdale

“People are frightened and pay the fine because they are intimidated," says a local councillor in Skelmersdale.

(https://i2-prod.lancs.live/incoming/article19751547.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS125334890.jpg)

People outside a popular West Lancs shopping centre are being ripped off by a parking enforcement company in a ‘trap and sting’ operation, it has been claimed.

West Lancashire Borough Councillor Neil Furey has slammed parking enforcement company ‘Smart Parking’ for its procedures for issuing fines at the car park outside the Concourse Shopping Centre in Skelmersdale.

He is accusing the company of issuing £100 parking fines for overstaying the permitted five hours to people who use the car park twice in one day, by using photos taken of their first entrance and last exit times.

The Skelmersdale North councillor says the practice is called ‘double dipping’ and is ‘ripping people off’ as well as damaging business at the retail park.

He said: “It’s been going on for three years, and it’s an absolute and utter con. They will deny it, of course.

“There are hundreds of cases like this in Skelmersdale, and people are being ripped off.

"Motorists should be aware that Smart Parking are using trap and sting tactics to issue motorists with £100 penalty charge notices.

“People are frightened and pay the fine because they are intimidated. It’s generally affecting people who don’t stay over five hours, but who make two trips in one day because they are picking people up or shopping.

“I have been in this ongoing battle for several years about the enforcement of restrictions. Parking is free at the Concourse, and people have five hours, but there are many cases where people are making two trips to the Concourse, and the parking company is looking at the first trip and picking up the point of entry to the car park then using the exit point when people have returned for a second trip, and then putting those on a penalty charge notice and sending it out.”

Citing cases of people being hit by parking fines who worked at the Concourse and had returned later in the day to do some shopping, or people who had returned to fast food restaurants later in the same day, he said, “It’s known as double dipping and it’s bad practice.

Now he is calling for the entire parking enforcement operation and restrictions to be lifted, saying that there is no need for them at the shopping centre, and accusing the Concourse managers of turning a blind eye.

He added: “There is no need to have this enforcement operation at the Concourse, and there is no need to have Action Number Recognition Plate images taken.

“The Concourse do not want to know – they pass it on to Smart Parking but it is happening on their watch.

“It’s unpopular, word has got around and some people are frightened of going there because of the cameras.

“It’s absolute and utter madness, this double dipping, and I stand by my allegations.

“Car parking has always been free and there’s no need to limit the number of hours there at the Concourse. It’s a money making racket.”

Parking enforcement company Smart Parking and the Concourse Shopping Centre were both contacted for comment.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/people-ripped-off-parking-enforcement-21714244 (https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/people-ripped-off-parking-enforcement-21714244)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 October, 2021, 09:14:15 AM
#204

Hull shopper claims 'I won't shop there again' after stressful Tesco parking fine appeal

Customers have been caught out by ticket machines

ByKeith Phillips
05:00, 12 OCT 2021


(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article383337.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/2_5745628.jpg)
The car park for Tesco at St Stephens Shopping Centre, Hull.

Tesco customers say they have been unfairly fined for parking in the supermarket car park at Hull's St Stephens Shopping Centre.

Shoppers say when they have used the car parking facilities ticket machines have displayed a notice saying there is "no need to validate parking today."

Many have then done their shopping, returned to their car and driven off, only to receive a parking fine notice later claiming the time they had spent parked on site required validation at a ticket machine or online.

For the latest stories on Tesco, click here.

The company that manages the site, Apcoa Parking, has demanded a £30 payment be made within 14 days, rising to £70 afterwards, from some customers.

On Hull Live's Traffic and Travel Facebook page one customer said: "I’ve received a parking notice from Tesco car park St Stephens at a time the machines said you don’t need to validate parking today? Has anyone else had this?"

(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article3972293.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/90511038_3032472970150817_4924975827944210432_n.jpg)

Many customers replied that the same thing had occurred to them.

Another customer said: "I had this, I rang up and you have to appeal, I rang Tesco and they stated the machines were not working that day. I did keep my receipt and ticket and sent pictures with my appeal and they did cancel it, along with a snotty letter stating you can validate your parking on line, even though the machine screens stated you didn't have to validate your parking that day."

(https://i2-prod.hulldailymail.co.uk/incoming/article6043195.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_1c87f50f-7604-44a8-bbf7-7f4fd48f55e4.jpg)
One Tesco customer in Hull received a parking notice from APCOA Parking which manages the site.

One shopper said: "We complained to Tesco and they found a fault on system and refunded those that had paid the fine. Make sure you keep your parking ticket for at least 2 weeks as that helped as well, you can also go on line to verify your parking for future reference."

Another woman said she went over the free parking time by two minutes, "they did cancel mine after having to send many info, now it's stopped me from parking and using Tesco's."

One man said: "Yes I had one, the same happened, it took 2 months to get our money back eventually."

In a statement APCOA Parking, which manages the site, said the parking policy at the store provides 30 minutes free stay, with no need to validate.

If customers stay over 30 minutes, up to a maximum stay of 2 hours, a £5 minimum spend is required followed by validation at one of the eight machines at the store or online.

“There are no indications of a general issue relating to parking at Tesco St Stephen’s, but APCOA Parking (who are members of the British Parking Association, Approved Operator Scheme) encourage anyone who believes they have been unfairly served with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to follow the appeals process detailed on the PCN so their specific circumstances can be investigated."

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/hull-shopper-claims-i-wont-6043069 (https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/hull-shopper-claims-i-wont-6043069)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 October, 2021, 09:21:38 AM
#205

Apology to dad accused of staying at McDonald's for 5 hours

His £100 parking fine was wrongly issued

BY JOSHUA HARTLEY
17:02, 11 OCT 2021UPDATED17:03, 11 OCT 2021


(https://i2-prod.nottinghampost.com/incoming/article6033915.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_WhatsApp-Image-2021-10-08-at-104007jpeg.jpg)
McDonald's in Nuthall Road

A dad-of-two who made two quick trips to McDonald's in a day was mistakenly slapped with a £100 parking charge after he was wrongly adjudged to have stayed at the restaurant for more than five hours.

Matt Williams, 36, made two separate visits to the eatery in Nuthall Road, between Bobbers Mill and Aspley, at 10.37am and 3.55pm on September 26.

But the Bilborough resident was sent a parking notice on October 7 for £100 by mistake, mistakenly accused of staying in the restaurant's car park for 318 minutes, or more than five hours.

But after they were contacted by Nottinghamshire Live, McDonald's and its parking provider have apologised to Mr Williams and cancelled the charge, which was issued incorrectly.

A McDonald’s spokesperson said: "We have parking restrictions in place at a number of our restaurants, with a time limit to ensure there is adequate parking for all of our customers.

"We apologise that, on this occasion, the customer in question was fined incorrectly and we are in contact with our third party provider to help resolve this issue.”

Mr Williams was stunned when he received the charge.

"I couldn't believe it when it came through, according to them we were there for 318 minutes, from 10.37am to 3.55pm - no one spends that long at McDonald's," he said.

He added: "It's a lot of unnecessary hassle filling out forms for something I haven't done, it's very unfair.

"We usually go McDonald's for the kids or for something quick and it's incredibly off putting to think that this could happen. It makes me not want to go back.

"A lot of people pop in when they are out and about, so this could be happening to people all over the place due to a fault on the system.

"And a lot of the time you'll get pressured by letters saying that the charge will go up if you leave it, which means that your first reaction could be to pay it straightaway before it gets worse."

He and his wife had been on their way to an urgent care centre in because she had hurt her finger.

They popped into McDonald's for breakfast and parked up for a few minutes to eat and then continued to the walk-in centre.

"We were there for probably less than ten minutes," said Mr Williams.

"We were at the care centre for hours, my wife had some X-rays and had it confirmed she has broke her fingers and I was having Zoom meetings from my car.

"Then we left and thought that on the way home we would pick up some milkshakes for our kids who had been staying with our sister while we were at the hospital. So we went back to the same McDonald's and went through the drive-thru again."

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/apology-dad-accused-staying-mcdonalds-6029824.amp#aoh=16340359756536&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s (https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/apology-dad-accused-staying-mcdonalds-6029824.amp#aoh=16340359756536&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 18 October, 2021, 02:27:25 AM
Sent a parking charge notice by mistake?  Trying it on again more likely. :-ev-:
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 20 October, 2021, 07:50:02 AM
#206


(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25249162.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/0_Woman-fined-after-car-park-mistakes-her-car-for-a-learner-on-a-moped.jpg)
Aimee Manston said she was given a parking ticket after her car was confused with a moped

Woman slapped with £100 after parking firm gets Rover car and a bike mixed up

Aimee Manston, from Doncaster, said that she found it "hilarious" how a parking enforcement company confused her Rover car with a learner moped after she was provided with the photographic "evidence"

ByLisa BaxterTim Hanlon
13:45, 19 Oct 2021


A woman has told of "hilarious" mistake by a parking enforcement company that sent her a fine with her silver Rover car mistaken for a learner moped.

Aimee Manston said that while she found the error comical she was also concerned that some vulnerable people may pay fines without examining the photographic evidence, reported HullLive.

She was provided with a photo from the company Smart Parking that showed a moped driver leaving Kingston Shopping Centre car park seven hours after her car drove in, for what she said was an hour's shopping trip.

Aimee, from Doncaster, said: "It is my vehicle going in, and a moped coming out seven hours later, with a completely different registration. I have appealed it, as there's no way I am paying something that I haven't done.

"I think it's actually hilarious that they got it so wrong, I just laughed when I saw the photograph.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25249172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Woman-fined-after-car-park-mistakes-her-car-for-a-learner-on-a-moped.jpg)

She is concerned that some people may not look at the photos closely and could end up paying the fines ( Image: Hull Live)
"But actually there is a real concern that vulnerable people, maybe who don't see too well or might not examine the photographs clearly, could be falling victim to this.

"I am worried that people may be paying these charges wrongly and would urge everyone who gets one to carefully look at the evidence they give."

The penalty charge notice Aimee received required her to pay £60 within 20 days, or £100 if it is after that date.

She has formally appealed and is awaiting further communications from Smart Parking, which has a head office in Birmingham.

There have been a number of one-star reviews on review site Parkopedia for the car park, on Holderness Road, east Hull, since Smart Parking was hired to enforce parking on the site, reported HullLive.

Customers have 90 minutes free parking, but many claim they were unaware of any need to pay beyond that time slot and that signage isn't visible enough.

One reviewer posted in September: "Just received a fine, I have shopped here for years with no issue, no signs or payment meters so didn't know there is a parking charge now. Won't be shopping here again."

Another reviewer from September said: "Disgusting just received a £60 fine for parking here.

"Why has no-one ever been told there are now charges? Will definitely not be shopping here again.

"Good luck to the shops because I wont be the first or the last to stop shopping there."

A spokesman for Smart Parking said: "Smart Parking was brought in to manage the car park on Holderness Road to stop parking abuse and ensure motorists can always find somewhere to park.

"The car park is used by thousands of motorists every week, and the vast majority of them do so without any issues. Those who don't follow the terms and conditions of use may be liable for a charge.

"However in this particular case there was human error and the charge has now been cancelled.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-fined-after-parking-enforcers-25246799 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-fined-after-parking-enforcers-25246799)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 27 October, 2021, 04:57:32 PM
#207

Belvoir Castle: Visitors complain about parking fines on Tripadvisor

By Alex Regan & Liam Barnes
BBC News
6 August 2021


(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/1217E/production/_119801147_gettyimages-454425681.jpg)
More than 60 people have complained about new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras, after some visitors received £100 parking charge notices

A popular tourist attraction has received more than 60 complaints on Tripadvisor by visitors who claim they have been given unfair parking fines.

Leicestershire's Belvoir Castle put in new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras last year.

But one visitor said the machines were misleading people to underpay, leading to a £100 parking charge notice (PCN).

Belvoir Castle said it was in "discussions with the operator to ensure the parking charges are clear".

Jane Handsley, from Grantham, said she regularly visits the grounds and Engine Yard retail village on the Belvoir estate.

She said she went to the castle with her husband and daughter on 26 July and tried to pay for parking as they left the grounds.

"We went to the parking machines when we were finished, we put in our number plate and it brings up a screen to say the date and time, and you accept the end time, and move on to payment.

"The date and time that comes on to that screen isn't actually calculating how much your parking charge will be.

"The machine is set up to default to one hour's parking, which is the cheapest payment," she said.

Ms Handsley said this meant she unwittingly underpaid for the parking and received a £100 PCN from third party operator Initial Parking four days later.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/1DF6/production/_119807670_belvoircsatle.jpg)
Visitor Jane Handsley says the machines are misleading, and led her to underpay for her visit

Visitors are expected to adjust the end time for their visit and pay the certain number of hours they expect to stay.

Ms Handsley said: "You could say it's me misunderstanding machines, but I'm not the only one.

"So many people are getting it, so many don't know what to press, obviously so many people are being tripped up by it.

"We are quite prepared to go to court and fight it, because it's really unclear what should be happening."

'Discussions with operator'

One Tripadvisor reviewer, who was also fined, wrote: "There are signs saying pay as you leave.

"Wish I had paid up front and limited my time instead."

The effect of the parking fines has led some visitors to say they will not return to the castle, the home of the Duke and Duchess of Rutland.

A spokesperson for the estate said: "We are aware of a number of people who have been issued with parking fines by the third party operator we have contracted to run our car parks at Belvoir Castle and the Engine Yard village.

"We are in discussions with the operator to ensure the car parking charges are clear and easy to understand for all visitors so that they do not overstay their booking.

"Since the operation of paid car parking was implemented, we have welcomed nearly 82,500 cars in 12 months.

"The number of PCN's issued has been 1% of all vehicles, 99% of patrons using that car park either stay free or comply with the payment system and do not receive a parking charge notice."

Initial Parking has been approached for comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58104759.amp (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58104759.amp)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 27 October, 2021, 05:06:47 PM
#208

Councillor slates difficulty paying for parking at The Mall shopping centre in Maidstone run by YourParkingSpace

By Alan Smith
06:00, 29 June 2021 | Updated: 15:52, 30 June 2021


A councillor has slammed a town centre shopping centre's new parking system after becoming the latest motorist to grapple with the troublesome system.

Since February the 1,050-place car park has been run by a new operator, YourParkingSpace, which did away with the barriers on exit and introduced new digital methods of payment.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/MEB4LZGWQ6Z5STBK28NU.jpg)
YourParkingSpace now runs The Mall car park in Maidstone

Motorists now have the choice of paying at the car park using a touch-screen kiosk or after they leave by paying online or using a mobile phone app, with the company using ANPR technology to determine the correct fee.

But by May it emerged that a number of people had received demands for a £100 fixed penalty charge, even though they had paid the fee.

John Jenner, 74, from Hedley Road, Maidstone, was among those who received a £100 demand, even though he had paid his £2 charge with his bank card.

One man had received seven penalty charges

Later Grant Robbins, the senior account manager at YourParkingSpace.co.uk, said the problem was caused by people entering the incorrect vehicle registration number.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/7BNYDEF7C5W2OQVWVOON.jpg)
John Jenner with £100 Penalty Charge Notice

He said: "This has affected just a small percentage of customers - under 1.5%, with over 98.5% of customers entering their correct vehicle registration when paying."

However he said the company would look to introduce improvements such as sending an SMS notification to customers who enter a vehicle registration when paying which didn’t match any vehicle registration picked up by the cameras.

Cllr Margaret Rose seems to have had a different problem paying her £2 fee.

She said: "I found the ticket machines in The Mall impossible to use as they kept saying: 'Sorry can’t be used, try our app.'

"I went home and tried to access the app. I was able to get onto the website, but found it mostly about booking car park spaces rather than help to pay the parking fee.

"Eventually I did get to parking payments. I input all my information and expected to be able to pay in the usual way by contact link with my bank. I then found that this method through the app was unavailable to me."

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/PNG331QPG42PSGYLL01E.jpg)
Cllr Margaret Rose: I couldn't pay

Cllr Rose was concerned that she too would get a £100 fine and set about contacting the company.

She said: "At first they denied there had been any problems, but when I pointed out they had already admitted to KentOnline that there had been, they agreed to waive my fee.

"But even now I'm half expecting a fine to land on my doorstep."

Cllr Rose said: "I found the whole situation a total fiasco and as a councillor, I am very concerned that residents and visitors to Maidstone are having to face these difficulties."

On Tuesday last week, the company held an online forum with customers, staff and stakeholders to "learn more about what is and isn’t working well with parking at The Mall."

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/EZ2ZF03ML343LBQLYQT9.jpg)
Paying for parking at The Mall in Maidstone

Mr Robbins said: "Surveying our customers following each major site launch is a process we always follow.

"As a company focused on customer satisfaction, we are constantly looking for feedback to help us improve and streamline the parking experience.

"We were keen to discuss what members felt worked well, and areas they had difficulty with when parking at The Mall."

Mr Robbins said: "To combat the issues experienced by a small handful of drivers a few months ago, we’re updating the parking kiosks enabling them to auto-populate car registration numbers, alleviating the chance of a driver entering the wrong registration number."

"We’re also increasing the ways in which a driver can receive their receipt when paying for their parking session.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/OGM6IJYTF8VQFVOJKRFC.jpg)
Parking notices at The Mall in Maidstone

"Parkers at The Mall can now receive a receipt by SMS as well as by email."

He said The Mall has seen an increase in shoppers.

"We’ll be looking at pushing AutoPay so that registered customers are billed automatically rather than needing to pay for each individual parking session and we’re exploring ways of working with local stores to drive footfall to them with discounted parking for their customers."

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/councillor-blasts-parking-fiasco-249750/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/councillor-blasts-parking-fiasco-249750/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 November, 2021, 08:02:26 AM
#209

Confusing parking sign replaced after complaints from angry drivers
Visitors to Parallel Parking Ltd's Mansfield Street car park were fined - despite paying to park

ByDave Owen
05:00, 1 NOV 2021UPDATED07:39, 3 NOV 2021


(https://i2-prod.leicestermercury.co.uk/incoming/article6133687.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/2_Parallel-Parking.jpg)
Parking warning - A large new sign has gone up at the city centre's Mansfield Street car park after Parallel Parking Ltd came under fire from motorists

A company at the centre of a car parking row in Leicester has responded to criticism by installing a new sign offering clearer instructions to drivers.

Visitors to Parallel Parking ltd's Mansfield Street car park, behind Belgrave Gate, claimed confusion at a pay-and-display machine led them to be unfairly fined.

They include Kanti Lad, from Wigston, whose family contacted LeicestershireLive after he was sent a Parking Charge Notice ordering him to pay £100.

His son said his 65-year-old father had bought a ticket from the machine at the privately run car park, next to that at the rear entrance of the city's Argos store, on May 20, this year.

He was issued with a ticket by the machine but, to his surprise, he was sent a letter informing him he owed the firm £100 because he failed to input his car registration number correctly.

Mr Lad's son said that the lack of information on the pay-and-display ticket, and the fact that the £1.50 ticket was issued, meant his father would have had no idea he's made a costly mistake.

"How would they even know if they made mistake entering it if the number is not displayed?" he said.

Another driver, also from Wigston, fell foul of the same pay-and-display machine earlier this month.

The woman, who did not want to be named, said: "I was visiting the city centre for work on October 7. I parked in the car park behind Argos.

"When I put my money into the machine it issued me a ticket straight away.

"So I thought everything was fine - well why wouldn't I?

"I did think it was a bit odd it gave me the ticket without asking me to enter my registration number but I know that is how other car parks operate."

She added: "That's why I was shocked when I received a parking fine from Parallel Parking through the post telling me I owned them £100.

"I thought this is ridiculous but decided to pay the reduced amount of £60 and then appealed."

Her appeal was dismissed, however, with the ruling insisting it was her responsibility to tap in her car registration.

She said: "Surely, if I'd made a mistake then it shouldn't have issued me my ticket. Because it did, I had not idea.

"I think it's incredibly unfair. But when I tried to clear things up with Parallel Parking there was no way of getting in touch with them."

(https://i2-prod.leicestermercury.co.uk/incoming/article6133756.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Parallel-Parking2.jpg)
The offending pay-and-display machine behind Argos, in Mansfield Street, Leicester

She added: "This needs to be sorted out. This must have happened to so many other drivers too. It's put me off visiting the city centre, which is a shame."

When LeicestershireLive contacted Parallel Parking for a comment, they replied by stating that new signs had recently been erected at the Mansfield Street car park.

"The pay-and-display machine instructions are shown on the machine," said a spokesperson. "The driver is required to enter a full and accurate registration number.

"The entered details are shown on the display screen, and when the user is happy with the displayed details they then need to press green to validate before they are able to select the time required and insert their payment."

They added: "There is no 'glitch' with the pay and display machines, they are simply printers and they only print what the user has entered.

"We have, however, placed a sign next to the pay and display machine stating that if anyone types in an incorrect registration number to contact us immediately."

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/confusing-parking-sign-replaced-after-6123876 (https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/confusing-parking-sign-replaced-after-6123876)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 December, 2021, 07:43:42 AM
#210

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25582951.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/2_Businesswoman-looking-away-while-driving-car-seen-through-window.jpg)
One family got a £60 fine for spending too long in a car park, even though they never turned off the engine

EXCLUSIVE: Family fined £60 for spending 12 minutes driving around car park looking for space
The family were surprised to get a ticket despite never getting out of their car or turning off the engine - but the car park operator insists the fine is deserved

One family got a £60 fine for spending too long in a car park, even though they never turned off the engine (Image: Getty Images/Westend61)
BySam BarkerReporter
17:51, 30 Nov 2021


A family has been hit by a £60 parking fine for driving around a busy car park - despite never parking.

Julie Sutcliffe, 51, had been on a family holiday to Cornwall in August.

On August 12 they visited Newquay, which was very busy at the time, and the family struggled to find a parking space.

They had visited three or four car parks, all full.

Getting desperate, they drove slowly around one car park for just more than 10 minutes hoping someone would leave so they could stop.

No-one did, so they left, before successfully finding a spot in another car park.

But to their surprise, when they had returned home after their trip they got a £60 ticket from the operator of the car park they had driven around.

Sutcliffe said: "When we got back from our holidays I opened a letter saying we had a £60 fine for parking for 13 minutes without paying. This was the time we had spent driving round.

"I appealed, saying at no point had we stopped, never mind turned our engine off.

"Our appeal was refused. To say I’m disgusted is a huge understatement."

The family paid the fine because it seemed like the easier option than fighting the ticket.

"I thought I'd pay it as I didn't want the worry of taking it further," Sutcliffe said. "They are a big company and we are a family."

The Mirror asked Smart Parking if they would refund the £60 as the family had not parked.

But Smart Parking said the fine was deserved and there would be no refund.

A Smart Parking spokesperson said: "Smart Parking are proud members of the British Parking Association and strictly follow its guidelines.

"At Newquay car park we utilise a state-of-the-art ANPR parking management system to ensure genuine customers can always find a place to park.

"It is important to remember that the car park is private land, so when deciding to park motorists should always check the terms and conditions of use which are clearly outlined in numerous signs across the site.

"In the case of [Sutcliffe] she stayed in the car park for over 12 minutes without paying, so correctly received a charge, which she has now paid.”

Last week The Mirror reported a man was fined for time he spent finding a parking space and queuing to buy a ticket.

Paul Adams, 55, says he paid for an £8.50 ticket in St. Ives which would have allowed him to stay parked at the spot all day.

But some time later he received a £60 fine from Armtrac Security Services Ltd, who run the car park.

As Adams read the notice, he was shocked to find he was being charged for the 15 minutes he waited to find a spot and the 10 minutes he waited in a queue to buy a ticket at the machine.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/family-fined-60-spending-12-25582941 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/family-fined-60-spending-12-25582941)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 December, 2021, 08:45:09 AM
#211

BIG MAC AND FINES McDonald’s regular furious after he’s fined £400 over new 10-minute parking limit

Emilia Shovelin
19:25, 18 Nov 2021Updated: 20:17, 18 Nov 2021


MCDONALD'S customers have been left fuming after falling foul of a new parking system leaving them with multiple £100 fines.

A 10-minute parking limit was introduced to the restaurant in Littleton, Walsall, leaving Richard Moore with four £100 fines in the space of a few weeks.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NINTCHDBPICT000694564090.jpg?w=750)
A 10-minute parking limit in the Littleton, Walsall, McDonald's has left Richard Moore with four £100 fines

Richard has been using the McDonald's drive through regularly over the last two years and said that he didn't notice the change in rules until he received four separate fines in the post.

He said: "Now the nature of a drive-through is as it says, I drive through, collect my food and eat parked up, as I have usually done for the past two years.

"I did not notice the changed parking notices.

"This is not your run-of-the-mill car park as the dynamics of the daily McDonald's drive-through customers have not been taken into consideration."

As soon as a vehicle enters the Littleton site in Wisemore, Walsall, they are clocked by ANPR cameras, meaning time is ticking as they queue for food.

Richard said: "It would have been very helpful for warning notices to have been posted at the drive-through and maybe verbal information of the changed free parking time to only 10 minutes.

"I have now stopped this as it is far too risky as a drive-through customer to complete my purchase within 10 minutes."

"None of this was done at the time the parking conditions changed and I continued to use McDonald's and the car park as I had done for the past two years."

Geeta Gupta, who received a £60 after getting breakfast at the restaurant, said: "It was impossible to get served, pay, eat in 10 minutes.

"The landowner needs to be realistic, they should be more transparent.

"£60 is ridiculous we only spent £3.49, we will never use this McDonald's again."

A petition to increase the waiting time at the site set up by Councillor Lee Jeavons has received more than 300 signatures with people hoping change will lead to fines being rescinded.

The car park is run by a private contractor but petitioners are hoping the fast food giant will use its commercial power to help with the situation.

Councillor Jeavons has described the changes as "disgraceful" and believes the waiting time must be longer.

He said: "According to planning permission, McDonald's customers are supposed to be able to park for free, the problem is none of the McDonald's bays are marked out."

The land is operated by Ocean Parking, which has been contacted for comment but is yet to respond.

A spokesman for McDonald's said: "We are aware of parking issues around our Littleton restaurant and we have contacted the managing agent to further understand and help resolve the issue."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16779271/mcdonalds-regular-fined-400-over-10-minute-parking-limit/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16779271/mcdonalds-regular-fined-400-over-10-minute-parking-limit/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:00:28 AM
#212

8 December 2021

Drivers fined after cutting through Waitrose car park in Abingdon

By Rebecca Whittaker
Reporter


(https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/resources/images/13274582.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
Waitrose car park, Abingdon.

Drivers are getting caught out for using a supermarket car park as a cut through.

Abingdon residents are surprised after being fined for driving through the Waitrose car park on Abbey Close, which is owned by Britannia Parking.

On the entrance to the supermarket car park there is a sign that states the car park is camera controlled. There is free customer parking for up to two hours, but some drivers have been fined for visiting the car park for even less time.

Charley Dixey said his 83-year-old grandad, lives near the car park and has recently been fined for 'overstaying' in the car park.

Mr Dixey said: "He got a ticket a few weeks back saying he had been parked there all day but in actual fact he had been at the golf club all day and had driven through the car park the same as he had done for about 10 years. He was obviously quite upset about it and wanted it paid straight away, I paid it for him and then appealed it."

(https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/resources/images/13274583.jpg?type=article-full)

Karen Pounds, explained she also uses the supermarket car park to drive through, but recently received a fine for over staying while doing her shopping.

She said: "I got a parking ticket this week and I'm convinced I didn't park there for more than two hours, but how do I prove it? I paid the £40 fine but am convinced I did not park there over my time as I'm always moving my car or I pay to park in the other car parks."

Jennah Gleed said she uses the Abingdon car park as a cut through and has recently been fined, but she believes the fines are due to a faulty camera.

She said: "The tickets I received stated that I had outstayed the maximum term not that I had passed through a restricted area. Similarly there are no signs around the carpark that say it is private land and passing through is not allowed."

She added: "The system correctly noted the first entrance but then failed, to record the first exit and second entrance that day then picking up on the second exit."

Read also: £35 million grant given to improve Oxford A40 for over 4,000 homes

Mrs Gleed said she appealed the fine and flagged the faulty camera with Britannia Parking. After struggling to speak to the Britannia Parking customer service, Mrs Gleed's fine was eventually cancelled.

She received a short statement from the parking company that said: "We can confirm that the Parking Charge Notices have been cancelled, therefore no further action is required."

Britannia Parking has been contacted for a comment about the parking fines and faulty camera, but the company has not responded.

https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/19767097.drivers-fined-cutting-waitrose-car-park-abingdon/ (https://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/19767097.drivers-fined-cutting-waitrose-car-park-abingdon/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:18:50 AM
#213

BP makes U-turn after dad left in 'shock' over car wash parking fine at busy Northampton petrol station

"I'm genuinely worried bailiffs are going to knock on the door when my four-year-old daughter and partner are at home and I'm out at work."

By Logan MacLeod
Thursday, 2nd December 2021, 9:23 am


A Northampton dad has described his 'shock' and 'worry' after receiving a parking notice for 'overstaying' the time limit at a petrol station despite attending a busy car wash.

Daniel Heasman, of Kingsthorpe Grove, says bailiffs were chasing him for £170 after overstaying the allotted time at the BP Garage in Abington Avenue while washing his car on August 16.

However, the self-employed glazer paid £10 for a platinum car wash service at the BP Garage kiosk and says he was never made aware there was a time limit in place. There are multiple signs on site but Daniel said he did not see them.

(https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/webimg/T0FLMTM1MjA0OTc5.jpg?&width=640)
Daniel Heasman at the BP Garage in Abington Avenue

Then, three months later on Thursday, November 18 Daniel received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) demanding £170 and court action for ignoring the previous fine letters - but he says this was the first he had heard of the incident. BP has now began the process to cancel the fine.

Reacting to receiving the letter, the father-of-one said: "I didn't have any sleep and my partner is scared bailiffs are going to be coming round to the house.

"It was just a really deep down shock. Just for washing my car. It really has affected me - I can't stop thinking about it.

"It's depressing.

"I'm genuinely worried bailiffs are going to knock on the door when my four-year-old daughter and partner are at home and I'm out at work."

"Not once did BP say there is a time limit to wash my car."

Daniel went on to explain how he has tried to appeal the fine to DRP.

He said: "When I received the letter I thought it was a scam. It looks like a scam. It just looks bogus.

"I have tried to get hold of DRP but they didn't answer the phone. I was on hold for 45 minutes. I just had to hang up. I went online and the only option was to pay."

Chronicle and Echo found a Google review on the BP Garage also complaining of 'extra parking charges' while using the car wash facilities.

The review reads: "I had a bad experience at this station. I'm always filling up my car there and everything is fine. But on November 3, I washed my car and parked close to the hoovering place for six or seven minutes to get a code for the jet wash.

"Yesterday, I got a parking charge letter saying I parked for 45 minutes, but [during] that time I was on the jet wash and hoovering my car. It's a little bit strange. You go there to wash your car and get extra charge for parking. What is going on?"

However, after Chronicle & Echo contacted BP, the company has since made a request to cancel Daniel's ticket.

A BP spokesman said: "In this instance, I have spoken to our careline who have informed me that Daniel made contact with us a few days ago. They are already requesting it to be cancelled and will get back to Daniel directly.

"All parking contractors that we work with are approved by the British Parking Association (BPA) and are required to meet strict standards which address appropriate levels of charges and behaviours demanded from staff.

"We do kindly ask customers to please address their concerns to the Parking Enforcement Company they have received a letter from as they are equipped with all necessary tools to best investigate the case.

"If they believe the parking charge notice has been issued incorrectly they can make an appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) which is mentioned on the letter they will have received.

"POPLA is an independent company who will assess the complaint, If the overstay is due to a genuine reason then POPLA will review the claim."

MET Parking - the car park management company responsible for the site - has not responded to this newspaper's request for comment.

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/bp-makes-u-turn-after-dad-left-in-shock-over-car-wash-parking-fine-at-busy-northampton-petrol-station-3477987 (https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/bp-makes-u-turn-after-dad-left-in-shock-over-car-wash-parking-fine-at-busy-northampton-petrol-station-3477987)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:30:08 AM
#214

Lidl cancels Parking Eye charges after 90-year-old disabled Fareham pensioner goes into battle over 'stressful' Portchester fines

Disabled pensioner David Shepherd has finally won his battle to shop at his local Lidl Portchester store without being clobbered by repeated parking fines for overstaying.

By Richard Thomson
Tuesday, 16th November 2021, 1:39 pm


The 90-year-old Fareham blue badge holder and his wife Yvonne were at the end of their tether, locked a two-year battle with the national grocery chain over leaving David exposed to unfair parking charges.

Their stressful stand-off began two years ago when David found himself struggling to complete their weekly shopping in the maximum 90-minute timeframe permitted by the Lidl’s private parking contractors.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOmExNzQwNWM0LWQxNDItNDY2Zi05YmU1LTQ2MmYwMDdiNjEzNjo5ZjU2YzgwYS0xN2UzLTQ3MDEtYmNjOS02Zjk3NmJmMWEwZDQ=.jpg?&width=640)
Disabled pensioner David Shepherd has won his battle to shop at his local Lidl Portchester store without being hit by repeated parking fines for overstaying.

‘I go to Lidl at Portchester and Hilsea because they sell pretty well nearly everything, so I don’t need to go shopping anywhere else, but I found an hour and a half a bit ridiculous’ said David.

‘Inevitably I’m unable to do all my shopping within that time because of my disability as it takes me some time to get around the shop, go through the checkout, get to my car with the shopping, return the trolley and exit the car park.

‘I’m constantly getting parking fines from Parking Eye who manage the car park because I’m sometimes as much as 20 minutes over time.’

David said it all started one Christmas when the previous car parking management company Athena started dishing out fines when he couldn’t get back to his car on time.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOmNjYmYxYjczLWFhZmMtNDY3OS1iNGI1LTFiMjUwYzAwYTExYjo0YTJjZWE2Yi1jMDRmLTRjODUtOGJjNC1jYWM2ZWQyY2QxNmY=.jpg?&width=640)

As his disability also inhibits him from writing, Yvonne challenged them to justify the situation in what ended up in a bulging file of letters exposing a callous disregard for their predicament.

When Parking Eye took over the management of the Portchester parking operations, they were devastated to discover they were about to become victims of more parking fines in the pipeline.

A furious David said that he’d complained to the Lidl’s Portchester store manager, one manager three times and two other managers after a request for a half-hour extension to Parking Eye was conspicuously ignored.

‘You would have thought Lidl managers would be anxious to protect their customers,’ he said. ‘Basically, they didn’t want to know, claiming it was nothing to do with them as they employ third-party contractors to monitor and control their car parks.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOjEyZTkwNjAwLTFlOTMtNDY4My05NDhiLWM3NmMwOTZkOWMwNzpiOWJmNGFmNy1iYjE2LTQ2ZDAtYmZiOC0xOWNkM2Y2ZWE0NmQ=.jpg?&width=640)

‘One said I had to write in and send a bill in to prove I’d spent the money. That may be alright if you can write but I can’t use a pen or even do emails at my age. It all wound up with my wife Yvonne who has got heath problems and it upsets her putting her under enormous stress when we couldn’t get a satisfactory reply.’

Determined to stand his ground for what amounted to being penalised for mobility disablement, David point-blank refused to succumb to what he regarded as an unconscionable bullying and harassment campaign by Parking Eye to get him to pay up.

‘That’s what I’m so annoyed about. I haven’t accepted any of their charges and what I’d really like is for them to take me to court, but they didn’t. It wouldn’t look very good if they did,’ he said.

What finally took the biscuit was when their son started receiving the Parking Eye charge notices despite the fact he hadn’t lived at their address for some time.

At the end of her tether, Yvonne emailed Streetwise for help and advice.

We took the view that no responsible company should have left the couple struggling month after month with a situation that penalised them and led them up a blind alley.

We got onto Lidl and indicated in no uncertain terms that customer service experience started in their car parks - not just confined to their stores. There could be no pretence of customer service if the loyalty and concerns of disabled customers were viewed and summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

Unlike parking charge demands from local councils or the police, private parking operators cannot impose fines or penalties, but merely issue what amounts to an invoice for infringing their ‘small print’ terms and conditions to park on private land.

We reminded Parking Eye the Equality Act 2010 outlawed any small print terms in their parking contracts that discriminated against the disabled. They were legally unenforceable

We asked Lidl to investigate the issue and hopefully apply a Lidl lateral thinking to come up with a solution. To their credit the company moved swiftly to finally defuse the situation in an about-turn.

Provisions had been put in place to ensure any car parking charges David had received were cancelled and prevent any further parking charges arising again.

A spokesperson said: ‘We were extremely sorry to hear of this matter as it is never our intention for a customer to be dissatisfied in any way. Our car park management systems are in place to help ensure availability of parking spaces for all our customers, and it’s therefore disappointing when we learn that a customer has wrongfully received a fine. We can confirm that all charges for this customer have been cancelled, and in the extremely unfortunate event that a Blue Badge holder receives a parking charge, we would encourage them to get in touch with Parking Eye directly and explain they hold a Blue Badge so that the charge can be cancelled as swiftly as possible.’

The couple were greatly relieved at the good news, but also grateful that Lidl’s policy concerning the treatment of shoppers with disabilities had been clarified so other disabled people wouldn’t have to go through their prolonged victimisation.

‘We can’t thank you enough,’ said David. ‘I’m just grateful that it took the intervention of Streetwise and the threat of publicity to bring this matter to an end.’

Parking Eye did not respond to our invitation to comment.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/consumer/lidl-cancels-parking-eye-charges-after-90-year-old-disabled-fareham-pensioner-goes-into-battle-over-stressful-portchester-fines-3459731 (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/business/consumer/lidl-cancels-parking-eye-charges-after-90-year-old-disabled-fareham-pensioner-goes-into-battle-over-stressful-portchester-fines-3459731)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:38:55 AM
#215

Dad hit with £60 parking ticket for making 'silly mistake' on family day out

A FATHER has been hit with a driving fine after accidentally paying for the wrong vehicle on a family day trip to the Plymouth Playhouse.

By LUKE CHILLINGSWORTH
12:02, Tue, Nov 23, 2021 | UPDATED: 17:45, Tue, Nov 23, 2021


Scott Corben said he was hit with a £60 parking fine after he accidentally entered the incorrect registration details. He said he did not even realise the error until he found the penalty notice pinned to his windscreen.

He said: “​​I've found that it's really easy to forget to change the registration of your car when paying for parking.

"So this means that you can actually pay for parking for the right length of time and in the right place, but for the wrong car.

"This is what I did recently when I took my daughters to the Plymouth Playhouse to see a play on the day after my daughter was allowed out of isolation following Covid.

"I parked nearby, inputted all the right details but I selected the wrong car on the RingGo app.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/car-parking-fine-charge-uk-1525658.webp?r=1637689510823)
Scott received a £60 fine after a family day out

“When I got back I found a fine of £60 attached to the windscreen.

“That's twice what we paid for tickets. It's also twenty times what I paid to park - albeit in the wrong car."

He added: "You would think that an operator of parking controls would accept that as just a silly mistake, right?

“I am asking them to be sensible and reasonable."

Scott has contacted the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) for assessment.

He believes his penalty has gone against the Secretary of State for Transport’s guidance on penalty charges.

Although he used RingGo to pay for his parking charge, the company is not responsible for the penalty notice.

Instead, Parking Premier Solutions are responsible for the car park located directly outside the Playhouse.

They have addressed the concerns but confirmed the motorist had made a “mistake”

They said: “The error appears solely to be with the motorist who has authorised the incorrect vehicle to park.

"It is not at all controversial to ask that the correct vehicle is authorised properly to park and by making the mistake the motorist has caused us to incur losses accordingly."

Earlier this summer, JustPark claimed around three percent of complaints are linked to incorrect number plates.

Last year, the British Parking Association (BPA) published a revised Code of Practice for private firms.

They issued guidance on ‘keying errors’ for those who entered incorrect registration details.

The BPA says a minor keying issue - one letter or number incorrect - should see fines cancelled.

A major keying issue for completely incorrect details should see drivers issued only a £20 fine.

Express.co.uk have contacted Parking Premier Solutions for further comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1525658/parking-fine-ticket-penalty-charge-notice-registration-number (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1525658/parking-fine-ticket-penalty-charge-notice-registration-number)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:49:44 AM
#216

'Never had this': Disabled driver fined for parking at Tesco despite having blue badge

A DISABLED driver said she was told to pay a parking fine at Tesco despite using her blue badge.

By FELIX REEVES
13:33, Fri, Nov 12, 2021 | UPDATED: 14:31, Sat, Nov 13, 2021


Claire Lewis received a letter telling her she needed to pay a fine for parking for longer than she was allowed at a Tesco at the end of October. The supermarket’s car park is operated by parking management company Horizon, with shoppers being allowed to park for a maximum of two hours.

Blue badge holders are usually allowed to stay for an extra hour to accommodate for their needs in public car parks.

Ms Lewis acknowledged that she stayed at the car park for two and a half hours.

She said she was asked to pay a fine because the car park is only monitored by cameras which time how long shoppers have been parked.

The 58-year-old said the cameras do not take into account whether the vehicle has a blue badge.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Blue-badge-parking-row-tesco-1520465.webp?r=1636813877118)
Claire Lewis was fined despite having her blue badge.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Blue-badge-parking-row-dispute-tesco-3753631.jpg?r=1636813877228)
Blue Badges `were introduced in 1971.

Claire, who has a rare congenital condition called X linked Hypophosphataemia, said she felt disabled people were being treated unfairly.

She explained: "I have a blue badge which entitles me to park in a disabled bay for three hours.

“I went to Tesco and we were over two hours but not over three hours.

“A company called Horizon has taken over Tesco car park and they have cameras recording your car going into Tesco and coming out of Tesco.

“It means they know how long you've been there, but they don't know whether you're a disabled driver or not.

"I parked away from Tesco and by the time I got into Tesco, I was in terrible pain.

“At customer services I was told Tesco couldn't do anything for me and said I would have to write to Horizon, send in my blue badge and they would be able to void it.

"I spoke to a manager and he said the policy in Tesco is that when you come to Tesco, you have to come to customer services, show them your blue badge and your registration, then walk back out to your car to put your blue badge up and then you can have your three hours,” she told Wales Online.

Claire felt that this policy was unfair because it meant disabled people would have to walk further every time they needed to when going shopping.

The blue badge was introduced in 1971 and was introduced to make parking easier and more accessible for those with disabilities.

While at the store, Claire claimed that other people said they had received a letter, with some drivers even paying the fine despite using their badges correctly.

She continued, saying: "A crowd of people had gathered while this was going on and as I walked out they said they had one of those (letters) as well.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Blue-badge-parking-row-dispute-tesco-3753630.jpg?r=1636813877411)
Blue badges allow drivers to park for longer.

“So I think this is a bigger problem than Tesco knows and people don't know what to do. Not all people are as vocal as me.

“A lot of disabled people become disabled. When you're born with it like me, that's all you know and you have to fight for everything.

“I've been disabled my whole life and have had a car since I was 21 and never-ever have I had this."

A Tesco spokesperson told Express.co.uk: “Our Merthyr Tydfil Extra store has a busy car park, and so we operate a two-hour limit for customer parking which is monitored using number plate recognition cameras.

"If a customer needs longer than two hours, they can log their car registration with our customer service desk on arrival to make sure they do not receive a ticket.”
Express.co.uk have contacted Horizon Parking for a comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1520465/parking-dispute-blue-badge-tesco (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1520465/parking-dispute-blue-badge-tesco)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 December, 2021, 09:58:54 AM
#217

'Blatant scam': Driver slams parking company over £100 fine he says he couldn't pay

A DRIVER has accused a village car park of "scamming" people out of their money after he was fined £100 despite being unable to pay for his ticket.

By FELIX REEVES
16:00, Sun, Nov 21, 2021


Mark Perrett visited Mousehole in Cornwall on October 31 to have lunch with his girlfriend on the harbour front by the Rock Pool. He said he tried to call the company that runs the car park as he didn’t have any change and little mobile signal in order to arrange to pay for a cashless parking session over the phone.

The driver said there was a number of the machine which motorists could call if they didn’t have change or data connection and still needed to pay for a ticket.

He claimed: "The sign said I need to call the number, type in the code and they take a payment of £5, which is the price displayed.

"So, I called the number and I was recognised by the automated voice, who addressed me as Mr Perrett and asked if I could enter the number of the car park.

“But when I did, a message came through saying that the car park is currently full and the call ended, so I could do no more.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/The-driver-received-a-100-parking-charge-notice-1524481.webp?r=1637449874081)
The driver received a £100 parking charge notice.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Parking-issue-cornwall-mousehole-parking-company-slammed-3768140.jpg?r=1637449874121)
Mr Perrett claimed he couldn't pay for the parking ticket.

"It was my only day off from work that week and I wanted to have lunch with my girlfriend down there because it was a lovely day.

“I saw that there were only 10 other cars there, so there was clearly some fault in the system and I didn't see the point in leaving an empty car park.

"So, we decided to stay to have our crab sandwiches and then left 45 minutes later.

“A few days later, I got a parking charge notice of £100, from Initial Parking, which is absolutely ridiculous," he told Cornwall Live.

Mr Perrett said the car park was not full, so assumed there must have been a fault with the electronics as there were no lights on in the machine.

Aside from the phone call to the company, there were no other options for him to pay, so he stayed for 45 minutes and had lunch.

He received a parking charge notice dated November 4, which read: "The signage displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that the car park is private land operated by Initial Parking (the creditor).

“Parking conditions apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

"By contravening the terms and conditions set out on the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable."

Mr Perrett, from Helston, tried to appeal his parking charge notice, but it was rejected by Initial Parking.

He now feels that his only option is to pay the fine.

The experience has left a “bad taste in his mouth” and has accused the parking company of “running a scam” to try and get money out of unsuspecting drivers.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Mousehole-parking-issue-car-park-3768139.jpg?r=1637449874346)
The fine was given in Mousehole.

He added: "It's made me more angry that my appeal was rejected. I feel this a blatant scam because not only could no one pay the £5 charge over the phone, then we are being subjected to having to pay £100.

“I see this as a great way to get money from visitors to Cornwall and locals too, who may not contest this and let it go.

"The system in the car park must be faulty because it should be quite obvious from the camera that the car park was empty.”

Express.co.uk has contacted Initial Parking for a comment on the situation.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1524481/car-park-issue-driver-fine-parking-company-cornwall (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1524481/car-park-issue-driver-fine-parking-company-cornwall)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 15 December, 2021, 09:20:01 AM
#218

Northampton man, 87, slams parking company for fine as his car broke down and he had to get home to his ill wife

The former RAF serviceman appealed the fine and provided details of his ‘desperate’ situation, but the appeal was still rejected

By Carly Odell
Thursday, 28th October 2021, 8:15 am


(https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/webimg/T0FLMTM0NDE3Mzc2.jpg?&width=640)
The car park in Octagon Way, Weston Favell.


A Northampton man has slammed a car parking company that fined him after his car broke down following a shopping trip, which meant he overstayed the free parking limit as he had to get home to his ill wife rather than wait for a mechanic.

Peter Marshall, who lives in Kingsley, visited the car park in Octagon Way, Weston Favell on September 9, this year at around 11.15am.

The car park, operated by Euro Car Parks, serves the retail park where Mandarin, a number of charity shops and a pet shop are located. Parking is free for two hours.

Peter says he was parked for around ten minutes before he returned to his car, with the intention to leave and drive home. However, his vehicle would not start.

The 87-year-old called his usual mechanic company, but they were unable to assist immediately. He then began to panic as he is the sole, full-time carer for his 89-year-old wife who has severe dementia.

Peter said: “I couldn’t stay there and wait for another mechanic because that would have been hours and my wife can’t be left for hours.

“So I used my bus pass to get to the town centre and then I went to Bounds to get a taxi home.

“I couldn’t leave my wife for any longer as I never know what I could come home to.

“I then organised for another mechanic to pick me up.”

Peter and the mechanic arrived back at the car park at around 3pm - just under four hours after he initially parked there.

The car was jump-started and Peter drove off, but weeks later he was greeted with a PCN fine of £60 for overstaying the free parking limit.

The former engineer and RAF serviceman subsequently went through the appeal process explaining the unfortunate situation, which was out of his control, but he received further communication to say after ‘careful consideration’ the appeal had been rejected.

Peter added: “Within 24 hours of receiving the parking notice, I had sent Euro Car Parks every detail possible about the incident.

“It was an awful situation I was in, I felt helpless and I was desperate to get home to my wife.

“Now I’m being fined £60 for my car being stuck - it’s despicable.

“We both worked hard and this is what our retirement has come to.

“It’s disgusting but I’m not going to give up. Once I get my teeth into something, I will not let go.”

Mr Marshall says he is hoping to speak to his MP, Michael Ellis, about the issue and he is also considering asking the Air Force Association for help as he feels the fine is unfair given the circumstances.

Chronicle & Echo has made several attempts to contact Euro Car Parks since Monday (October 25) for comment about the incident and subsequent appeal, but no response has been received.

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/northampton-man-87-slams-parking-company-for-fine-as-his-car-broke-down-and-he-had-to-get-home-to-his-ill-wife-3435026 (https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/northampton-man-87-slams-parking-company-for-fine-as-his-car-broke-down-and-he-had-to-get-home-to-his-ill-wife-3435026)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 15 December, 2021, 09:25:31 AM
#219

Driver charged 'astounding amount' for parking fine even though he'd paid

He says he entered his details correctly but the car park's machines have no way to show this

ByFinvola Dunphy
04:00, 1 SEP 2021UPDATED20:06, 1 SEP 2021


(https://i2-prod.leicestermercury.co.uk/incoming/article5850659.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/4_007ParkingJPG.jpg)
Kanti Lad, 65, of Wigston received a car parking fine of £100 but maintains he paid and displayed his ticket for the hour.

A driver who says they're sure they entered their details correctly into a car park ticket machine has been left with a fine for an "astounding amount".

The family of Kanti Lad say he was wrongly issued a parking fine for an under one hour stay at the privately run Mansfield Street car park in Leicester.

They say the 65-year-old, of Wigston, was given a 'Parking Charge Notice' of £100 for not entering the car registration number in full or correctly on Thursday, May 20.

A ticket was purchased at the machines on the site, but as they tickets do not show the registration on them, they have no way of proving they paid for the correct vehicle - and wouldn't have even realised any error at the time they visited.

The son, who wishes to remain anonymous told LeicestershireLive, is challenging the ticket on his father's behalf: "My parents paid for an hour and we still have the ticket. They displayed the ticket clearly in the car.

"A week or so later a letter came through the post saying they had not entered the registration number correctly and they are seeking a stupid amount of money for their mistake.

"How would they even know if they made mistake entering it, if the number is not displayed?"

They still have the ticket for the time they were at the car park, but no registration number is displayed. The son maintains that his parents drove into the car park at 14.09pm, purchased a ticket and displayed it, before leaving at 14.41pm that day.

The driver's son said he contacted Gladstone Solicitors, whose client is Parallel Parking Ltd, the firm which runs the car park.

"I have had conversations on the phone and emails to and from the solicitor of the firm. It seems they don't want to know and want them to pay the astounding amount," he added

LeicestershireLive has seen the response from Gladstone Solicitors which states that "no ticket was recorded against the full and exact vehicle registration number."

The firm did however, say that their Client, Parallel Parking Ltd is willing to accept a settlement of £140 "without prejudice" as a gesture of good will.

(https://i2-prod.leicestermercury.co.uk/incoming/article5852007.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS243750281.png)
Parking ticket shows no details of the vehicle registration number

LeicestershireLive has contacted Gladstone Solicitors for further information about this incident and are awaiting a reply.

"It is so upsetting that people who do the right thing are being fined like this," added Mr Lad.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/driver-charged-astounding-amount-parking-5851495 (https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/driver-charged-astounding-amount-parking-5851495)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 15 December, 2021, 09:31:42 AM
#220

Tourist fined for the time he spent waiting for a parking space and buying a ticket

He wants to warn other motorists of the risk they face when parking in the St Ives car park

BySam Beamish
10:50, 24 NOV 2021UPDATED13:14, 25 NOV 2021


(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article6251801.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Mr-Adams-and-his-dog.jpg)
Mr Adams with his dog in Cornwall

A tourist has claimed he was fined for the time he spent trying to find a parking space and buying a ticket.

Paul Adams, aged 55 from Stoke-on-Trent, is a regular visitor to Cornwall and spends a lot of time in St Ives.

He was here in October half term and parked at the laundrette car park where he paid £8.50 for a parking ticket.

However, he later received notification from Armtrac Security Services Ltd, the parking firm which runs the car park, informing him that he had been fined £60.

The fine came as a shock to Mr Adams who discovered Armtrac was trying to charge him for the time he spent trying to find a parking space and buying a ticket.

Mr Adams arrived at the site at 11.14am on Monday, October 25 but because the car park was busy he was unable to find a space for 14 minutes.

After finding a space he then had to wait 10 minutes in a queue to pay at the parking meter.

He tried to appeal the parking fine but the decision was upheld by the parking company.

They said: "Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parking in breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

"All motorists have a duty to care to abide by the clearly displayed terms and conditions of parking in return for permission to park on the site and Armtrac Security Services have a duty of care to the landowner to ensure the clearly displayed terms and conditions of parking are being adhered to."

(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article6251813.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Parking-tickets.jpg)
Mr Adams' parking ticket

Armtrac said Mr Adams' vehicle had "no valid cashless session or valid ticket" for 24 minutes.

Mr Adams said with that logic he would have to either pay within a minute of arriving at the car park or before he entered.

He explained he was charged £60 which he has since paid to avoid 'over-zealous recovery' and added he didn’t want some ‘fat bald bloke’ knocking at his door.

He said: "We visit St Ives regularly and use the car park and haven't had an issue in 30 years.

"I feel it needs to be publicised. Everyone using that car park needs to know the risk they take.

"That is over and above what you would normally accept as being reasonable."

Mr Adams says each time his family visits St Ives, which is a handful of times each year, they spend a lot of money in the local economy.

They've been coming to Cornwall ever since his daughter was born and she's now 31-years-old.

But this year they were one of a huge group of tourists who flocked to Cornwall as overseas travel was limited.

This meant Cornwall was "at capacity" and booking into accommodation, a local restaurant or even finding a parking space became difficult and with Covid still rife many people weren't comfortable using public transport.

Mr Adams said: "I drove onto the car park and waited for a space. I didn't want to be sitting on a bus from the park and ride.

"So I waited 14 minutes until a space opened and then got in the queue and paid £8.50.

"I find the fact they charged us £60 because we were waiting for a space very unfair when we also paid a day's parking."

He added: "It's fraudulent."

Mr Adams said it may be that you only have 10 minutes to find a parking space and buy a ticket but he didn’t see anything to suggest so.

Meanwhile in the failed appeal, seen by CornwallLive, there was no mention of this either.

Armtrac Security Services Ltd has been contacted for a comment.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/tourist-fined-time-spent-waiting-6251792 (https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/tourist-fined-time-spent-waiting-6251792)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 29 December, 2021, 09:58:47 AM
#221


(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25792690.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/2_DSC_4748JPG.jpg)
Driver Paul Hindson was asked to pay for entering a car park but not leaving

Driver forced to pay £136 before exposing huge flaw in car park camera system

Automatic numberplate recognition software is used by many car parks to justify fining drivers, but it doesn't always work properly, as one motorist found out to his cost

ByTom MackSam BarkerPersonal Finance Reporter
12:40, 27 Dec 2021UPDATED13:37, 27 Dec 2021


A baffled driver was wrongly fined over mistakes made by a car parking firm - including being told he had parked his vehicle for up to six months.

Paul Hindson was surprised earlier this year when he was fined for leaving his vehicle overnight in a car park, which he had never done.

Paul often left his car in a car park behind a Tesco Express in Narborough, Leicestershire, but only during the day.

He was even more surprised when his appeal was flatly rejected, according to the Leicester Mercury .

But the company running the camera, Smart Parking, sent him a very revealing document as evidence.

The document Smart Parking sent to Paul, 62, showed that his car - rather than going into the car park and then leaving - was often going in numerous times without ever coming out.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25762092.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/3_A-selection-of-modern-cars-parked-up-against-a-new-housing-estate.jpg)
Automatic number plate technology is used to issue fines, but drivers pay the price when it goes wrong

In fact, during one period his car is seen going in 20 times without ever leaving. Then from October 20, 2020, he enters without leaving until April the following year.

On four further occasions he manages to be captured entering at least three times but never leaving.

The battle to get out of the fine went on most of the year and he even had to shell out £136 to stop a debt collection agency paying a visit - although the money has now been fully refunded.

Paul told the Leicester Mercury: "After you get fined the amount goes up and up as time passes, and I had to pay £136 because they were involving a debt recovery business.

"I obviously knew all along there was no way I'd left my car in the car park but this system was clearly unreliable.

"Then they sent me the log with my car entering their car parks and clearly it was being seen going in and not seen going out so there are ins followed by ins and outs followed by outs. It's ridiculous.

"They have now agreed to pay the money back but I worry about how many other motorists have been fined because of this rubbish system."

A Smart Parking spokesman said Paul's fine had been cancelled "as a gesture of goodwill" and that the company no longer ran the car park in Narborough.

He said: "Although Smart Parking no longer operate this car park, when we did thousands of motorists used it every week and the vast majority of them had no issues using it.

"Smart Parking are proud members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and strictly follow its guidelines.

"As part of this we operate a BPA audited appeals service. In the case of Mr Hindson he did appeal and we investigated his case and ultimately cancelled his charge as a gesture of goodwill."

Last month The Mirror reported a family was hit by a £60 parking fine for driving around a busy car park - despite never parking.

Smart Parking also issued her ticket.

Julie Sutcliffe, 51, had been on a family holiday to Cornwall in August.

On August 12 they visited Newquay, which was very busy at the time, and the family struggled to find a parking space.

They had visited three or four car parks, all full.

Getting desperate, they drove slowly around one car park for just more than 10 minutes hoping someone would leave so they could stop.

No-one did, so they left, before successfully finding a spot in another car park, but were fined anyway. They appealed, but Smart Parking deferred to BPA guidelines and refused a refund.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/driver-forced-pay-136-after-25792589 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/driver-forced-pay-136-after-25792589)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 29 December, 2021, 10:24:18 AM
#222

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25582951.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/4_Businesswoman-looking-away-while-driving-car-seen-through-window.jpg)
One family got a £60 fine for spending too long in a car park, even though they never turned off the engine

EXCLUSIVE: Family fined £60 for spending 12 minutes driving around car park looking for space

The family were surprised to get a ticket despite never getting out of their car or turning off the engine - but the car park operator insists the fine is deserved

BySam BarkerPersonal Finance Reporter
17:51, 30 Nov 2021


A family has been hit by a £60 parking fine for driving around a busy car park - despite never parking.

Julie Sutcliffe, 51, had been on a family holiday to Cornwall in August.

On August 12 they visited Newquay, which was very busy at the time, and the family struggled to find a parking space.

They had visited three or four car parks, all full.

Getting desperate, they drove slowly around one car park for just more than 10 minutes hoping someone would leave so they could stop.

No-one did, so they left, before successfully finding a spot in another car park.

But to their surprise, when they had returned home after their trip they got a £60 ticket from the operator of the car park they had driven around.

Sutcliffe said: "When we got back from our holidays I opened a letter saying we had a £60 fine for parking for 13 minutes without paying. This was the time we had spent driving round.

"I appealed, saying at no point had we stopped, never mind turned our engine off.

"Our appeal was refused. To say I’m disgusted is a huge understatement."

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25372926.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Daily-Record-Road-Record.jpg)

The family paid the fine because it seemed like the easier option than fighting the ticket.

"I thought I'd pay it as I didn't want the worry of taking it further," Sutcliffe said. "They are a big company and we are a family."

The Mirror asked Smart Parking if they would refund the £60 as the family had not parked.

But Smart Parking said the fine was deserved and there would be no refund.

A Smart Parking spokesperson said: "Smart Parking are proud members of the British Parking Association and strictly follow its guidelines.

"At Newquay car park we utilise a state-of-the-art ANPR parking management system to ensure genuine customers can always find a place to park.

"It is important to remember that the car park is private land, so when deciding to park motorists should always check the terms and conditions of use which are clearly outlined in numerous signs across the site.

"In the case of [Sutcliffe] she stayed in the car park for over 12 minutes without paying, so correctly received a charge, which she has now paid.”

Last week The Mirror reported a man was fined for time he spent finding a parking space and queuing to buy a ticket.

Paul Adams, 55, says he paid for an £8.50 ticket in St. Ives which would have allowed him to stay parked at the spot all day.

But some time later he received a £60 fine from Armtrac Security Services Ltd, who run the car park.

As Adams read the notice, he was shocked to find he was being charged for the 15 minutes he waited to find a spot and the 10 minutes he waited in a queue to buy a ticket at the machine.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/family-fined-60-spending-12-25582941 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/family-fined-60-spending-12-25582941)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 10 January, 2022, 02:14:26 PM
#223

Driver fined three times in one day for driving out of her street slams parking company

A DRIVER in Yorkshire was fined three times in one day simply for driving out of her street.

By FELIX REEVES, LISA BAXTER
18:16, Fri, Nov 5, 2021 | UPDATED: 19:29, Fri, Nov 5, 2021


Dianne Bakolis, 59, was handed three separate fines when trying to leave the cul-de-sac she lives in. The driver who lives in Brough, Yorkshire received the fines which were worth a total of £120.

She briefly entered the nearby Brough Station car park when making a U-turn in order to avoid traffic.

Ms Bakolis said she often uses the station entrance to make a turn around to skip the congestion on her narrow street.

Despite this, a camera photographed Dianne’s number plate each time she did so.

Several other motorists, including people picking up takeaways or making drop offs at the station, have also been hit with fines.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Apcoa-s-signage-at-the-Brough-train-station-car-park-1517239.webp?r=1636140571181)
Apcoa's signage at the Brough train station car park

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Drivers-doing-U-turns-on-this-stretch-of-Station-Road-risk-being-given-a-parking-charge-notice-3741776.jpg?r=1636140571222)
Drivers doing U-turns on this stretch of Station Road risk being given a parking charge notice.

She was slapped with three £40 fines by the end of the day by the parking firm APCOA.

She said: "Sometimes it's really hard turning around on Station Road, which is a dead end, so I sweep round the car park to make a turn.

"The camera is angled down Station Road, but there's no need to be, as there are no station parking bays there.

"It seems to be it's purely to try and catch people out who aren't even using the car park, they're either dropping off or getting a Chinese.

"I appealed the first one and won, I am now appealing these three I received in one day,” she told Hull Daily Mail.

Other drivers have been targeted at the same spot, with many claiming to have been unfairly given a fine.

Another resident, Penny Coates, said she recently got two fines in one day and another the next morning.

She said: "My daughter lived on Station Road and I would turn around my car at the car park.

“Depending on other traffic, I once or twice pulled into a park space and then waited a few seconds until I was able to reverse out and park further up.

"I have had four tickets issued for this.

“The last one I turned around at the Chinese take away.

“I am now just waiting to hear the outcome of my appeal."

A spokesperson from APCOA Parking told Hull Daily Mail that they were currently processing the complaint.

They said: “APCOA and our client are aware of a current issue at this site and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible.

"In the meantime, we encourage anyone who believes they have been incorrectly served with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to follow the appeals process so we can respond to their specific case.”

Express.co.uk have reached out to APCOA Parking for further comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1517239/driver-fined-three-times-parking-dispute-yorkshire (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1517239/driver-fined-three-times-parking-dispute-yorkshire)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 10 January, 2022, 02:20:13 PM
#224

5th October 2021

Blue badge holders faced with parking fines from Cherry Tree Shopping Centre

By Rebecca McGrath
Reporter


(https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/resources/images/13071932.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=responsive-gallery)
"It's discrimination" Blue badge holders hit with parking fines from shopping centre

Elderly and disabled motorists are being hit with fines from a Liscard shopping centre car park despite being blue badge holders.

In August this year, Smart Parking took over the car park at Cherry Tree Shopping Centre.

Previously, Cherry Tree allowed blue badge holders to use the disabled car parking spaces free of charge and said badge holders would still be eligible for free parking for up to three hours after new handover.

Legal adviser, Leanne Daly, has been helping residents with discrimination claims against the company after numerous where hit with £100 fines.

Leanne told the Globe: “People were driving into the car park, seeing the sign that says they just need to display their badge and then not getting a ticket.

“But with the new system, if you don’t purchase a ticket and enter your full correct registration into their machines, the cameras, which don’t recognise blue badges, will capture your license plate and automatically send a fine to your home address.”

Leanne said fines can take up to a month to come through meaning residents are left unaware of their mistakes until much later.

She said: “People might have parked in Cherry Tree four or five times before they’ve even realised that something is wrong.

“I’ve helped people who have racked up multiple fines and are being told they owe hundreds of pounds.”

Despite the car park signs informing residents displaying their blue badge is enough, to avoid the fine, residents have to alert smart parking that they are registered blue badge holders either online or via the Cherry Tree office.

Leanne said: “A lot of people who are being hit by these fines are elderly and don’t have access to a smart phone or the internet to register that they’re a blue badge holder.

“The office for Cherry Tree is up a flight of stairs with no lift so it’s impossible for a lot of badge holders to even access.

“That’s discrimination because it’s making it less fair for a disabled person to use the carpark because they’re more likely to end up with a charge which may or may not get cancelled.”

Leanne said she has helped over 60 local people contact Cherry Tree and Smart Parking to help appeal against the fines.

She said: “There are people I’ve helped that have been slapped with £300 worth of fines and then are having to appeal and worry for months if they are going to have to pay it or not.

“Those people have been put through an ordeal that they shouldn’t have to experience in the first place.

“People are getting really worried and confused. It’s a lot for people to process.”

Leanne has been helping residents through a Facebook group where those affected can share their experiences and offer support to one another.

She said: “A lot of people are coming to me worried that because of these fines they’re going to get something on their record and they’re not tech savvy so don’t have a clue where to start with appealing it.

“There’s quite a lot of people in vulnerable positions. They see this legal letter and get scared so I’m just hoping I can level the playing field and put it in everyday language for people.”

In response to the complaints, Cherry Tree Shopping Centre posted on social media: “Cherry Tree Shopping Centre is aware that some Blue Badge Holders have been sent Parking Charge Notices in error by our tenant, Smart Parking.

“We are presently working with Smart Parking to resolve this issue permanently, but in the meantime should any Blue Badge Holder receive a Parking Charge Notice they will be able to get this cancelled by following the appeals process on the back of the letter.

“As part of the appeal process, you will be required to upload a copy of your Blue Badge to Smart Parking's website and this file should be less than 3mb or the website will not accept it.

“We understand that these notices will have caused concern to our customers and would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused. Should anyone require any further information, please email info@smartparking.com.”

https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/19626016.blue-badge-holders-faced-parking-fines-cherry-tree-shopping-centre/ (https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/19626016.blue-badge-holders-faced-parking-fines-cherry-tree-shopping-centre/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 10 January, 2022, 02:28:31 PM
#225

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25421529.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/1_Deal-Aldi-shoppers-fury-over-%C2%A370-car-park-fine-because-of-faulty-machineGulf-War-veteran-Leslie.jpg)
Leslie Burgess is a Gulf War veteran who served in the Royal Fleet Auxillary

Aldi shopper hit with £70 parking fine after trying to use 'faulty' machine

War veteran Leslie Burgess, 62, from Deal, Kent, visited his local Aldi supermarket on October 22 for a monthly food shop when he was stung by the £70 parking fine

ByMatt Drake
07:07, 10 Nov 2021


A Gulf War veteran has spoken of his outrage after being hit with a £70 fine in an Aldi car park.

Leslie Burgess, 62, from Deal, Kent, visited his local supermarket on October 22 for a monthly food shop.

He told KentLive he tried to input his details in the parking machine several times during his stay but was unable to do so.

He said: “Before leaving the store, I went to the touchpad near the exit to enter my car registration.

"I had been at the Aldi store 40 minutes. I tried several times to enter my registration but there were no pictures of my car entering the car park.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25421530.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Deal-Aldi-shoppers-fury-over-%C2%A370-car-park-fine-because-of-faulty-machineGulf-War-veteran-Leslie.jpg)
He was originally handed a £70 fine

"I thought that it may be faulty so I left. I received a penalty notice for £70 so I returned to Aldi store to make a complaint."

He claims the manager at the store "admitted" the parking terminal had been faulty and asked for a receipt as proof he had shopped at the store.

The manager reportedly told him he would get the charge cancelled and Leslie also appealed to Parkingeye, which operates the car park.

Leslie did manage to get the parking fine revoked but said had he not kept his receipt then he would still have been charged.

Juliette Walford, 55, from Foxborough Hill, Eastry, was also hit with a fine at the same car park.

She was issued two within the space of one week.

She said: "My niece and I parked in the Aldi car park on October 15. We popped to the butchers for a pie and then into Aldi for Vino.

"When leaving, my niece added our number plate. A week later I got a Parkingeye letter saying I was in breach.

"I wrote straight away with receipt evidence and then they sent me another fine on October 27."

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25421533.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Deal-Aldi-shoppers-fury-over-%C2%A370-car-park-fine-because-of-faulty-machineGulf-War-veteran-Leslie.jpg)
Parkingeye operates the car park

A Parkingeye spokesperson said: “The car park at Aldi in Deal is monitored by ANPR camera systems and has prominent and highly-visible signs throughout providing guidance on how to use the car park responsibly.

“Both motorists failed to register their vehicle correctly and a result of this they each received a Parking Charge Notice.

“Mr Burgess’ was however cancelled following an appeal after providing evidence that he was a genuine shopper, and we have now also cancelled Ms Sales’ PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice.

"If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing.

"All motorists are also entitled to a further appeal via POPLA, the independent body which reviews all cases.”

An Aldi spokesperson said: “We’re not aware of a fault with the parking terminal at our Deal store, but are happy to review all cases where a customer believes a parking fine was issued in error.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/aldi-shopper-hit-70-parking-25421554 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/aldi-shopper-hit-70-parking-25421554)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 16 January, 2022, 12:49:53 PM
#226

Couple fined £70 for entering ASDA supermarket and petrol station on the same day

The couple were fined £70 after visiting the supermarket and the petrol station on the same day

(https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article22745373.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS246038046.jpg)

A couple were furious after being fined £70 for topping up their car at an ASDA petrol station.

They were accused of staying in ASDA's car park for nearly six hours.

The demand for £70 was sent after a camera error at the Woodchurch supermarket meant the parking systems thought they had been at the site for nearly six hours.

They had actually simply visited the site twice in one day; once to pick up shopping at Asda and again later in the day to get petrol.

But the Parkingeye cameras clocked the vehicle coming in for the Asda shop and leaving the petrol pump hours later leading the system to believe they over stayed the free parking limit by three hours and 44 minutes.

They had to prove they were genuine customers with their receipts and bank statements in order to have the fine cancelled.

In a bid to warn others the couple posted in Crimewatch Wirral and urged people to keep their receipts in case the error happens to someone else, reports the ECHO.

They said: "Just wanted to make people aware, we recently received a £70 parking fine through from ‘ParkingEye’ who are responsible for the parking in Asda, Woodchurch.

"The letter accused us of staying in the car park for five hours and 44 minutes (which we didn’t).

We had visited the store in the morning and then again for petrol in the evening. The cameras had recorded two out of four events and mistakenly had us down as being in the car park the entire time.

"I went into Asda and was told if I could bring the letter and receipts/bank statement into store, they could quash it.

"I didn’t have it with me and so appealed the fine online providing a copy of our bank transactions, and have just received notification to say it’s been cancelled.

"Wanted to make people aware in case the same happens to them."

A spokesperson for Parkingeye confirmed the fine and said they have an appeals process for anyone with "mitigating circumstances".

A spokesperson said: “The motorist’s parking charge notice was cancelled following an appeal after they provided evidence that they were a genuine customer.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice.

"If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing to Parkingeye."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-fined-70-entering-asda-22745000 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-fined-70-entering-asda-22745000)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 19 January, 2022, 10:15:39 AM
#227

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJdFRCUXwAMT5Iw?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Overlord on 19 January, 2022, 07:12:19 PM
 :pmsl: Absolutely brilliant. It would be nice to see what they say if they bother to reply.
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 January, 2022, 08:41:45 AM
#228

And still they keep coming...


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

21 January 2022

Sheffield vaccine volunteer wins apology over £70 car park fine

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/C969/production/_122916515_parkingfinealanbiggs.jpg)
Horizon Parking Ltd sent the penalty charge notice to Mr Biggs on Christmas Eve

A vaccine volunteer wrongly fined £70 after parking in a supermarket car park while on shift has won an apology.

Alan Biggs was charged after parking for four hours in a Tesco car park in Sheffield while volunteering at a nearby church in December.

Mr Biggs appealed saying signs directed vaccine centre users to the car park, but that appeal was rejected by the contractor operating the site.

Tesco said it had since cancelled the fine and apologised to the volunteer.

Mr Biggs, who worked at the centre at St Oswald's Church helping staff administering coronavirus vaccines, said "common sense" had prevailed.

Horizon Parking Ltd, which runs the car park on Abbeydale Road on behalf of Tesco, sent Mr Biggs the parking charge notice on 24 December, detailing a breach of car park regulations it said had taken place on 8 December.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/165A9/production/_122916519_fjifnaswyaq9qjz.jpg)
Signs were placed near the Sheffield vaccine centre offering parking at the supermarket

While Mr Biggs did not dispute he parked longer than the three hours maximum stay, he said official signs near the supermarket had offered parking to vaccine centre users.

Mr Biggs appealed against the charge to car park operator Horizon, but in an emailed response the firm said: "The mitigating circumstances detailed in your representations, while unfortunate, cannot be considered valid grounds for appeal."

However, a Tesco spokesperson said an automatic camera system monitored the time limit restriction and Mr Biggs' penalty charge notice would be cancelled.

"This hasn't been an issue for people getting their vaccine, but clearly was in the case of a volunteer who stayed longer than three hours," the spokesperson added.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/75A9/production/_122912103_alanbiggsalanbiggs.jpg)
Journalist and columnist Alan Biggs said "common sense had prevailed" after the charge was rescinded

Mr Biggs said he was grateful Tesco had addressed the issue, but said the contractors to whom he had appealed had been "overzealous".

"All the details that have prompted Tesco to rescind the ticket and apologise were given to Horizon.

"I think their inflexibility needs to be addressed. Not just in this case, but in other cases too, where parking fines are issued and no common sense is used."

Horizon Parking has so far not responded to a BBC request for comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60071458 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60071458)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 January, 2022, 08:56:28 AM
#229

...and coming...


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

Driver fined three times in one day for driving out of her street slams parking company

A DRIVER in Yorkshire was fined three times in one day simply for driving out of her street.

By FELIX REEVES, LISA BAXTER
18:16, Fri, Nov 5, 2021 | UPDATED: 19:29, Fri, Nov 5, 2021


Dianne Bakolis, 59, was handed three separate fines when trying to leave the cul-de-sac she lives in. The driver who lives in Brough, Yorkshire received the fines which were worth a total of £120.

She briefly entered the nearby Brough Station car park when making a U-turn in order to avoid traffic.

Ms Bakolis said she often uses the station entrance to make a turn around to skip the congestion on her narrow street.

Despite this, a camera photographed Dianne’s number plate each time she did so.

Several other motorists, including people picking up takeaways or making drop offs at the station, have also been hit with fines.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Apcoa-s-signage-at-the-Brough-train-station-car-park-1517239.webp?r=1636140571181)
Apcoa's signage at the Brough train station car park

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Drivers-doing-U-turns-on-this-stretch-of-Station-Road-risk-being-given-a-parking-charge-notice-3741776.jpg?r=1636140571222)
Drivers doing U-turns on this stretch of Station Road risk being given a parking charge notice.

She was slapped with three £40 fines by the end of the day by the parking firm APCOA.

She said: "Sometimes it's really hard turning around on Station Road, which is a dead end, so I sweep round the car park to make a turn.

"The camera is angled down Station Road, but there's no need to be, as there are no station parking bays there.

"It seems to be it's purely to try and catch people out who aren't even using the car park, they're either dropping off or getting a Chinese.

"I appealed the first one and won, I am now appealing these three I received in one day,” she told Hull Daily Mail.

Other drivers have been targeted at the same spot, with many claiming to have been unfairly given a fine.

Another resident, Penny Coates, said she recently got two fines in one day and another the next morning.

She said: "My daughter lived on Station Road and I would turn around my car at the car park.

“Depending on other traffic, I once or twice pulled into a park space and then waited a few seconds until I was able to reverse out and park further up.

"I have had four tickets issued for this.

“The last one I turned around at the Chinese take away.

“I am now just waiting to hear the outcome of my appeal."

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Dianne-Bakolis-59-was-handed-three-separate-fines-when-trying-to-leave-her-street-3741766.jpg?r=1636140571432)
Dianne Bakolis, 59, was handed three separate fines when trying to leave her street.

A spokesperson from APCOA Parking told Hull Daily Mail that they were currently processing the complaint.

They said: “APCOA and our client are aware of a current issue at this site and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible.

"In the meantime, we encourage anyone who believes they have been incorrectly served with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to follow the appeals process so we can respond to their specific case.”

Express.co.uk have reached out to APCOA Parking for further comment.

Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 January, 2022, 09:04:56 AM
#230

...and coming...


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

11th January 2022

NHS workers given parking fine at Bolton PCR test centre

By Chloe Wilson  @chloewjourno
News Reporter


(https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/resources/images/13363384?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen)

A COUPLE who work for the NHS are incensed after being fined for not paying for parking while they were at a drive-through PCR testing service.

Mark Cleary went to the drive-through Covid swabbing service for a PCR test, with his wife Kathryn, at the Lathom carpark, at the Royal Bolton Hospital, after they both tested positive on lateral flow tests.

The couple each works for the NHS so, as per the requirement s for Botlon NHS Foundation Trust staff, they both booked for a PCR test.

But to their surprise they were then fined £70 for being on the car park, even though they were at the testing site.

Mark said: “I drove us both to the drive-through service where we both had our test and subsequently tested positive.

“To my astonishment I received a £70 fine for driving through the designated drive through Covid swabbing service.

“This is disgraceful. Lathom car park is small and is no longer being used as a staff car park but solely as a drive-through Covid swabbing service.

“The fine was given to us by ParkingEye. These cameras should have been disabled. There will be hundreds of staff, and maybe non-staff, who have received these fines.

“Bolton Hospital should be held to account for the actions of ParkingEye, which has operated disgracefully.

“Also being ill from Covid and having to deal with this has added to my stress and anxiety and will be the same for other people.”

A ParkingEye spokesman said, after consulting with the couple: “The Royal Bolton Hospital Lathom authorised staff car park is currently being used as a drive-through test centre for staff and pre-operation patients.

“They have been seeing an unprecedented number of people attending for PCR testing and as a result, waiting times have increased.

“We have taken this all into consideration and the free parking period has now been extended to take into account the high volume of attendees.

“We have also cancelled the parking charge notice received by the motorist.”

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19835786.nhs-workers-given-parking-fine-bolton-pcr-test-centre/ (https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19835786.nhs-workers-given-parking-fine-bolton-pcr-test-centre/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 23 January, 2022, 09:43:02 AM
#231

...and coming.


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

Motorists handed fines for visiting Covid-19 car park test centre

Ben Lynch
Published: 5:13 PM January 17, 2022


(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8627526/article-lead-image/lg/3/covid-19-test-centre.jpg)
NCP has responded to the issue, saying it will "cancel all Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued over this period" and refund those who have already paid

"Miscommunication" has resulted in penalty charge notices being issued to drivers visiting the Covid-19 testing centre in East Finchley station's car park.

The notices were issued to customers who had failed to purchase a parking ticket, when fees should have been waived for people getting tested.

One driver, Daniel Brick, said: “I got a penalty charge notice from the NCP (National Car Parks) and I realised when I looked at the date and the time it was a drive-in Covid-19 test centre, and I went on the local Facebook group and there’s a whole hoo-ha about it. 

“One person went in with different members of the family and got five of these. So, obviously if it’s a drive-in centre and the instructions from the NHS are not to leave your vehicle, how are you supposed to pay for your parking?”

Daniel said the notice came as a shock, and that it acted as a double-whammy given he was only in the car park due to concerns he had caught the virus.

He said: “It’s bad enough you get Covid-19, but you then get a fine as well for doing what the government tells you in getting tested.”

Cllr Arjun Mittra, a Labour councillor for East Finchley, said: “It is wrong for residents to have been charged for driving into the car park to undertake Covid tests. I have written to TfL asking them to cancel these tickets and look forward to receiving a positive response from them.”

NCP, which operates the car park for TfL, is cancelling all penalty charge notices issued during the time the car park was used as a testing centre.

A TfL spokesperson said: “We can confirm that enforcement should have been suspended whilst the testing was taking place. NCP has cancelled all PCNs issued over this period and any paid PCNs will be refunded directly back to the customer as soon as possible. We apologise for the inconvenience that this has caused.”

An NCP spokesperson said: “Due to a miscommunication, NCP was not aware of the decision to suspend enforcement over the days the testing was taking place. TfL has confirmed this to be the case and NCP will cancel all PCN issued over this period, and apologises for the concern this has caused.

“All PCNs are now cancelled, and any paid PCNs will be refunded directly back to the customer.”

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/traffic/east-finchley-car-park-covid-19-test-centre-8627490 (https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/traffic/east-finchley-car-park-covid-19-test-centre-8627490)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 13 February, 2022, 06:07:11 AM
#232

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NINTCHDBPICT000707721657.jpg?w=750)

TICKED OFF I’m being taken to court over a B&M Bargains parking fine – but I knew nothing about it

Alice Fuller
9:13, 27 Jan 2022Updated: 9:39, 27 Jan 2022


A DRIVER could be hauled to court over a parking fine he knew nothing about.

Craig Mell claims the ticket machine at his local B&M was out of order when he went to buy one six months ago - but debt collectors have just sent him a letter out of the blue demanding £160.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NINTCHDBPICT000707721564.jpg?w=670)
Craig snapped a photo of the 'out of order' machine outside B&M at Cavendish Retail Park in Keighley, West Yorkshire

He said he took a photo of the sign claiming "parking machine out of order, no parking charges apply today" on July 17, 2021, in case he ever needed to dispute any fines.

But months went by and Craig believed he was in the clear.

That was until earlier this month when a baffling letter arrived threatening legal action.

It said he had two weeks to pay the £160 penalty or the matter will be taken to court.

Craig said he has tried calling parking company G24 Ltd, which operates the lot at Cavendish Retail Park in Keighley, West Yorkshire, numerous times but has failed to get through to anyone.

Craig told YorkshireLive: "I haven't lived in Keighley for very long but I had seen people always getting parking tickets from that car park.

"All of them have the same problem as me. The machine is not working, then six months down the line, getting a bloody letter from a debt collector.

"I always take a picture of the machine when it's out of order to make sure I can prove that it isn't working, just in case.

"If I had received a letter from the car park, I would have sorted it out straight away.

"It's even worse that when I got this letter, they are trying to say that I can't dispute it anymore."

The Sun has contacted G24 Ltd for comment.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NINTCHDBPICT000707721520.jpg?w=670)
Craig was threatened with court action if he doesn't cough up fort he £160 fine

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17455327/parking-fine-court-unaware/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17455327/parking-fine-court-unaware/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 13 February, 2022, 06:15:20 AM
#233

Excel Parking: Fury as Sheffield ambulance service fined for not paying parking fee during 999 emergency

A Sheffield ambulance service is outraged after being penalised for not paying a parking fee while responding to a 999 emergency call – and having their appeals rejected.

By Rahmah Ghazali
Friday, 4th February 2022


Echo Fire and Medical, an independent provider of emergency services, was asked by the NHS to attend a 999 call in Stockport, Greater Manchester, on September 4 last year, and as a result entered a car park for no longer than 15 minutes to attend the incident.

Parking management company Excel Parking, which is also headquartered in Sheffield, then served the ambulance service a parking fine of £100 through a notice dated September 17 for its failure to pay the car park fee.

The parking penalty notice included photographic evidence of the ambulance parked between 6.03pm and 6.18pm.

(https://www.thestar.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOmQyMzk5MzE2LWNiMDUtNGMyMy1hZDFjLWRiODM1OWMzNjk3ZTpjNzVhOGNiZC0wYWYzLTQ2YjgtODI1MC03ZTliNDZjNmE1Y2Y=.jpg?&width=640)

Echo Fire and Medical’s Director of Emergency Response, Joe Leary, said the parking fine is in contravention of guidance by the Department for Transport that says ‘ambulances used for emergency purposes are exempt from any parking fine’.

He said he attempted to call Excel Parking 14 times and on each occasion the system cut him off, preventing him from speaking to anybody personally about the parking fine.

“We also replied to their email, which didn’t allow email replies. We used the required parking portal to submit appeal information advising the vehicle was attending a 999 call,” he said.

Echo Fire and Medical stated that shortly after they were notified that their appeal had been received on October 11, they then received an email from Excel rejecting their appeal, which has been seen by The Star.

Excel Parking advised the organisation to provide more photographic evidence, including details pertaining to the 999 call itself, to prove they were responding to an emergency call.

The firm said it was willing to offer a discounted fine £60 if payment was received before October 27.

But it warned that failure to comply would result in the amount due reverting to £100, and may result in debt recovery action being taken and further costs being incurred.

Final Demand notice served
Mr Leary said he refused to comply with the company's request for further information relating to the emergency call, citing confidentiality.

He said: “As an emergency services provider and in line with GDPR, we do not take pictures of patients nor will we ever share patient report forms or other patient identifiable information which is deemed highly confidential.”

Despite repeated requests to appeal the fine, the parking management company served a 'Final Demand' notice dated December 22 and a subsequent 'letter before action' court letter. At this point, the final amount payable had become £170.

Mr Leary said that as the situation escalated, his attempts to get in touch with the parking services company fell flat, claiming the company accepted no inbound calls or allowed any further appeals to be made.

Mr Leary added: “Our crews have worked tirelessly over the last couple of years during very testing times to ensure we support our NHS colleagues to the best of their abilities and respond as quickly and safely as possible to patients calls for help.

“Being penalised for not paying a public parking charge whilst in attendance of a 999 call only adds further pressures for our crews and unnecessarily increases the workload upon our administration team to attempt to close this unexpected parking fine.

“This is not acceptable, its in contravene of the Department for Transport's own national guidance. Our crews are trained to drive under a range of emergency conditions and further to park (where possible) safely and without obstruction to the public whilst being as close to a patient or incident as is possible.

“Expectations from this parking organisation that our crews are to refer to signage and pay to park within one of their managed car parks upon entry, whilst in attendance of a 999 call is not acceptable.”

Excel Parking: ‘We are satisfied the PCN was issued correctly’
In response, Excel Parking explained that the car park which the ambulance entered is a 24 hour pay to park facility and is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras.

A representative said: “Naturally, the cameras cannot determine a vehicle’s reason for visiting the car park, only if the vehicle was compliant with the advertised Terms and Conditions.

“An appeals procedure is in place and full details were set out in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued to the company who is the registered keeper of the commercial ambulance vehicle.

“The company did engage with our appeals process, albeit three days after the specified deadline, and explained that the vehicle was under contract to a local NHS Trust and claimed it was on-site attending a medical emergency, stating that they could provide supporting evidence.

“We would highlight that our appeals process did request that all relevant supporting evidence should be submitted at the time of the appeal.

“In light of the alleged circumstances, we made a reasonable request for the evidence to be supplied in order that we could review and cancel the PCN.

“Disappointingly, and contrary to what had been stated in their appeal, the company categorically refused to provide any evidence, making reference to maintaining confidentiality.

“We can understand their obligations under Data Protection Legislation but that doesn't prevent appropriately redacted evidence being provided as other emergency services regularly do so.

“As a consequence of the company's lack of cooperation we had no alternative but to formally decline their appeal.

“However, in doing so we provided the company with details of how they could appeal, for free, to the Independent Appeals Service.

“The company did not act on our correspondence and as such matters have progressed further and the cost of the PCN has escalated.

“In summary, we are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and that the company did not fully engage with our appeals process despite our leniency in processing the late appeal.”

Mr Leary insists Echo Fire and Medical fully cooperated with the parking management company and responded within the timescale given. He said the matter is to be pursued further.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/excel-parking-fury-as-sheffield-ambulance-service-fined-for-not-paying-parking-fee-during-999-emergency-3554713 (https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/excel-parking-fury-as-sheffield-ambulance-service-fined-for-not-paying-parking-fee-during-999-emergency-3554713)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 13 February, 2022, 06:30:29 AM
#234

Belvoir Castle: Visitors complain about parking fines on Tripadvisor

By Alex Regan & Liam Barnes
BBC News

Published 6 August 2021


(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1217E/production/_119801147_gettyimages-454425681.jpg)
More than 60 people have complained about new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras, after some visitors received £100 parking charge notices

A popular tourist attraction has received more than 60 complaints on Tripadvisor by visitors who claim they have been given unfair parking fines.

Leicestershire's Belvoir Castle put in new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras last year.

But one visitor said the machines were misleading people to underpay, leading to a £100 parking charge notice (PCN).

Belvoir Castle said it was in "discussions with the operator to ensure the parking charges are clear".

Jane Handsley, from Grantham, said she regularly visits the grounds and Engine Yard retail village on the Belvoir estate.

Latest news and stories from the East Midlands
She said she went to the castle with her husband and daughter on 26 July and tried to pay for parking as they left the grounds.

"We went to the parking machines when we were finished, we put in our number plate and it brings up a screen to say the date and time, and you accept the end time, and move on to payment.

"The date and time that comes on to that screen isn't actually calculating how much your parking charge will be.

"The machine is set up to default to one hour's parking, which is the cheapest payment," she said.

Ms Handsley said this meant she unwittingly underpaid for the parking and received a £100 PCN from third party operator Initial Parking four days later.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1DF6/production/_119807670_belvoircsatle.jpg)
Visitor Jane Handsley says the machines are misleading, and led her to underpay for her visit

Visitors are expected to adjust the end time for their visit and pay the certain number of hours they expect to stay.

Ms Handsley said: "You could say it's me misunderstanding machines, but I'm not the only one.

"So many people are getting it, so many don't know what to press, obviously so many people are being tripped up by it.

"We are quite prepared to go to court and fight it, because it's really unclear what should be happening."

'Discussions with operator'

One Tripadvisor reviewer, who was also fined, wrote: "There are signs saying pay as you leave.

"Wish I had paid up front and limited my time instead."

The effect of the parking fines has led some visitors to say they will not return to the castle, the home of the Duke and Duchess of Rutland.

A spokesperson for the estate said: "We are aware of a number of people who have been issued with parking fines by the third party operator we have contracted to run our car parks at Belvoir Castle and the Engine Yard village.

"We are in discussions with the operator to ensure the car parking charges are clear and easy to understand for all visitors so that they do not overstay their booking.

"Since the operation of paid car parking was implemented, we have welcomed nearly 82,500 cars in 12 months.

"The number of PCN's issued has been 1% of all vehicles, 99% of patrons using that car park either stay free or comply with the payment system and do not receive a parking charge notice."

Initial Parking has been approached for comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58104759 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58104759)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 21 February, 2022, 07:57:37 AM
#235


Browns Golf Course parking fiasco

19 February 2022

(https://iwobserver.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/0L4A7901-1536x972.jpg)

The leaseholders of Brown’s Family Golf and Cafe are being threatened with court action for switching off their own electricity to a car parking firm’s cameras which were giving out wrongful tickets.

Smart Parking Ltd were asked by Geoff and Kate Scandrett to help with problems last summer with people parking on their Sandown premises. However, far from helping their business as promised, the firm started issuing hundreds of wrongful tickets to its customers, causing untold misery and upset.

The couple took on an 18-month lease last year to reopen the much-loved Sandown venue and have transformed the business, which now hosts party nights and live music. However, Geoff realised people were using the venue as free parking and then spending the day on the beach.

He said: “Last July, I signed a contract with Smart Parking Ltd who were made aware of some people over summer using our car park, but were not our customers, and offered a solution by way of cameras, and iPads in our building for the customers to enter their details.

“Myself, staff and suppliers would be exempt by way of a ‘white list’ (including also other tenants on-site).

“I also gained permission from my landlord, the IW Council, who have been completely supportive. The council understood the need to look after my customers. It was also reiterated by the council at the time that the 22-acre site could be used by dog walkers when we were closed and they could not be affected.

“After two weeks from going live, the phone started ringing from customers who had come to Brown’s for golf or tea and cake and were ticketed, although they had entered their details.

“We aren’t that big so we quickly started realising that genuine customers were being ticketed even though staff or themselves were entering their details into the iPad. At first, I thought people were putting them in wrong, but after all the staff, many customers and then myself experiencing the same thing it became clear that this was not the case.

“I emailed my concerns thinking we had a teething problem or a fault. They emailed back in agreement and said they would deal with it. I had also emailed the staff plates and mine and updated this as required.

“Unfortunately, it spiralled out of control during August, September and October where they have managed to ticket hundreds of genuine customers during this time. Not twenty or thirty – but hundreds of my customers. They have also ticketed all my staff, suppliers, and even myself a few times. The majority of my customers are seniors who have been coming to Brown’s from all over England for many years.

“Eventually, I turned off my own electricity which supplies the power for the cameras so the tickets would stop. But I am now being taken to court for their loss of earnings!

“They have caused so much pain to hundreds of vulnerable elderly people and I can prove this. They won’t answer my emails and calls and people who don’t pay the fines are also being threatened with court action.

“I am prepared to go bankrupt over this issue to support the people who have been wrongly ticketed. I would also like to point out that we, at Brown’s, have not made a penny from this. It was just set up to protect our business.”

An Isle of Wight Council spokesman said: “This is a contract agreed between our tenant and the parking company, and therefore outside our responsibility and control.

“We are doing what we can to support our tenant so that these issues can be resolved as swiftly as possible. The council has contacted the company concerned on behalf of the tenant. The company advised that there had been some operational issues which they were going to address with our tenant.”

A British Parking Association spokesman confirmed yesterday that an investigation had been launched but was unable to comment as it was ongoing. She said: “In the meantime, if a motorist has received a parking ticket that they believe was issued in error they should appeal to the operator in the first instance.

“The more tangible evidence supplied, the more persuasive the motorist’s case. If it is rejected the operator will provide details of the independent appeals service, POPLA, which provides independent redress for motorists, and is free to use. We also have an advice website www.knowyourparkingrights.org (http://www.knowyourparkingrights.org) where you can find more information about the appeals process and what to expect.”

The IW Observer has contacted Smart Parking Ltd for comment.

https://iwobserver.co.uk/browns-golf-course-parking-fiasco/ (https://iwobserver.co.uk/browns-golf-course-parking-fiasco/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 21 February, 2022, 04:42:16 PM
Devil's been busy in your back yard.... Oh dear what have you done?
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 March, 2022, 05:16:32 AM
#236

PARKING MAD I was fined £100 after a car park attendant LOCKED me in – I’m fuming

Lottie Tiplady-Bishop
12:34, 24 Feb 2022Updated: 12:57, 24 Feb 2022


A DRIVER was furious after being slapped with a £100 parking fine when an attendant locked her in a car park.

Georgie Lamburt said it is "absolutely outrageous" that the firm who operate the lot, Parkingeye, ordered her to pay for their mistake.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/72723be8-06d8-471c-bc08-f425568e720f.jpg?w=670)
Georgie was trapped inside the car park when the gates were shut and locked

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NINTCHDBPICT000713856294-1.jpg?w=670)

Georgie had parked up at the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre adjacent car park in Waltham Forest, East London, to walk her dog, Colin, in October last year.

She paid £3.20 for one hour of parking around 8.30am, returning 55 minutes later.

But when she tried to drive her van out of the lot, she claimed all the gates were locked.

She told The Sun: "I paid for the full hour, but got back to my van about five minutes before the hour was up.

"I know what Parkingeye are like, so I didn't overstay.

"But when I went to drive out, both of the gates were shut up and locked."

And by this time, the dog walker was unable to pick up a group of dogs for her next walk - seeing her lose out on £150.

She said: "I was panicking because I knew a lot of people were relying on me to take their dogs for a walk.

"I was in quite a lot of distress because I needed to get to work."

After more than an hour of scrambling around messaging other local dog walkers for help, she eventually managed to get hold of a parking attendant with a key.

CCTV shows Georgie was still trapped inside the car park at 10.14am.

She said: "I told the attendant 'thanks so much for coming to help me', and asked him what time the car park actually opens - because there's no signage anywhere stating the times.

"He said it wasn't his branch that he opens up and he wasn't quite sure himself what time it opened.

"He said it was by no fault of my own that I was trapped in there. You would just assume open gates, open car park.

"I was pretty p***ed off at this point, I was just thankful that he came and got me out."

PARKING MAD

But a month late later, Georgie was slapped with a £100 fine, reduced for fast payment, from Parkingeye in the post.

She said: "To be honest, I didn't think anything of it. I didn't expect to get a fine at all.

"There were around five cameras inside that showed I was stuck, it was completely out of my control."

The company claimed that as she had entered into an agreement to use the lot for one hour when buying her ticket, the extra hour she remained trapped inside was a "breach of contract".

The 28-year-old slammed the fine as "unfair and outrageous," adding: "At the end of the day it's 60 quid - it's not the be all and end all, but out of principle I was just like 'no, I'm not paying'.

"I think it is absolutely outrageous that they are making me pay a fine to be trapped inside."

She also slammed the suggestion that she should have bought more tickets to cover the time she spent trapped inside.

Georgie said she initially complained to Parkingeye, who turned her appeal down.

And after appealing the charge through Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) her bid to dodge the fine was REJECTED, she said.

But since being contacted by The Sun, Parkingeye said that Georgie's Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) will be cancelled.

A spokesperson for Parkingeye told The Sun: "The car park at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre is monitored by ANPR camera systems and has prominent and highly-visible signage that gives motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly.

“During October, the centre’s operating hours was 12 midday to 10pm and the motorist received a Parking Charge Notice for parking outwith these hours. However following a review of the case we have cancelled the PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice. If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing to Parkingeye.”

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/03575a53-b7a6-44c0-bf7e-233898592ade.jpg?w=670)
Parkingeye has now agreed to cancel the PCN

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17731260/fined-100-car-park-trapped-in/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17731260/fined-100-car-park-trapped-in/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 06 March, 2022, 05:25:54 AM
#237

Parking firm cancels fine for woman stranded in broken down car

Published: 9:05 AM February 16, 2022

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8693084/article-lead-image/lg/1/shirley-barber-canva-2.png)
Shirley Barber has received a letter apologising for her parking charge notice at Norwich's Riverside Retail Park

A woman slapped with a fine after being stranded in a city car park has seen the notice scrapped by the company.

Shirley Barber, 76, of Stalham, had parked at the Riverside Retail Park on November 16 only to realise her car had packed in as she tried to leave.

She had to wait four hours for the RAC to fix her Mercedes C Class and was subsequently smacked with a parking charge notice for exceeding the two hour limit.

But the £70 parking charge notice - which was increased to £140 in early February - has since been rescinded after the Evening News flagged up the issue with car park owner Highview Parking.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8693060/article-body-image-landscape/lg/1/highview-parking-cancel-charge.jpg)
The letter confirming the parking charge notice had been cancelled

A letter was sent to Mrs Barber's address by the London-based company dated February 8 and has been seen by the Evening News.

It says: "With reference to the above stated parking charge, this charge has been cancelled in full and no further action will be taken.

"We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused in this matter and can confirm this case has been closed."

Mrs Barber had previously contacted Citizens Advice as part of her appeal but was met with difficulties accessing a verification code as part of the process.

Her parking charge notice letter had said her £70 parking charge would be reduced to £42 if paid within 14 days.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8676984/article-body-image-portrait/lg/1/shirley-barber-stlham.jpg)

Following the cancellation, Mrs Barber said: "I received the letter on Saturday. Thank you to the Evening News for all your help.

"I think they send the bailiff letters out to frighten you especially older people.

"I have sisters aged 93 and 91. I guess they would have just paid it. If they sent 1,000 out and only 25pc pay up they are earning."

A spokesman for Highview Parking said: "Having reviewed the incident and given the circumstances regarding Mrs Barber’s flat battery we have agreed to cancel the parking charge notice."

Direct Collection Bailiffs has been contacted for comment.

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/shirley-barber-riverside-parking-charge-cancelled-8692948 (https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/shirley-barber-riverside-parking-charge-cancelled-8692948)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 March, 2022, 09:59:56 AM
#238


(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article26498084.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/0_Mans-fury-at-%C2%A370-Tesco-car-park-fine-despite-NEVER-parking-there.jpg)
Paul Murphy claims he parked near Tesco in Leeds and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket

Man reacts furiously to £70 Tesco car parking fine he received for 'no reason'

Paul Murphy claims he parked near Tesco in Leeds and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket - but he managed to successfully appeal the fine from Horizon Parking

An ex-policeman claims he parked near Tesco in Beeston and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket

ByLucy Marshall Charlie Duffield
09:48, 18 Mar 2022
UPDATED09:49, 18 Mar 2022

An ex-police officer has reacted furiously after he received a parking fine for "no reason".

On February 17, Paul Murphy was travelling into Leeds, West Yorkshire, for a business meeting, and parked on a "public" side road, close by to the Tesco supermarket.

Speaking to Leeds Live , he claims he "never went in" to the supermarket, or parked in the car park.

He added that he thinks there is a camera in the entrance way, designed to catch people as they go inside.

Paul said there were no signs along the road, but one sight said taxis would receive priority at 7pm.

He said: "It was unusual that there were no visible signs as there is usually something".

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article26498086.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_receiving-a-bill.jpg)
Paul was given a £70 fine, delivered in his postbox from Horizon Parking, stating he had 'overstayed his welcome'

For three hours, he had his car parked in the spot, whilst he went about his day.

Later, he was given a £70 fine, delivered in his postbox from Horizon Parking, stating he had "overstayed his welcome".

Horizon runs several supermarket car parks across the UK, including Asda, Co Op and Tesco.

Paul said: "I think there must be a camera there and it pinged mine.

"Seems there is an ANPR parking fault at the back of Beeston Tesco. Horizon Parking tried to fine me for overstay in the shop car park.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article26498088.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Working-during-isolation-period.jpg)
Paul appealed the fine, and two weeks later was told it had been overridden

"The problem is that most people would say 'I'm going to get done if I don't pay it' but it's not OK. It's a lot of money to fork out. I did an appeal and it didn't take me long to do."

He appealed the fine, and two weeks later was told it had been overridden.

The appeal said: "Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge Notice.

"Having fully reviewed the case, I can confirm the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled and no further action will be taken."

Paul's advice for others hit by parking fines, is to fully check they are legitimate, and not just "pay it out of laziness".

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-reacts-furiously-70-tesco-26497951 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-reacts-furiously-70-tesco-26497951)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 April, 2022, 03:10:47 PM
#239

Elderly couple furious at 'unreasonable' £100 parking fine after being in car park for only six minutes

The couple were slapped with a £100 parking fine after being in the car park for only six minutes

(https://i2-prod.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article23554098.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_ELR_MGA_310322_CARPARK_01.jpg)
Martin Plummer with the parking fine he received after only being in the Dovecot Street Car Park for six minutes

An elderly couple have been left outraged as they were charged £100 after being in a Stockton car park for only six minutes.

Martin Plummer and his wife Maureen were charged after visiting the Dovecot Street car park, near Stockton ARC and high street shops. The couple left the car park after only six minutes due to bad lighting meaning they couldn't read the parking meter properly.

Outraged, Martin spoke to Teesside Live about the hefty fine he was given, so other motorists can be made aware. But Martin and his wife aren't the first - Terry, 87, and Anne Bonnett, 85, were also handed a £100 fine in the same car park in August after driving away as the meter did not accept cash.

Mr Plummer, 70, recounted the events leading up to the parking fine he was slapped with. He said: "On the evening of February 24, my wife and I parked at Dovecot Street car park at around 8pm. This was the first time we'd used the car park so we were unaware of the costs and methods of payment.

"We managed to pool some change together but due to the bad weather it was quite difficult to read the instructions, it was clear I had to type in my registration plate but the 'P' was completely worn on the machine. I tried the other machine and it was no use - so after being very cold and very frustrated we got back in the car and drove away."

(https://i2-prod.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article20676127.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Ann-and-Terry-Bonnett-from-Stockton-who-were-given-a-%C2%A3100-fine-after-parking-at-a-car-park-in-Doveco.jpg)

According to the British Parking Association, their code of practice states that a minimum grace period of five minutes should be allowed for the driver to leave the car park should they not decide to park there, Martin driving out of the car park exactly six minutes after arriving.

Martin believes that the £100 fine, reduced to £60 upon prompt payment is 'grossly unfair'. He contacted the parking company which operates in the Stockton car park, Parkingeye, where his appeal of the fine was rejected after two weeks of trying.

He added: "We contacted Parkingeye three times upon our appeal and instead of gambling on another appeal, we decided to pay the £60 so it wouldn't escalate. I feel that to impose a parking charge of £60 for the sake of six minutes is both unreasonable and grossly unfair given the circumstances."

A Parkingeye spokesperson said: “The Dovecot Street car park in Stockton on Tees is monitored by ANPR camera systems and has signage throughout that gives motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly. Motorists have the option to pay at the machine on site or by phone.

“The motorist parked in the car park on February 24 without paying and therefore received a Parking Charge Notice. However, following a review of the case we have cancelled the PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice. If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing to Parkingeye.”

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/elderly-couple-furious-unreasonable-100-23547538 (https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/elderly-couple-furious-unreasonable-100-23547538)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 April, 2022, 03:19:38 PM
#240

Angry Ann takes on parking firm over £60 fine - and wins
Ann Blower called in StokeonTrentLive after being slapped with the 'ridiculous' Wolstanton Retail Park fine

(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article6710833.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/2_STO_22-02-2022fine_06JPG.jpg)

A parking company has apologised to a motorist - and quashed her £60 fine.

Ann Blower turned to StokeonTrentLive after landing the £60 penalty during two visits to Wolstanton Retail Park within the space of 24 hours last month.

UK Parking Control (UKPC) - which operates the car park - claimed the 51-year-old had parked there for a whopping 21 hours and 41 minutes.

But Ann has managed to prove that the cameras did not catch her leaving the site on February 6 and then returning there the following day.

The retail worker, from Hanford, had filled up at the Asda petrol station on Sunday, February 6. The following afternoon she went to Asda Wolstanton and parked between Asda and B&M.

Ann said: “I was completely shocked to get the fine and it did knock me a bit. Then I thought how ridiculous it was, how can you spend over 21 hours in a car park from a Sunday evening when the shops are shut. It made me feel sick."

(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article6710832.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_STO_22-02-2022fine_08JPG.jpg)
Ann Blower is annoyed after being fined £60 for parking in the car park at Wolstanton Retail park.

Now UKPC has written to Ann to quash the fine. The retail park is also home to Matalan, Dunelm, M&S and Starbucks.

In a letter, UKPC's appeals department states: "We appreciate the inconvenience this has caused you. It is not our intention to cause undue worry and frustration when enforcing our clients' parking regulations.

"We have investigated the appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that, in this instance, the parking charge has been cancelled.

"We strive to deliver a high-quality service that enhances the existing quality standards insisted upon by our client and ensure our wardens are stringently trained to meet these expected standards.

"On behalf of ourselves, and our client, we apologise for any inconvenience."

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/angry-ann-takes-parking-firm-6754985 (https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/angry-ann-takes-parking-firm-6754985)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 20 April, 2022, 01:49:49 PM
#241

‘No way I’m paying’ Driver who queued for 17 minutes to pay for parking gets fined £270

A DRIVER has been left furious after he queued to pay for parking for 17 minutes but was still hit with a huge fine.

By TIM BRADLEY
06:30, Thu, Apr 7, 2022 | UPDATED: 16:51, Thu, Apr 7, 2022


The frustrated motorist now has a fine of £270 to contend with after he left his car at a car park in Wales that has something of a notorious reputation after several complaints from drivers who have been fined after parking cars there.

The car park is on the seafront in the tiny village of Llangrannog and has a camera placed high above the entrance, automatically scanning the number plates of cars as they pull in.

The camera was installed in 2019 by One Parking Solution Ltd, a company based in West Sussex which manages the car park.

Almost three years ago the car park hit national news after the app needed for parking was unable to be downloaded by hundreds of drivers due to the remoteness of its location and lack of mobile signal.

That led to fines being issued of more than £100 and to local businesses putting signs up letting people know they had no affiliation with the car park.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/The-car-park-is-festooned-with-signs-making-the-regulations-even-harder-to-work-out-1592245.webp?r=1649346719526)
The car park is festooned with signs making the regulations even harder to work out

And now the man in question, who does not want to be named due to the ongoing dispute, is just the latest to fall foul of the regulations.

One Parking Solution Ltd makes it clear that visitors have a 10-minute grace period upon entering the car park, during which time they must pay for parking, leave the site or automatically be hit with a fine thanks to the number plate recognition system in place.

However, it took the man 17 minutes to pay after queuing and helping out an elderly couple.

That sent him seven minutes over the allotted time and signalled the start of the problems.

The man explained: “I went down there for a weekend with my partner. We drove into the car park and I got out and went straight to pay for parking, but there were a few people in a queue in front of me including an elderly couple and some were having difficulty using the machine.

“So there was a bit of a wait and I moved to the front to help people use the machine and to pay for parking.”

The man then paid for parking himself, more than covering his and his partner’s stay in the village, which was, he said, no more than an hour long.

However, some days later he received an initial fine in the post of £60, which he said he wasn’t too concerned about as he felt sure it would be rescinded.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/The-car-park-in-question-has-some-notoriety-after-hitting-national-news-due-to-fines-levied-in-2019-4008123.webp?r=1649346719650)
The car park in question has some notoriety after hitting national news due to fines levied in 2019

He said: “I sent the fine back to them with proof that I had paid for my parking by card, but they sent it back saying I had to pay the fine.

“I then appealed to POPLA (an independent appeals service for parking charge notices).

“They got back to me and said I should have made other arrangements and made sure I paid within the 10 minutes.

“I was helping people in front of me, and I paid. There’s nothing I could have done to pay sooner apart from jumping the queue.”

The first fine would have been reduced to £30 had it been paid within 14 days.

However, due to the man’s appeal, that window closed and the fine increased to £180.

As the man refused to pay it then increased again to a whopping £270.

He added: “There’s no way I’m going to pay this. It was seven minutes and there was nothing else I could do.

“It’s a shame because Llangrannog is such a nice place and all the little businesses down there are great, but this issue will put people off going there. I would not be happy to go back there knowing what’s happened to me.”

Express.co.uk has reached out to One Parking Solution Ltd for comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 April, 2022, 04:09:50 PM
#242

These cowboys would be laughed out of court if they pursued this. And it shows just how independent PoPLOL isn't when they back a claim that wouldn't stand a chance if it was put before a judge.

Makes my piss boil, it really does.  <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <Swearyrant>

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



Car park firm fined mum £100 after her vehicle got stuck at a charging point

Sue Connerty overstayed the car park's two-hour time limit because she had to wait for the AA to detach a charging cord which had become stuck in her electric vehicle

(https://i2-prod.lancs.live/incoming/article23731281.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS102120087.jpg)
Sue Connerty, 51, from Maghull, with her son Alex

A mum has told of her anger after she received a car parking fine when her electric vehicle got stuck at a charging point.

Sue Connerty, from Merseyside, was fined £100 for staying in a two-hour maximum stay car park for an additional 38 minutes. She decided to charge her MG electric car while taking her disabled son, Alex, for a coffee.

The Echo reports that the mum-of-three went over the two-hour limit at the Central Square car park in Maghull because she was unable to detach the charging cord, which had got stuck in the car. She was forced to wait for the AA to help her free the vehicle. A week later, Sue received the fine from Euro Car Parks. She wrote to the firm to explain the unfortunate circumstances and appeal the penalty but was disgusted when she was told she still had to pay it.

Euro Car Parks responded by saying: "Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal. "The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay. Your vehicle was parked longer than 120 minutes/hours, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable."

Sue told the ECHO: "There was nothing I could do to move. Other than literally trying to drive away and break my car, I had to stay there." She also contested the fine with POPLA - an independent appeals service for parking charge notices issued on private land. However, this appeal was rejected as well.

Sue continued: "The stress of having a disabled child in this situation and then to have this fine hanging over me which I can't afford to pay in the first place.

"They have reduced the fine to £60 but I still have to pay it. I'm furious over it, I really am, I just don't understand the mentality behind it. I've given a totally valid reason for why I went over the time limit."

A spokesperson for POPLA said: "In this case, as the vehicle was on site for 38 minutes longer than permitted, we found that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly. While the reasons for breaching the parking conditions were outside of the driver’s control, the Parking Operator isn’t obliged to cancel a PCN due to mitigating circumstances, and we have no influence over their decision." The Echo approached Euro Cark Parks for a comment but the firm had not responded by the time the paper published the story.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/car-park-firm-fined-mum-23740718 (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/car-park-firm-fined-mum-23740718)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 May, 2022, 09:04:06 AM
#243


Pensioner fined £100 after parking for just 85 seconds to pop into One Stop

Josh Layton
Wednesday 13 Apr 2022 5:43 pm

(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SEI_98647528.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C428)
Michael Elliott is contesting a fixed penalty notice issued for a parking infringement outside a row of shops

A pensioner was fined £100 after being filmed on CCTV parked for 85 seconds as he dashed into a shop to make a purchase.

Michael Elliott, 70, was caught by Automatic Number Plate Recognition in a small, off-road lot outside the One Stop in Newhaven, East Sussex.

He left his car with its bonnet facing the kerb outside the row of shops in the car park, which mainly consists of private bays.

The retired motor mechanic then received a fixed penalty notice from a private firm in the post, which he has appealed unsuccessfully but still plans to fight. The notice, which he has not paid, says he parked without permission from 9:55:44 to 9:57:09 on March 8 this year.

Mr Elliott said: ‘I feel as sick as a parrot to have been fined for 85 seconds. It’s money-grabbing and it’s a large part of my monthly pension.

‘I was debating whether to pay it or not, they threaten you with all kinds of action and make you feel like you have to pay.

‘The letter is basically an invoice, it’s vicious.

‘Although the car park belongs to a row of shops I was not in one of the bays, I was on the road, which means it’s not in the jurisdiction of the parking company, it’s a police matter.

‘The appeal was rejected but they hold all the trump cards, making you apply within seven days and then making you wait up to 35 days for a reply.

‘For the sake of 85 seconds, I absolutely will see this company in court.’

(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SEI_98647538.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C359)
Darren Cool (sic) has paid his parking fine but intends to contest it further after an appeal was rejected

The motorist, from Newhaven, had pulled up with his car facing the store in the car park, which has around 20 bays, off the West Quay road.

Signs state that it is private land and parking restrictions apply with CCTV in operation, through which the management company provided photographic evidence of Mr Elliott’s visit.

However, he claims that technically the access road through the car park to the shops cannot be categorised as private land.

Mr Elliott said: ‘They said I didn’t have a parking permit but I didn’t need one as I was on a public road in a public car park, not in a bay.

‘The parking bays may well be private, but the actual driveway can never be private because it provides access to the shops.

(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Store-in-Peacehaven-c3c6.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C321)
The row of shops in Newhaven where Michael Elliott was fined for parking outside a One Stop without permission

‘A police officer I know has said it makes no difference.

‘If you drove in there, blocked another car in and went and did your shopping, it would then become a criminal offence.

‘Also, if you look at their instructions you must park in a visitor parking bay, but there were no markings near where I was parked showing where the visitor parking bays are. I did block in a parked car but it was in my sight at all times, I was only inside the shop for about 20 seconds.

‘I can’t appeal any further to the company so I have to go to the ombudsman, who I am already in touch with.

‘I will keep going with the ombudsman but if not I will go to court, because I cannot see any judge upholding this fine.’

(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SEI_98647488.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C359)
Michael Elliott is contesting a parking fine which he says he is ready to take to court if necessary

On Monday, Metro.co.uk told how Ahsan Haji is appealing a £100 fine which he said he incurred due to a long wait at a petrol station.

The 33-year-old claims he queued for 45 minutes at his local garage in east London. He is contesting the fine, which he has not paid.

Rejecting Mr Elliott’s appeal, One Parking Solution said: ‘Your vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and you have not provided sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

‘At the time of event, the vehicle was parked in direct contravention of the displayed terms as no parking is permitted at anytime.

‘It is the motorist’s responsibility to review the terms and conditions displayed on site prior to making use of the facilities.

‘The terms and conditions are clear, no parking is permitted in the area that you have parked. You have also acknowledged that by parking there, you have caused an obstruction on site.’

Metro.co.uk has approached the company for further comment.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/13/pensioner-fined-100-after-parking-for-85-seconds-outside-a-one-stop-16461594/
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 08 May, 2022, 09:11:56 AM
#244


‘No way I’m paying’ Driver who queued for 17 minutes to pay for parking gets fined £270

A DRIVER has been left furious after he queued to pay for parking for 17 minutes but was still hit with a huge fine.

By TIM BRADLEY
06:30, Thu, Apr 7, 2022 | UPDATED: 16:51, Thu, Apr 7, 2022

The frustrated motorist now has a fine of £270 to contend with after he left his car at a car park in Wales that has something of a notorious reputation after several complaints from drivers who have been fined after parking cars there.

The car park is on the seafront in the tiny village of Llangrannog and has a camera placed high above the entrance, automatically scanning the number plates of cars as they pull in.

The camera was installed in 2019 by One Parking Solution Ltd, a company based in West Sussex which manages the car park.

Almost three years ago the car park hit national news after the app needed for parking was unable to be downloaded by hundreds of drivers due to the remoteness of its location and lack of mobile signal.

That led to fines being issued of more than £100 and to local businesses putting signs up letting people know they had no affiliation with the car park.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/The-car-park-is-festooned-with-signs-making-the-regulations-even-harder-to-work-out-1592245.webp?r=1649346719526)
The car park is festooned with signs making the regulations even harder to work out

And now the man in question, who does not want to be named due to the ongoing dispute, is just the latest to fall foul of the regulations.

One Parking Solution Ltd makes it clear that visitors have a 10-minute grace period upon entering the car park, during which time they must pay for parking, leave the site or automatically be hit with a fine thanks to the number plate recognition system in place.

However, it took the man 17 minutes to pay after queuing and helping out an elderly couple.

That sent him seven minutes over the allotted time and signalled the start of the problems.

The man explained: “I went down there for a weekend with my partner. We drove into the car park and I got out and went straight to pay for parking, but there were a few people in a queue in front of me including an elderly couple and some were having difficulty using the machine.

“So there was a bit of a wait and I moved to the front to help people use the machine and to pay for parking.”

The man then paid for parking himself, more than covering his and his partner’s stay in the village, which was, he said, no more than an hour long.

However, some days later he received an initial fine in the post of £60, which he said he wasn’t too concerned about as he felt sure it would be rescinded.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/The-car-park-in-question-has-some-notoriety-after-hitting-national-news-due-to-fines-levied-in-2019-4008123.webp?r=1649346719650)
The car park in question has some notoriety after hitting national news due to fines levied in 2019

He said: “I sent the fine back to them with proof that I had paid for my parking by card, but they sent it back saying I had to pay the fine.

“I then appealed to POPLA (an independent appeals service for parking charge notices).

“They got back to me and said I should have made other arrangements and made sure I paid within the 10 minutes.

“I was helping people in front of me, and I paid. There’s nothing I could have done to pay sooner apart from jumping the queue.”

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Parking-appeals-4008131.webp?r=1649346719742)

The first fine would have been reduced to £30 had it been paid within 14 days.

However, due to the man’s appeal, that window closed and the fine increased to £180.

As the man refused to pay it then increased again to a whopping £270.

He added: “There’s no way I’m going to pay this. It was seven minutes and there was nothing else I could do.

“It’s a shame because Llangrannog is such a nice place and all the little businesses down there are great, but this issue will put people off going there. I would not be happy to go back there knowing what’s happened to me.”

Express.co.uk has reached out to One Parking Solution Ltd for comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 June, 2022, 11:49:08 AM
#245

Edinburgh driver fumes as he is hit with £85 fine after shopping at retail park

The 55-year-old posted on the social media platform for neighbourhoods, Nextdoor after getting a letter from GroupNexus, an organisation that manages parking services for Craigleith Retail Park.

ByIuliia Vlasova
17:03, 10 MAY 2022UPDATED08:08, 11 MAY 2022


(https://i2-prod.edinburghlive.co.uk/incoming/article23920412.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Screen-Shot-2022-05-10-at-170642.png)
Derek McKinley took to social media to warn others after he received a letter in the post claiming he stayed at Craigleith Retail Park for over four hours.

An Edinburgh driver has hit out after he was charged £85 to park at a local shopping centre.

Derek McKinley took to social media to warn others after he received a letter in the post claiming he stayed at Craigleith Retail Park for over four hours.

The 55-year-old posted on the social media platform Nextdoor after getting a letter from GroupNexus, an organisation that manages parking services for Craigleith Retail Park, informing him of the huge fine.

The parking fee, issued on April 6, referred to the trip Derek made to the shops on March 25, claiming his vehicle remained at their parking area from 9.50am to 14.23pm that day.

Craigleith Retail Park offers shoppers three hours of parking free of charge, and the letter claiming that Derek was using the parking for four hours and 32 minutes ordered him to pay £85.

However, Derek believes that the parking charges he received are unfair, and says he has photographic proof to back up his point.

On the day when he was charged at the car park, the shopper says he made two separate trips to Craigleith Retail Park, both lasting less than half an hour.

Derek said: "I knew I would never spend that long there, so I checked my Ring video of the driveway, and it shows me coming back 15 minutes after I first went in and then leaving for a second trip that afternoon lasting less than 30 minutes.

"I tried to upload the video as evidence, but their system can't handle it, and despite explaining all this and giving a photo of my car in my driveway that morning, they rejected the appeal."

The post, in which Derek shared his experience, quickly got many comments from people relating to the situation. Recalling a similar experience she had, one woman said: "They tried to say I'd spent the night in the car park. I'd been up at Sainsbury's just before it shut and had nipped in quickly the next morning for something else."

Reflecting on the number of comments he got under the post, Derek said: "Several other people have been wrongly charged in the same way, so the company are clearly at it.

"I could accept them perhaps missing one entry/exit but not two, so I think this is deliberate on their part."

GroupNexus were contacted for comment.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-driver-fumes-hit-85-23919730 (https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-driver-fumes-hit-85-23919730)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 June, 2022, 05:23:18 PM
#246

Drivers fined as Durham car park camera 'misses them leaving'

15 June 2022

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/12BA/production/_125349740_belmont_index.jpg)
The number plate recognition camera is high up on the side of a building

Drivers charged for parking too long in a car park say they left on time but the monitoring camera missed it.

A limit of two hours' free parking was introduced at Cheveley Park Shopping Centre in Belmont, Durham, in January.

Resident Linda Parkin said, since then, hundreds of drivers had been charged £60 because the camera thinks "the car was there and it definitely wasn't".

Smart Parking said the system it managed "strictly follows British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines".

"Hundreds of people use the car park every day without any issue," a spokesperson said.

Drivers say the camera misses departures when another car leaving at the same time blocks its view of the registration plate.

Mrs Parkin said her husband had received three letters claiming he had exceeded the limit by between 12 minutes and three hours 25 minutes.

But he knew they were wrong because he visited three times every day for the same specific tasks.

"He's never there any more than 15 minutes but the camera picked him up going into the car park but not leaving," she said.

"He couldn't possibly have been there" between his first visit to buy a newspaper and his second visit at lunchtime because, at that time every day, they walk their dog in a park four miles away, she said.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1430C/production/_125400728_belmont2.jpg)
Drivers say the camera's view of cars leaving is easily blocked by other cars leaving the car park

Mrs Parkin said many older drivers had paid the penalty, which increases to £100 if not paid within 14 days, because they "don't want the hassle of arguing with the parking company" or were not able to fill in the appeal form online.

Her husband has appealed against his tickets and the first and last had been cancelled. The Parkins do not know why the second has not.

"I'm very, very annoyed about it," she said.

Smart Parking said its appeals process was BPA-audited and it encouraged drivers to "contact us if they feel there are mitigating circumstances".

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/14752/production/_125349738_belmont4.jpg)
Residents say there is no need for a time limit as the car park is rarely full

Another driver, Sarah Anderson, received a letter from the company saying she had parked for six hours, but the pictures it included as evidence of her arrival and departure were of two different cars.

"I appealed and it was overturned but only as I spotted their mistake," she said.

Parish councillor Kimberley Noble said she received a ticket after going in the morning to buy milk and returning in the afternoon for bread.

"It said we parked there for seven hours," she said.

"A lot of elderly people rely on their cars to get to the shops - some are that petrified of a ticket that they are now using the bigger shops rather than our local shops."

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F932/production/_125349736_belmont3.jpg)
No-one is disputing the signage is clear

The centre's landlord, LCP, said it had advised motorists receiving incorrect fines to contact Smart Parking, whom it had asked to investigate each parking charge notice (PCN) reported.

The two-hour limit was intended to ensure parking availability but was being reviewed, a spokesperson said.

PCNs issued by private parking companies are an invoice and not a fine like a penalty charge notice - also shortened to PCN - which is legally enforceable by the police or local authorities.

As a civil claim they can be passed to debt recovery agents if not paid but agents have no legal enforcement powers unless the parking company takes the matter to court and wins.

Lynn Douglas, who overran the time limit by 16 minutes while working at one of the businesses, is now receiving demands for £170 from debt collection agents.

She said she had "lost track" of the number of letters and was now "getting threatened with court", she said.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/0735/production/_125354810_comparison.jpg)
One business owner said shoppers were parking in the back lane to avoid the car park

The owner of the business, who did not want to be named, said her takings had dropped by about 40% because "customers are frightened to come" and she was worried some shops might be forced to close.

"The local community are boycotting the car park," she said.

The landlord introduced restrictions to stop "people using it as a park and ride but they've got no evidence to say that was ever happening - it never happened", she added.

Some businesses are able to log exemptions if their customers have to stay longer than the permitted time period, but proof was required for appeals and collecting this was time consuming, she said.

One elderly shopper had paid five charges "because he doesn't know what else to do and he's so frightened" and another paid the charge after being threatened with court action, she said.

"She was so frightened and intimidated that she felt she had no choice but to pay," she said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-61736566 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-61736566)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 22 June, 2022, 07:45:08 AM
Well doesn't this just wrap it up in a nutshell:

The owner of the business, who did not want to be named, said her takings had dropped by about 40% because "customers are frightened to come" and she was worried some shops might be forced to close.

Ultimately if the landlord thought it was a good idea to get into bed with the parking predators, they will loose in the long run as the shops suffer and close...
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 July, 2022, 01:17:22 PM
#247

'It is a cash cow' - vicar's warning after being slapped with parking fine

Aaron McMillan
Published: 6:30 AM May 26, 2022 Updated: 9:54 AM May 26, 2022


(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8994870/landscape_ratio16x9/640/360/13867b14a4bfe5290a4d18117e1c4ac2/uy/xxx-ken-hobbs-wells-carpark-may2022.png)
Ken Hobbs was issued a PCN issued by Civil Enforcement after parking at The Port of Wells car park in Wells

A vicar has warned fellow drivers against using the car park which resulted in him being slapped with a £60 fine.

Ken Hobbs, a semi-retired reverend from Attleborough, was hit with a parking charge notice (PCN) after using the Port of Wells car park last month.

The site, managed by Civil Enforcement, charges £1 for anyone wishing to park their car on the quayside after 6pm.

Rev Hobbs maintains he paid the required fee having arrived after 6pm on April 21, but his subsequent appeal was rejected.

The notice said he had not paid "in accordance with terms displayed on signage".

Rev Hobbs has, therefore, ended up paying 60 times the original charge.

Civil Enforcement failed to respond to this newspaper's request for comment.

“I protested it, they rejected it," said Rev Hobbs. "I paid up, but I want people to know my experience.

“I thought to myself 'are they really protesting over a pound?'. Who would not pay a pound for a parking space? It is peanuts."

“I thought appealing was the best I could get out of it, but sadly the system is not geared towards certain circumstances or people’s welfare. They are out to get you; it is a cash cow for these people.”

Mr Hobbs, who is now the vicar at St John's in Stoneleigh, Surrey, had noticed the car park's terms a day prior to stopping there.

He met friends for a meal in Wells, before leaving at 8.25pm.

The 75-year-old did not get a receipt, but said the coin slot had opened up after he entered his Kia’s registration plate.

Rev Hobbs suspects the machine did not take into account the reduced parking fee applicable after 6pm, or that its internal clock had not adjusted.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8994850/portrait_ratio4x5/640/800/ee526e42f512169c4d6ba1cb7c3aede8/DT/xxx-ken-hobbs-wells-car-park-may2022-4-.jpg)
Ken Hobbs, a semi-retired reverend from Attleborough, was fined after parking in Wells

After receiving his PCN, he wrote to the Port of Wells but did not hear back. He was contacted by North Norfolk MP Duncan Baker, who was sympathetic to his situation.

Rev Hobbs is now intent on warning others against parking in the same location - and he is not the first to be stung there.

In April, two other motorists spoke out after they were penalised following a visit to Wells.

Rev Hobbs said he plans to park on the outskirts of Wells in future, before walking or cycling into town.

https://www.fakenhamtimes.co.uk/news/vicar-fined-after-parking-in-wells-8994812 (https://www.fakenhamtimes.co.uk/news/vicar-fined-after-parking-in-wells-8994812)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 July, 2022, 01:31:20 PM
#248

'Unjust and unfair' - drivers' fury after being slapped with parking fines

Aaron McMillan
Published: 6:22 PM April 1, 2022 Updated: 7:32 AM April 6, 2022


(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8799448/landscape_ratio16x9/640/360/475d5fe7271b67047f977ea88d06eab3/FE/xxx-port-of-wells.png)
Phil Doig (pictured) from Salhouse, near Norwich, was handed a PCN after parking at Port of Wells car park, alongside Ian Ascough.

Motorists have hit out at a firm which slapped them with triple-figure parking fines in a coastal town - with one vowing never to visit again.

Phil Doig and Ian Ascough were handed separate parking charge notices (PCN) after visiting Wells in January.

They had both chosen to park their vehicles at the Port of Wells car park, managed by Civil Enforcement Ltd, but discovered the payment machine was not accepting debit cards.

Mr Ascough said his wife had initially attempted to source some change, but the couple eventually decided to park elsewhere.

Having obtained cash of his own, Mr Doig paid for parking before leaving - but not within the necessary 15-minute period stated in the car park's terms and conditions.

While a spokesman for Civil Enforcement confirmed Mr Doig's fine was issued due to a breach of the T's and C's - which are displayed in its car parks - the company has since cancelled the PCN.

The firm did not to respond to a request for comment in relation to Mr Ascough's fine.

Mr Ascough, who is originally from Canada, had travelled 120 miles from Hertfordshire to visit Norfolk with his wife and dogs on January 2.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8799444/landscape_ratio16x9/640/360/e22b4f64a5389f9d6e2c49f36d6452f2/IT/xxx-port-of-wells-parking-2-.jpg)

He claims to have tried four bank cards - on two separate ticket machines - to pay for the parking, while his wife queued in a shop to get change.

But they eventually cut their losses, returned to the car and drove on towards Wells beach.

Mr Ascough added that his car was in the car park for 17 minutes and 45 seconds before departing. He has since disputed the PCN, but was unsuccessful.

“During the appeal process, I appealed for some common sense, some humanity and some understanding," he said.

“This was the first time I went to Wells, and it will probably be the last.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8799442/landscape_ratio16x9/640/360/81ec387c3d677f503282d8d31d526d5/xw/xxx-port-of-wells-parking-1-.jpg)
Ian Ascough said he is unlikely to return to Wells following the incident.

“I feel sorry for the local businesses as I am not going back there because of this car park management.”

Mr Ascough is determined to continue challenging the penalty for as long as it takes, claiming that it is "not justified, not fair, and not English."

He added: "I moved to England because of decency and fair play, and this does not feel like that.”

In February, the government announced plans to crack down on private parking firms to protect drivers from extortionate charges, introducing a new code of practice.

Until then, most PCNs were £60 but rose to £100 if not paid within a certain time period, but that has now been reduced to either £70 or £50 depending on the seriousness.

Companies which breach the code could be barred from collecting fines from motorists.

Mr Doig, from Salhouse, near Norwich, also attempted to use multiple cards to try and pay for parking in Wells, but to no avail.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8799446/portrait_ratio4x5/640/800/b38fceec7001cafe28a9f1ec80da9539/jr/xxx-port-of-wells-parking-3-.jpg)
Phil Doig from Salhouse, near Norwich, was handed a PCN after parking at Port of Wells car park.

Despite being successful in his appeal, he believes Civil Enforcement’s methods are unfair.

He said: “I just thought it was a shoddy way to treat people with the wording on the invoice like ‘we have the evidence, you are guilty’. Any poor soul is going to be £60 or £100 down.

 “They just seemed so intimidating for such a lovely place, and it's a shocking way to treat people.”

On Mr Doig’s case, the spokesman for Civil Enforcement said: “The parking charge notice was issued because there was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, which are clearly set out on signs within the car park.

“The driver appealed and the PCN was cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/image/8799460/landscape_ratio16x9/640/360/31bc0841dd25594152263505265416e0/Hx/xxx-port-of-wells-carpark.png)
The Port of Wells car parks, by Wells Harbour.

“The driver complained they did not have cash on them to pay and couldn’t make payment within 15 minutes. An alternative ‘phone and pay’ system is available to make payment remotely, but the driver did not attempt to use this method.

Moreover, Mr Doig questioned why the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was handing out drivers' personal details - believing it to be a breach of date protection rules.

But a spokesman for the DVLA said: "We take our responsibility to protect people’s personal information seriously and have robust measures in place to make sure data is used correctly.

“All private parking companies requesting vehicle keeper information must be a member of an Accredited Trade Association and operate within a code of practice that treats the motorist fairly."

https://www.fakenhamtimes.co.uk/news/drivers-slam-wells-parking-fines-8799260 (https://www.fakenhamtimes.co.uk/news/drivers-slam-wells-parking-fines-8799260)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 04 July, 2022, 01:39:19 PM
#249

NHS staff are being fined for parking at their own health centre

Parkingeye is issuing tickets to them because cameras monitoring a nearby Aldi have been set up wrongly

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d37aa78aa7a4ffdd5ffc66a838f19e8eb5de3889/0_374_5616_3370/master/5616.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=dba056191965c7655e20fe1e191afa7f)
Parkingeye has failed to resolve the problem for several months.

Anna Tims
Wed 25 May 2022 07.00 BST


NHS staff are being issued with £70 parking charge notices (PCNs) for parking at a medical centre during their shifts. The problems began months ago when a newly built Aldi employed an enforcement company, Parkingeye, to manage its car park next door to the Purbeck health centre in Milton Keynes. The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera at the entrance to Aldi has been set up with an unnecessarily wide range so that it photographs vehicles turning into the adjacent NHS site. The Aldi store manager and Parkingeye have been made aware of this and ensure the tickets are cancelled when contested, but not everyone will know to appeal and some staff have been sent several PCNs. Aldi blames Parkingeye and Parkingeye customer service is unable to arrange repositioning of the camera.
KH Chertsey, Surrey


The Aldi opened in December, so Parkingeye has had five months to sort its cameras out. Initially, Aldi told me that staff at the health centre, which includes a dentist, two specialist clinics and a GP surgery, should log their vehicle registration numbers at the Aldi store to prevent future PCNs. When I pointed out that it was unreasonable for drivers to have to register with a unconnected third party for permission to park in their own car park, it confirmed that the ANPR camera had now been adjusted so that only vehicles entering the Aldi premises would be captured. Parkingeye was contacted for a comment.

Earlier this month I reported on an enforcement firm pursuing food-bank users and volunteers for charges of up to £170 when they parked in the food bank’s own car park. Management companies prevent abuse of private parking spaces, but extortionate charges and heavy-handed tactics have prompted a government crackdown. In February, plans were announced to cap most private parking charges at £50 and to require reasonable grace periods before PCNs were issued. Although private parking charges mimic council PCNs, they are invoices, not fines. Motorists who feel they have been unfairly issued with one should complain before paying the enforcement company or the landowner. If that fails, they can take their case to the Independent Appeals Service or POPLA, depending on which dispute resolution scheme the firm subscribes to.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/may/25/nhs-staff-are-being-fined-for-parking-at-their-own-health-centre (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/may/25/nhs-staff-are-being-fined-for-parking-at-their-own-health-centre)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 July, 2022, 07:11:44 AM
#250

Smart Parking under fire after Gosport Blue Badger holder fined £20 over 'discriminatory' ticket machine

A BLUE badge holder has been fined £20 for incorrectly entering her number plate into a ‘discriminatory’ ticket machine.

By Toby Paine
Sunday, 10th July 2022, 11:17 am
Updated
Sunday, 10th July 2022, 11:17 am


The company Smart Parking has come under fire from a Gosport Borough councillor for its ‘unfair’ parking policies.

Cllr Alan Durrant said one of his constituents used the Gosport Community Association car park and was fined for ‘getting one digit wrong’ when typing her registration number into the ticket machine.

The resident, who is believed to be an elderly woman, was sent a parking charge notice of £60 for the typo which was reduced to £20 after an appeal.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOmM5NmJkNjE1LWQyMzYtNDA2ZS1iMGEyLTU2ZTdjYzQyZmY0OToxNzAwNTBiMS1mMjBiLTQ2NmQtYmNmYi1kNjk3MTI5ZTdhYTM=.jpg?quality=65&smart&width=640)

Cllr Durrant said it was ‘beyond the pale’ for a community centre to not have free blue badge parking.

‘You have a hospital next door that has free parking for blue badge holders but this community centre has none.

‘She paid the full fee for the whole day but because she got one digit wrong on her registration they fined her anyway.

‘I appealed on behalf of this lady to say that this is unfair and discriminatory but they stand by the charge.

‘They reduced it to £20 but for a pensioner who’s disabled, it’s too much to pay to get one digit wrong considering she’s already paid the full fee for the parking.

‘These machines discriminate against older people who may have sight difficulties or memory problems that make simple mistakes occur.

‘At Queen Alexandra Hospital they do the same sort of thing but for disabled people and blue badge holders you don’t have to insert your registration.’

The resident has until July 8 to pay the fine.

Smart Parking were approached for comment.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/people/smart-parking-under-fire-after-gosport-blue-badger-holder-fined-ps20-over-discriminatory-ticket-machine-3762806 (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/people/smart-parking-under-fire-after-gosport-blue-badger-holder-fined-ps20-over-discriminatory-ticket-machine-3762806)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 July, 2022, 07:19:42 AM
#251

Newtown McDonald's customers given parking fines for BP garage in Potters Bar

15th June 2022
By Anwen Parry

(https://www.countytimes.co.uk/resources/images/13891755.jpg?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen)
McDonald's restaurant in Newtown and the Potters Bar parking fine (inset)

McDonald's has apologised to some of its Newtown restaurant customers who were incorrectly hit with £100 fines for parking hundreds of miles away near London.

The fast food chain said a "software issue" with its parking contractors was to blame after customers parked in Newtown were sent parking fines claiming that they had overstayed their welcome at another car park – at a filling station in Hertfordshire.

Some customers thought they were being scammed after receiving a letter from MET Parking Services saying they had exceeded the maximum permitted stay at BP South Mimms in Potters Bar near London on Friday, May 27 and Saturday, May 28.

None of the customers were at BP South Mimms, Potters Bar at the time but they were at the McDonald's restaurant in Pool Road, Newtown.

Sharon Owen, from Newtown, thought the cameras had been hacked when she received the fine. She said: "If they wrongly handed out fines, then that is really poor show because that can cause a lot of stress. I was fairly confident that I wasn't in London that night but it does make you wonder what is going on or if someone took your car for a joyride.

"There was quite a bit of time sorting that out but for people who are not so tech-savvy it can be very distressful and they could have ended up paying in order to have avoided paying a bigger fine.

"If it was that the cameras got hacked then they really need to be careful and on top of their security systems because that could result in a lot of people paying up money.

"People always need to double check a fine to see if it's genuine and not fraudulent because sadly there are so many fraudulent claims sent out to people and stolen that way."

Another McDonald's customer, from near Newtown, told the County Times: "I opened the letter and it said it was a fine and I thought 'oh no, it's happened again!'. I felt confused because I didn't think I did anything wrong.

"I then looked at the letter in more detail and it said that I was parked in Potters Bar. At first I didn't know where it was so I Googled it and it was hundreds of miles away. I have never been to that area. I immediately wanted to rectify the issue and went on the website to send my appeal.

"I'm glad I can search the location on Google but I know that some from the older generation may not know how to do that and get worried and pay the fine."

McDonald's has apologised to customers who have wrongly received a parking fine and asked them to contact the Newtown restaurant to resolve the issue.

A McDonald’s spokesperson said: "We are aware that some customers of our Newtown restaurant have been incorrectly issued parking charge notices due to a software issue with our parking contractors.

"Any customer who has received a notice in error should contact our restaurant on 01686 625404 and we will ensure that the matter is resolved. We apologise for the inconvenience that this has caused."

https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/20211502.newtown-mcdonalds-customers-given-parking-fines-bp-garage-potters-bar/ (https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/20211502.newtown-mcdonalds-customers-given-parking-fines-bp-garage-potters-bar/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 July, 2022, 07:32:26 AM
#252

Fantasy Island daytripper receives 'fundamentally wrong' £100 parking fine

He's not the only one

ByJoe Griffin
14:14, 7 JUL 2022


(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article7303538.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_JS212623305.jpg)
Fantasay Island at Ingoldmells

Fantasy Island amusement park in Ingoldmells attracts people from all over the country to the Lincolnshire coast. However, issues caused by the Smart Parking system used at the park are causing some motorists to steer clear of the area.

The car park's payment system is externally managed by Smart Parking and uses an ANPR system to track each vehicle that enters. Corby resident, John Cowie, visited Fantasy Island in May and was shocked to receive a parking fine soon after his visit.

Despite paying what he thought was the correct amount when parking, he now faces a hefty £100 fine, an issue that many other Fantasy Island car park users appear to have faced for years. Mr Cowie said: "We visited the car park on May 23 and went off to do some shopping.

"When we came back I entered my registration into the machine and the LED read 'Low season due fee £2 all day' so that's what I paid. I was then shocked to get a PCN for £100 which said I had underpaid and overstayed by so many minutes, I appealed against it and Smart Parking knocked it back so I've now gone to POPLA."

Mr Cowie is among many other users of the Fantasy Island car park that feel they have been wrongfully fined. He added: "Fantasy Island and Smart Parking are completely ignoring the fact that there are many many other cases of people that have had the same problem, especially on Tripadvisor.

"There is also a dedicated Facebook page group called Fantasy Island Smart Parking where people are getting advice on how to appeal so there's got to be something fundamentally wrong here. These companies have a duty of care, one of which is fairness, and there are a lot of people out there who feel they have been unfairly treated."

Fantasy Island has acknowledged difficulties motorists are having with the parking and said that any parking disputes need to be raised with Smart Parking. A statement on their website reads: "Unfortunately, a small number of motorists have experienced difficulties when utilising the machines, which is an issue that we would like to address immediately.

"In the unlikely event that you do receive a Parking Charge Notice, please appeal utilising the instructions which can be found on the PCN itself, providing any purchase information that would support your appeal.

Lincolnshire Live has approached Smart Parking for comment.

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/fantasy-island-daytripper-receives-fundamentally-7300370 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/fantasy-island-daytripper-receives-fundamentally-7300370)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 20 July, 2022, 04:26:14 PM
#253

Fury over the ‘rip-off’ UK car park that fines drivers even if they don’t park

A CAR PARK in Cornwall is fining drivers simply for entering and leaving without parking their cars.

By TIM BRADLEY
19:00, Thu, May 19, 2022 | UPDATED: 19:04, Thu, May 19, 2022


A car park at a Cornish seaside town has left locals and visitors facing hundreds of pounds in fines - even if they don’t actually park there. The Sea View Car Park in near Padstow, has been fitted with new automated licence plate reading cameras that scan a car’s number plate as soon as it enters.

According to Cornwall Live, the operator is currently not allowing any leeway between entering and finding a space, meaning many are hit with a £100 fine after leaving when finding the car park is full.

The car park, operated by a company called Alliance Parking, has proved so confusing for people that it has led to rising anger in the area - so much so that people have blasted it for being ‘a scam’.

Regular user of the car park Hazel Belle Thompson posted on a Facebook group: “It’s camera operated. As soon as you drive in, your car and reg are taken.

“I lost a full day’s wages in a parking fine for being 14 minutes over.”

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Drivers-are-being-stung-with-fines-by-the-car-park-for-falling-foul-of-regulations-1611811.webp?r=1652983444469)
Drivers are being stung with fines by the car park for falling foul of regulations

One reason for the growing anger comes due to the reportedly confusing nature of the signs at the car park.

The notices currently state drivers must pay from 7am until 11pm with no grace period - not even of up to 30 minutes as is the case at many other car parks.

However further down it also says that a £100 parking fine will be levied for parking from 10pm until 6am, despite parking being permitted until 11pm.

The sign also states that payment should start the second a driver arrives until the time they leave with no grace period for the first 30 minutes.

That means that if a driver enters but can’t find a parking space and left a minute later, they could still be fined £100.

Express.co.uk readers were united in their anger at the measures, and at the state of parking in the UK in general.

Commenter ‘Turktowner’ wrote: “This is not a fine unless issued by a Court of Law or Police. “In a privately operated car park it is an invoice that is issued on spec.

“If the car park is not full the court will take a view that the value of the invoice is excessive given that the 'normal' priced charged for a parking space is £1 per hour for example.

“The onus is on the Parking Company to do the work, and remember, it is only court appointed Bailiffs that can enter your home, and only then with a warrant not just their ID tag.”

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/The-complete-rules-of-the-car-park-show-that-drivers-are-subject-to-some-confusing-directions-4075365.webp?r=1652983444623)
The complete rules of the car park show that drivers are subject to some confusing directions

‘REVet’ agreed, writing: “Appeal it, the ticket is an invoice not a fine. I would simply ignore these from the beginning and don't acknowledge I have received their invoice, except Parking Eye, I appeal them straight away.”

‘Dturr’ added: “Scam tactics - how often do we enter a car park look at the price and drive out?”

‘Foxystar’ wrote: “Only a fool would even consider paying it.”

But ‘Barry UK’ replied: “No a frightened person would pay and that is how they operate, fear and intimidation of the strong over the weak. Let us hope no one damages those machines.”

In a statement to Express.co.uk, Alliance Parking said: "We comply with the existing IPC Code of Practice and the new Private Parking Code of Practice in relation to consideration periods.

"Drivers are afforded the time to enter the car park, read the signage, and leave if the car park does not suit their needs.

"As such, only those that park and remain at the car park without paying for their stay in full, or park in breach of any of the other terms and conditions will incur a Parking Charge i.e. the act of entering the car park, turning around and leaving will not incur a Parking Charge.

"Our aim is for genuine users of the car park to have access to parking which greatly assists local tourism.

"Those issued with a Parking Charge have the ability to appeal ourselves internally and an external Independent Appeals Service."

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1611811/car-park-rip-off-cornwall-reaction (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1611811/car-park-rip-off-cornwall-reaction)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 August, 2022, 09:29:07 AM
#254

'Nightmare' in Nottingham as driver fined £60 after parking for eight minutes
A DRIVER in Nottingham has been left furious after he was handed a £60 fine over parking for just 8 minutes.

By BRIAN MCGLEENON
18:51, Sat, Jul 30, 2022 | UPDATED: 18:51, Sat, Jul 30, 2022


Ian Dykes, 63, said he is "disgusted" after he was fined for parking his car for the short period of time. The driver parked his vehicle at the East Street Car Park in Nottingham. He then found his attempts to pay for the parking session were rejected four times.

This was after constantly trying to enter his car registration number.

Unable to park, Mr Dykes drove away from the car park and found somewhere else to park his car.

He then set off on a job he was sent out to by his employer to do.

However, the driver was hit with the large fine one week later - around half of his daily wage.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Ian-Dykes-was-fined-60-1648332.webp?r=1659203487990)

Mr Dykes told the Nottingham Post: "What it was I work for Dell as an engineer and I was heading for the NG1 to park.

"There's a cinema by the multi-storey car park and I had to go and do a job there to fix a machine.

"And there was a car park just close by and I used the number to ring to pay for the parking.

"So I rang it and put my registration number in, then they asked for it again so I put it in again - it asked my about four times for the number.

"It wouldn't accept payment so within the eight minutes I was there I thought it's pointless leaving it here.

"So I thought I'll go and park at the multi-storey car park, which I did.

(http://[img]https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/Where-had-the-most-car-seizures-4203702.webp?r=1659203497874)[/img]

B&Q competition
'Nightmare' in Nottingham as driver fined £60 after parking for eight minutes
A DRIVER in Nottingham has been left furious after he was handed a £60 fine over parking for just 8 minutes.
By BRIAN MCGLEENON
18:51, Sat, Jul 30, 2022 | UPDATED: 18:51, Sat, Jul 30, 2022
68Comment sectionShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on PinterestCopy link
Prince Harry's 'disloyalty' to royal family is 'appalling' says Bower
Sign up for our news briefing, including a daily special Russia-Ukraine edition
Enter your email address here
 SUBSCRIBE
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Ian Dykes, 63, said he is "disgusted" after he was fined for parking his car for the short period of time. The driver parked his vehicle at the East Street Car Park in Nottingham. He then found his attempts to pay for the parking session were rejected four times.

RELATED ARTICLES

Driver hit with parking note from angry neighbour after blocking road

Blue Badge holders face parking fines in Europe due to Brexit issue
This was after constantly trying to enter his car registration number.

Unable to park, Mr Dykes drove away from the car park and found somewhere else to park his car.

He then set off on a job he was sent out to by his employer to do.

However, the driver was hit with the large fine one week later - around half of his daily wage.

READ MORE: Drivers warned of massive £5,000 fines for wearing sunglasses

Ian Dykes was fined £60
Ian Dykes was fined £60 (Image: Ian Dykes)
Mr Dykes told the Nottingham Post: "What it was I work for Dell as an engineer and I was heading for the NG1 to park.

"There's a cinema by the multi-storey car park and I had to go and do a job there to fix a machine.

"And there was a car park just close by and I used the number to ring to pay for the parking.

"So I rang it and put my registration number in, then they asked for it again so I put it in again - it asked my about four times for the number.

"It wouldn't accept payment so within the eight minutes I was there I thought it's pointless leaving it here.

"So I thought I'll go and park at the multi-storey car park, which I did.

DON'T MISS
Drivers urged to avoid popular seaside car park [REVEAL]
Drivers warned of huge fines for needlessly using their car horn [WARNING]
Little-known car cooling tricks drivers should use instead of air con [INSIGHT]

Where had the most car seizures

The most car seizures in the UK (Image: Express)
TRENDING
Legoland fire: 'Massive' blaze as thick black smoke rises from popular theme park 
Legoland fire: 'Massive' blaze as thick black smoke rises from popular theme park
Is there a hosepipe ban in my area? Full list of every affected region
Is there a hosepipe ban in my area? Full list of every affected region
First pictures of ‘truly amazing’ schoolboys killed in horror triple fatal car crash
First pictures of ‘truly amazing’ schoolboys killed in horror triple fatal car crash
"And then a week later I got a fine for £60 fine for trying to pay for parking!

"I appealed against it, showed them the ticket from the multi-storey car park with the difference of time which was eight minutes and they rejected it.

"They said you'll have to pay £60 which I think is disgusting to be honest.

"And everywhere you go in NG1 there's a problem with the parking, it's a nightmare trying to get close to the businesses where you're called to work. But I don't get it back, you see, I lose it out of my daily pay.

He added: "That £60 comes out of my daily pay so that's like half my pay for the day. They said that the machine was working fine and it just wasn't, it was just looping all the time. It was just a nightmare.

"There was only enough space for not even 20 cars and there was just one space in there so I thought I'd park there because it was not even five minutes away from where I needed to be.

"I work in the Nottingham area five days a week for Dell, and I don't know the area very well because I've only lived here for five years, but if someone was to come into the city to do some shopping in the city centre, it's a nightmare to park."

The issuers of the parking fine, Euro Car Parks were asked for comment by the Nottingham Post, but have yet to reply.

Additional reporting by Jack Thurlow.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1648332/car-park-fine-nottingham-driver-parking-eight-minutes (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1648332/car-park-fine-nottingham-driver-parking-eight-minutes)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 August, 2022, 07:23:09 PM
#255


BIG MAC & CRIES I was fined £100 for parking at McDonald’s for SIX HOURS… but I was at home all day

Ed Southgate

8:56, 22 Mar 2022Updated: 18:02, 22 Mar 2022


A MUM was fined £100 for allegedly parking at McDonald’s for almost six hours - but she claims she was at home all day.

Tracy Stephenson, 40, picked up a latte when she dropped her partner at work in his van before heading back home.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NINTCHDBPICT000720781083.jpg?w=660)
UKPC claimed she parked at McDonald's for six hours

But parking firm UKPC sent a letter a week later insisting the vehicle was parked up for five hours and 43 minutes outside the fast food chain in Middlesbrough, North Yorks.

Single mum Tracy, who does not live with her partner, said: “It’s absolutely ridiculous.

"I can’t afford it and I refuse to pay it when I haven’t done anything wrong.”

She said she may be the victim of a so-called double-dip camera fault when cars park up twice in one day.

It happens when automatic number plate recognition cameras pick up the first entrance and second exit, which are often hours apart.

But she also suggested the vehicle pictured exiting the car park may not even be hers because the number plate on the image is hazy.

UKPC told her officials checked the ANPR system and cameras only recorded one entry and exit. Tracy wants them to check the CCTV to see her arriving and leaving.

Tracy, of Darlington, Co Durham, told Teesside Live: "It's stress that we do not need. I'm just a taxi at the minute going back and forth."

"I doubt they haven't even looked in the time frame of the 10 possibly 20 minutes after we were pictured going in to see if we had left.

"If I had done it I would have just owned up to it and pay the fine and sulk, but the fact I definitely was not there for that duration is just beggar's belief.

"I don't know what else I can do, I'm just tearing my hair out.

"They have dismissed the fact that I've said I was not there.

"They haven't investigated it any further on their side and they're just wanting me to pay up."

Tracy called it daylight robbery and vowed never to use the drive-thru again.

UKPC was approached for comment.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18025865/fined-parking-mcdonalds-six-hours/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18025865/fined-parking-mcdonalds-six-hours/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 19 August, 2022, 07:51:54 AM
#256

'What about vulnerable people?’: Couple protest parking ticket from Gallows Corner Tesco after alleged ‘double dipping’ issue

Author Ben Lynch

Published: 5:59 PM August 9, 2022


(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8707822/article-lead-image/lg/1/rrc-wk7-romford-stock-pictures-42-.jpg)
The parking ticket was issued after the woman's partner visited the Gallows Corner Tesco twice on July 15

A driver was slapped with an unfair parking fine in Harold Wood after falling foul of a ‘double dipping’ camera error, it has been claimed.

A resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, said her partner received the penalty after visiting Gallows Corner Tesco on July 15 on two separate occasions.

The first was to pick up a sandwich at lunchtime and the second was to do the weekly shop, she said.

However, due to the cameras only picking up the vehicle’s first entrance and last exit, the woman’s partner was issued a parking fine on July 28 from car park operator Horizon, claiming they had been taking up a spot for more than six hours.

The woman said the couple were a "bit shocked because we haven’t done anything wrong”.

After getting in touch with Tesco via its WhatsApp business account, the woman said she was told to file an appeal with Horizon in order to get the fine overturned.

After being contacted by this newspaper, a Tesco spokesperson said it would cancel the fine if the woman is able to stop by the Gallows Corner branch and speak to a general manager.

(https://images.cm.archant.co.uk/resource/responsive-image/8266380/article-body-image-landscape/lg/1/gallows-corner-tesco.jpg)
The Tesco car park at Gallows Corner, Harold Wood

Frustrated at the situation, the woman told this newspaper she is concerned about others who may be caught out by the alleged issue.

“What about vulnerable people? They might just pay it,” she said, adding: “We are just really unhappy that other people might get tickets.”

“I’m just not happy, because I did some research and it’s called ‘double dipping’, and it’s a well-known thing,” she said.

“It takes time and effort, and it’s stressful.”

A spokesperson for Tesco said: “We always try our best to help our customers and in this case the car park at our Romford Gallows Corner Extra is operated by Horizon, and customers can direct any parking ticket enquiries to them.”

Horizon was also approached for comment.

https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/traffic/gallows-corner-tesco-car-park-ticket-appealed-9200606 (https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/traffic/gallows-corner-tesco-car-park-ticket-appealed-9200606)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 01 September, 2022, 12:23:11 PM
#257

Man wins court battle against parking firm who tried to fine him £100 for CIRCLING car park without stopping

Dave Hotchin, 49, drove around Newquay car park for half an hour
He gave up and left, but automatic plate reader picked him up
He was sent a demand for £100 but refused to pay and went to court
Mr Hotchin said: 'We felt like we were being bullied'


By SAM WEBB

PUBLISHED: 18:14, 1 April 2014 | UPDATED: 08:50, 2 April 2014


A motorist has won a court battle against a parking firm who tried to fine him £100 for circling a car park - without stopping.

Dave Hotchin, 49, spent half an hour waiting for a space without success before driving away from Fistral Beach car park in Newquay, Cornwall.

Two months later shocked Mr Hotchin received a demand for £100 saying the couple had been caught without a ticket by an automatic number plate reader.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/01/article-2594413-002DBB9B00000258-350_634x409.jpg)
Dave Hotchin, 49, spent half an hour waiting for a space without success at a car park at Fistral beach in Newquay, Cornwall (pictured) before driving off. He was later sent a £100 fine but has now won a court battle against the car park operators

After sending four further warnings to Mr Hotchin and his wife bosses at car park firm Parking Eye launched a court action to get the money.

But a judge threw out the claim because the 31 minutes the pair from Altrincham, Greater Manchester, spent driving around the car park in May last year did not classify as 'parking'.

He said: 'We were very surprised. We thought it was unfair considering we’d never even parked up. We were just circling the car park looking for a space.

'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.

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

A spokeswoman for Parking Eye said the company 'wins the majority of legal actions it brings against car park users'.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/01/article-2594413-028F1D02000004B0-691_634x286.jpg)
After sending five warnings to Mr Hotchin and his wife, bosses at car park firm Parking Eye launched a court action to get the money. File picture

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594413/Man-wins-court-battle-against-parking-firm-tried-fine-100-CIRCLING-car-park-without-stopping.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594413/Man-wins-court-battle-against-parking-firm-tried-fine-100-CIRCLING-car-park-without-stopping.html)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 07 September, 2022, 11:56:16 AM
#258

Family 'taken aback' by amount of parking fines at Fantasy Island

Meters do not automatically calculate length of stay

(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article7547297.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/3_PWR_jones-parking.jpg)
Ben Jones, wife Anneka, and daughter Sophia

A family who were stung with parking fines at Fantasy Island on the Lincolnshire coast say they've been 'taken aback by the amount of people who have had the same problem'. Retired local government officer Louise Monaghan explained relatives had travelled in three separate cars for the family outing but they had been caught out by the system in place.

Smart Parking (UK) Ltd uses ANPR at the pay-on-exit car park in Sea Lane, Ingoldmells, to record the arrival and departure times of vehicles. But the parking meters do not automatically calculate how long a vehicle has been there for and default to the minimum £2 cost per hour fee.

Families affected say they pay their money, only to receive a £60 'parking charge notice' for not paying the correct tariff. The charge rises to £100 if not paid in 14 days and a £10 admin fee is added if it remains unpaid after 28 days from issue. Motorists have been penalised because they were unaware they need to manually add time by using a '+' button on the side of the meter to select their correct length of stay, or say the function simply does not work.

Mrs Monaghan, who is one of a growing number of people who have posted about their experiences in the Fantasy Island Smart Parking PCN Appeals Facebook group, said she was stunned to read how many people said they had been hit with fines. "I was taken aback by the amount of people who have had the same problem as us," she said.

Mrs Monaghan, who is 59 and from Cheshire, explained her sister, Janine, who lives in Trusthorpe, was fined after using the car park last month. Mrs Monaghan, who is preparing a second appeal against the charge, said: "The signs around the car park said payment could be made when leaving.

"We decided to do this as we didn’t know how long we’d stay. When we all left, at different times, the car park ticketing machines would not let us enter more than the £2 fee. I thought the first meter I tried to use was faulty so I tried another. When I increased the plus button the tariff would not increase.

"Normally, where ANPR is used in car parks, you put enter your registration number and the meter tells you exactly how long you have been there for based on what ANPR has recorded. From what I understand, the cameras at this car park are there to trace your vehicle not to calculate your length of stay. I was taken aback by the amount of people who have had the same problem as us." Other families have come forward to share their experience.

Ben Jones, 37, visited the resort with his wife Anneka, also 37, and their four-year-old daughter Sophia on August 17 and paid what he thought was the correct fee, only to receive a £60 parking charge notice in the post. Mr Jones said: "We had taken our daughter to the indoor soft play centre. We saw the sign in the car park and understood the tariff is in two-hour slots.

"We were coming up to two hours so we decided to move to another car park. In big letters the sign states that ANPR automatically calculates the length of stay from when you enter to when you leave. The instructions on how to pay tell you to enter your number plate onto the meter screen and pay for your parking.

"The lowest amount you can pay is £2 and '2.00' automatically comes up on the screen. But people are thinking that the '2.00' means two hours' parking. I genuinely thought I had paid the right amount but a few days later I get a penalty charge notice. I've since found out the machines do not calculate your stay, so the '2.00' is the cost per hour of parking and I was supposed to psychically know that I should add time on using a '+' button on the far side of the machine."

Mr Jones, a finance assistant from Leicester, also made reference to the amount of people who've said they've been fined on the Facebook group. He said: "There needs to be clearer signs to tell people that they will need to change the tariff dependant on their length of stay. Nobody has any spare money at the moment, especially money to pay a parking firm crazy amounts of money like this."

Last month we reported that East Lindsey District Council had launched an investigation into the car park over a potential breach of planning control. The council is investigating whether the ANPR cameras, ticket machines and car parking restrictions notices were installed without planning consent.

A spokesperson for the council said: "The council received a complaint about the car park. The council is now investigating the matter of that complaint." In a statement, Fantasy Island said: "Our car park arrangement, management and payment systems are operated by a third party management company, SmartParking, who are heavily governed, regulated and inspected by the BPA (British Parking Association)." Lincolnshire Live has contacted Smart Parking (UK) Ltd for comment but has not received a response at the time of publication.

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/family-taken-aback-amount-parking-7546512 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/family-taken-aback-amount-parking-7546512)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 25 September, 2022, 07:31:37 AM
#259

'Frustrated and angry' Farnborough Lidl customers given parking fines despite store still being open

Rachel Mather - 14 Sept 2022

The opening of a new Lidl in Hampshire two weeks ago was welcomed by many. However, in the weeks since opening customers have been shocked to find they have been issued with parking fines whilst shopping in store.

The discount supermarket opened in Solartron Retail Park on September 1, 2022. Operating Monday to Saturday from 8am-10pm and Sundays from 10am-4pm, it seems like the perfect place to pick up a weekly shop.

But despite customers being able to shop in store until late, the car park, which is run by UK Parking Control (UKPC), only allows customers to stay until 9pm. Farnborough resident Jason Railton was caught out by this and says the signage in place is unfair.

Speaking to HampshireLive, Jason said he was "frustrated and angry to come home and find a notice of a fine" after he parked outside the store on September 2 at 20:25 and left at 21:43 the same day. The letter he received stated this was 'during the restricted no parking period'.

Parking at the store is free for three hours up to a cut off point of 9pm, but Jason has contested this over the fact that shoppers should be allowed to park there whilst the Lidl store is open. He highlighted that there is an "absolutely massive sign that says Lidl is open until 10pm so I didn't pay much attention to what signs are actually in the car park itself.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA11O4tA.img?w=768&h=511&m=6)
The notice indicating parking fines will be issued after 9pm is printed much smaller than the opening times for Lidl which has caused confusion for customers

"You see that and you just assume, quite reasonably that you can park there." He added that to "park there when shops are open and receive a fine is clearly something where someone's messed up sorting the parking out with Lidl".

Jason returned to the retail park on Tuesday, September 13 to see if he had missed clear signs highlighting the parking restrictions. However, photos show that upon entrance to the carpark the initial signage from UKPC is obscured to motorists by the gate.

Jason commented: "When you get near the car park there's one sign at the entrance at a low level from the parking company and all it says is 'for customers only - see the notices in the car park'. There's no notice of time when you come in and you can barely read it because it's behind the gate post."

This is in stark contrast to the giant Lidl store signs which proudly display that the shop is open until 10pm, which many customers have taken to assume means they can park for free whilst shopping until this time. There is a UKPC sign within the car park that highlights the restriction, but customers view this as inadequate.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA11NZTW.img?w=768&h=511&m=6)
The initial sign on entry to the carpark makes no reference to time restrictions and is obscured

Jason told HampshireLive: "I'm six foot ten and it's another foot above my head and in small writing is a little bit that says no parking between 9pm and 7am. That's the only notice that shows there's a discrepancy between the parking signs and the Lidl opening times - one tiny little bit of writing".

When Jason tried to contact Lidl customer service he was told he would have to contest the fine with the parking company. Both HampshireLive and Jason tried to contact UKPC but were unable to get a reply.

However, when Jason returned to Lidl in Farnborough on Tuesday and spoke with the manager he did receive an apology. The manager also took a copy of the charge notice and assured Jason it would be cancelled.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA11Oc60.img?w=768&h=511&m=6)
Some signs make reference to the fact that those using the car park must be customers at the retail park but so not have timings published on them

HampshireLive contacted Lidl for comment as to why the parking limit has been set earlier than the store closing time and if Lidl has any plans to raise this with UK Parking Control Ltd in order to assist their customers. In response a spokesperson stated: "We were extremely sorry to learn of this matter.

"As soon as our teams were made it was immediately escalated to UK Parking who have confirmed to us that the timings have now been updated and all fines issued to Lidl customers have been cancelled."

Jason was told by Farnborough's site manager that he has not been the only one affected, a statement that is backed up by complaints on Farnborough community groups on Facebook. The site manager further stated that they had raised the issue with the landlord and parking company and the parking times had been extended.

As of September 13, the signs in the car park still say only until 9pm in contrast to the larger signs promoting the store closing time of 10pm. UKPC has been contacted by HampshireLive for comment.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/frustrated-and-angry-farnborough-lidl-customers-given-parking-fines-despite-store-still-being-open/ar-AA11O4tO (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/frustrated-and-angry-farnborough-lidl-customers-given-parking-fines-despite-store-still-being-open/ar-AA11O4tO)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 October, 2022, 07:40:09 AM
#260

Countless tourists 'preyed on' by Armtrac parking 'scam' in Cornwall

The parking terms and conditions were 'impossible' to comply with and dozens of £100 charges have been dished out as a result

By Lisa Letcher Senior Reporter
05:00, 1 JUL 2022 UPDATED15:18, 1 JUL 2022


(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article7276006.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_Sennen-Top-Car-ParkJPG.jpg)
Sennen top car park

A private car park in West Cornwall has been dishing out countless £100 charges to people for "parking illegally" despite the company being at fault. It's been called "absolutely scandalous" and "completely unethical".

Parking Charge Notices (PCN) are being issued to people who use the car park for not entering their car's full number plate, but the actual ticket machine at Sennen Top Car Park calls on visitors to only enter the last three digits - making it impossible to comply.

This mix-up means Armtrac is issuing dozens of £100 charges to locals and visitors alike - for simply following the instructions on the machine. One victim has called those issuing the notices "parking cowboys".

Armtrac apologised for what it said was "an honest mistake" by the landowner, adding that payment instructions have been updated

Fabien Bellouere says the experience gave his family's visit "a bad taste" He explained: "We have been staying in Treen and St Just for 20 years now and it is the second time we get done by rogue parking management. How many other been done by this sting?"

He was issued a £100 parking charge notice in June for not entering his full number plate. He said: "I am sure I wont have made that mistake as we parked there few times during our stay.

"After checking online, a few people got the same issue and lately a person sent me the picture of the ticket machine clearly stating to enter the last three digits only," he explained. "This is absolutely scandalous and unethical, these parking cowboys should have their contract revoked and barred from the IPC."

Another victim, Robert J, said: "I recently received a parking charge notice for £100 (or £60 early payment) from Armtrac Security having parked at Sennen Top Car Park (Mayon Green) during half term. The notice simply said failure to display a valid ticket.

"Luckily we still had the ticket on our dashboard so appealed the charge sending a scan of the ticket. This appeal was rejected because they stated that we only entered the final three characters of the number plate, not the full number plate as required by stated terms and conditions.

(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article7276179.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/4_JS270792962.jpg)
Fabien Bellouere pictures at Land's End on his recent holiday - which turned sour when issued a Parking Notice Charge (Image: Fabien Bellouere)

"This reason was not given in the initial notice, but only once we had appealed. From this point there is no possibility for further appeal without forgoing the possibility of making the reduced £60 payment. Any appeal has to be made to the IAS of the IPC which has an absolutely terrible reputation as a kangaroo court online.

"We couldn't understand the mistake and seemed to remember having followed instructions in only entering the final three characters. Luckily we got hold of photos which clearly show that the machine at which we paid instructed us to only enter the final three characters."

(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article7276185.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/0_300622-Fabien-Bellouere.jpg)
Fabien Bellouere was on holiday with his family when they fell victim (Image: Fabien Bellouere)

He added that he "dreads to think" how many people have been "defrauded by this scam", saying: "It is of course impossible for most holidaymakers to get proof of the parking instructions they followed when they receive a parking charge notice weeks later when they may be hundreds of miles away."

A third, Mark Lindsay, added: "The parking terms and conditions are impossible to comply with. They demand full vehicle registration number but the payment machine only accepts the last three characters. These are clearly unfair contract terms which cannot be complied with and guarantee a breach leading to a Parking Charge Notice of £100."

(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article7276020.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/0_300622-SennenJPG.jpg)
The instructions on the parking machine which state to enter the last three digits of the registration plate

A fourth victim, Sean Kelly, told CornwallLive that he had paid to park at Sennen Top Car Park for the whole day but was issued a PCN a few weeks later, which stated that he had parked with no valid session or permit. Having later discovered that he had accidentally entered a few extra digits at the end of his registration, he appealed the fine and provided evidence of his payment.

However, Sean's appeal was rejected and he was left "disgusted" by Armtrac's "sharp practice." He said: "I am absolutely disgusted that they rejected my appeal, especially because I provided evidence that I had paid and acted in good faith.

"It was a technicality and I find this sharp practice completely unethical. It has made me so angry that I even considered never using the car park again but there aren't many other large car parks in Sennen. If this has happened to us, it makes me wonder how many other people could this happen to?"

Threads have been started on TripAdvisor, Reddit and even Money Supermarket forums detailing the experiences of countless other victims.

A spokesperson for Armtrac Security Services said: "Upon further investigation regarding this matter, the incorrect payment instructions were left on the machine when it was installed recently at Mayon Green for which we can only apologise.

"The machines don’t belong to Armtrac Security and after a conversation with the landowner, the details have now been removed from the machine. They also send their apologies.

"This was an honest mistake made by the landowner and wasn’t intentional. All the other signage at the site has been updated to reflect the change and states that the full and correct vehicle registration number needs to be entered when making payment."

It did not confirm whether people mistakenly issued a Parking Charge Notice would now have them cancelled.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/countless-tourists-preyed-on-armtrac-7275984 (https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/countless-tourists-preyed-on-armtrac-7275984)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 October, 2022, 07:18:12 AM
#261

Furious McDonald's customer lands £100 fine for 'spending 14 hours in car park'

Ben Mulhall had only gone to collect a McChicken Sandwich

By Jasmine Norden Louise Elliott
12:22, 13 OCT 2022


(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article7698788.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_ben.jpg)
Ben found the parking ticket funny when he opened it (Image: Ben Mulhall)

A customer has been slapped with a £100 fine for spending 'more than 14 hours in a McDonald's car park' - despite him being at home. Ben Mulhall had picked up a McChicken Sandwich on his way home.

But he was later issued with the parking fine saying he didn't leave the car park until the following morning.

The 32-year-old - who is disputing the fine - said: "I know sometimes you have to wait for your food but I definitely didn't wait that long."

READ NEXT: Aldi shopper ‘insulted’ at response to complaint over ‘broken glass in quiche’

Ben called at his local McDonald's on the evening of September 30 but the letter from the parking company says he was seen leaving the car park the next morning.

He said: "I was amused when I got the letter. I wasn't angry or annoyed, I just like exposing incompetence. The cameras must have just missed me leaving (on September 30) and the car coming back in (on October 1).

"My wife sometimes likes a McDonald's breakfast on her way back from a night shift and I think that's what they've caught the next day."

The parking ticket, which Ben received in the mail a few days ago, shows a picture of his car (a white Volkswagen Golf) entering the car park at 5.56pm on September 30. Ben said this is correct.

It then shows a picture of his car leaving the car park at 8.22am on October 1, and calculates he'd been in the car park for 14 hours and 25 minutes. The letter states the fine is £100, discounted to £50 if paid in 14 days.

Ben has CCTV footage taken from outside his house that shows him binning rubbish that looks like a McDonald's bag next to a white car, with the time stamp in the corner reading 5.29pm on September 30. However, Ben believes the CCTV camera could set to UTC (an hour earlier) and was actually taken at 6.29pm, showing him after returning home - when his car was supposedly still in the McDonald's car park according to the ticket he's received.

(https://i2-prod.stokesentinel.co.uk/incoming/article7698831.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_fine.jpg)

"I have lodged an appeal with the parking company," Ben said. "I doubt I'll hear back for days though."

Ben added that he does not intend to pay the parking ticket while he waits to hear back about his appeal.

LeedsLive contacted both McDonald's and the parking company responsible for managing the car park. McDonald's said customers should speak to the parking control company if they believe they have been wrongly fined, and that Ben's appeal should be approved if he has been fined incorrectly.

The parking company that issued the ticket had not responded at time of publishing.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/furious-mcdonalds-customer-lands-100-7698786 (https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/furious-mcdonalds-customer-lands-100-7698786)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 October, 2022, 10:10:44 AM
#262

I was slapped with a £70 parking fine for ‘sleeping in my car overnight’ but I only stayed 15 minutes – it’s outrageous

Ethan Singh
8:59, 14 Oct 2022Updated: 9:43, 14 Oct 2022


A MAN has been left fuming after being slapped with a £70 parking fine for sleeping his car overnight - despite only staying for 15 minutes.

Simon Livesey, was hit with the "unfair" fine after visiting a Co-op and using the car park while he did his shopping in Whalley, Lancashire.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/COMP-SC-PARKING-FINE.jpg?w=750)
Simon Livesey was given a £70 fine for parking in a Co-op after they claimed he had a 12-hour stay

The rules state that drivers can use the car park for free for up to 30 minutes, and customers who spend £5 in store can use the site for two hours.

Simon used the car park on September 29 to pick up his order from a Chinese takeaway and claims to have only been parked for 15 minutes.

While on the school run the following morning, he again only used the parking facilities for a quarter of an hour.

However, despite staying within the rules, Simon received a £70 fine from the car park operator Horizon Parking saying he had been parked at the site for a whopping 12 hours.

Simon told the Lancashire Telegraph: “The cameras had only spotted me coming into the car park on Thursday evening and leaving Friday morning, so claimed I had been there for 12 hours and needed to pay a fine.

“I imagine the camera didn’t pick me up or register me leaving on Thursday evening. Why it didn’t register me re-entering on Friday, I am not sure.

“Obviously, I didn’t park up and sleep in the car overnight and eat my Chinese.”

The motorist said that he was "shocked" when he first received the notification.

He said: “When I found out I was absolutely shocked and definitely used some blue language. I just thought ‘they can’t do this’.

“I went straight onto the website and appealed against it.”

Simon told the Lancashire Telegraph that the fine has since been cancelled.

But he said that the unjustified fine has meant he has been put off returning to the car park after the ordeal last month.

He said: “The fine has been cancelled but this isn’t the end of it.

“I want to change the system. I won’t want to park in that car park again, I don’t have any confidence in it anymore.

“I use the car park two or three times a week but this has put me off from returning."

Interested to see whether other drivers had fallen victim to the parking charge, Simon took to Facebook to post about the fine.

He said: “When I put it on Facebook and I was surprised to see how many times it has happened to other people.

“I am surprised about why no-one is making a fuss about it and flagging it up.”

Mick Singleton said: “I've had it about five times over last 18 months, nipping into Co-op in the morning, then on an evening the same day.

“The first two around a year ago, they checked the cameras as its all ANPR and agreed that I left but the last three they refused to check the cameras and I had to pay, despite only nipping in.”

While Laura Wilkinson said: “My husband parked there in the morning then went back again at night.

“We had to prove the car wasn't there all day.”

Pamela commented: “They said I has been parked for 24 hours when I made two short visits over two days.

“I phoned them and they were very reasonable and cancelled it, it happens sometimes apparently.”

A spokesperson for Co-op, said: “Co-op is a community retailer, and while it is sometimes necessary to manage car parks to ensure space remains available for our customers, we believe that they should be operated fairly and also benefit the wider community.

"If a concern about a parking charge notice is highlighted to our car park operator they are able to investigate and apply remedy.

"We are aware of an appeal which had been raised at this location, our car park operator has apologised and the parking charge notice has been cancelled.”

Horizon Parking has been approached for comment.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/20104486/slapped-70-parking-fine-sleeping-car/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/20104486/slapped-70-parking-fine-sleeping-car/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 09 November, 2022, 04:38:00 PM
#263

Poole Quay car park fury as driver issued fine despite 'buying ticket'

'I don't have £60 to spend on a fine that I didn't incur'

By Sarah Ping Reporter
05:00, 7 NOV 2022


(https://i2-prod.dorset.live/incoming/article7786135.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_eleanor-spry-car-parkJPG.jpg)
Resident's frustration at parking fine at low rated car park

A resident as been left frustrated and annoyed after she was issued a parking fine at one of Dorset's worst-rated car parks. Poole Quay Car Park has been known notoriously by locals as being one of the smallest and hardest to navigate car parks in the area, but it seems payment issues might soon be added to this list of problems.

This is certainly the case for Eleanor Spry, resident of Upton, who was "wrongfully" issued a £60 parking ticket despite correctly purchasing a ticket, she claims. Eleanor said she took every measure to ensure that she correctly paid for the ticket and opted to purchase this digitally without the need for a printed ticket.

However, it was not until she checked her banking app to find that the name of payment was issued under Water Gardens Parking, a car park in Hemel Hempstead, and not for Poole Quay Car Park, which is operated by Britannia Parking. The firm went onto issue Eleanor with a parking fine, claiming that she had not paid, despite her proof of payment.

It has left Eleanor annoyed and frustrated by the situation and she explains that the appeals process is particularly draining and time consuming. She told DorsetLive that the whole incident has been a "kick in the teeth" especially after the trip to Poole Quay was meaningful for the family.

In a statement, Britannia Parking said it takes complaints about its services "seriously". It added the firm is a "responsible car park operator" and advised drivers to "take care" when typing in the site code if paying by phone.

Eleanor, a copywriter and graphics designer, had taken her foster family for a day trip to mark her last day with her foster son before his move to a new family. Yet, less than a week later, Eleanor was hit with a parking fine, which she feels memories of her day trip with her family has been tarnished with the stress of appealing the fine.

She explained: "The reason we went was because we're a foster family and our foster son was leaving for his next placement, which was a good thing. It's a good thing for him, but it's also big thing for us because this was our first fostering experience. So, we were just going out as a family to cheer ourselves up ahead of that happening, but it's all been a kick in the teeth."

'I've supplied all the evidence'
Eleanor has stood her ground and will appeal the fine after she claims that she has correctly paid for her ticket and supplied all relevant evidence to appeal. Despite regularly contacting Britannia Parking as well as the company who distributes the payment machines, she feels that her appeal is not being heard and says she is "stuck".

She feels her situation is unique after taking to social media in the hopes that the someone else might have experienced the same thing, only to find no-one else had. She explained: "I posted in a local group because there was someone in front of me and someone behind me, so if it was a machine glitch, it would have been more than just a single transaction, it would have been multiple transactions, but that doesn't seem to be the case."

Eleanor's banking app shows the wrong name of the car park as name of payment, however the time and date of the payment is correct and in line with the ticket she purchased originally. But because the name of payment differs to Britannia Parking, Eleanor claims that the parking company are unable to help with her enquiry.

She said: "Even in my appeal, I've said that I've made the payments, but the payments have gone somewhere else. They don't seem to understand the situation themselves because they've told me they do not know this place and that they're not affiliated with any local company."

However, Eleanor makes clear that she purchased the ticket from the machines inside the Britannia Parking car park on the premises. She says that because everything was completed digitally, she finds herself in a "difficult position".

"I have not played anywhere I paid at their machine on the premises. But it's really difficult," she said.

"We don't have the paper ticket. So I don't know whether they're just gonna say without that there's no evidence."

Eleanor even went to the machine distributor to find out if there was a specific issue with the payment machine as a different means to try and resolved the issue. But she was met with another brick wall with this enquiry.

"I've contacted the manufacturer that distribute the actual physical machine, and they're refusing to disclose anything because I'm not the client tenure car parking," Eleanor said.

She argues that the situation with Britannia Parking is frustrating as she feels there has been no support for her appeal. "This is what I find the hardest is when I've explained the issue and explained it clearly supplied all the evidence," she said. "They're not willing to engage or take anything other than their explanation that 'oh no, you've done something wrong'."

She added that the parking company has not been helpful in escalating or dealing with the appeal. She said: "They didn't even enquire, they didn't even try and understand what I was saying. They just provided a stock reply saying 'We're not affiliated with local businesses'".

'It is out of my control'
Eleanor claims that she has thought of every possible scenario to see if she had mistakenly done something wrong when purchasing the ticket, but claims that the situation is "out of her control". She explained: "I couldn't have foreseen it.

"If there was something that has flashed on the screen, and it says 'can you confirm you're in this car park?' and I'd ignore that, you'd probably think their might not be any point challenging that, but it's none of that.

"At no point could I have possibly known that my payment has been allocated to the wrong location. At least that's how I understand the situation."

She argues: "I don't have £60 to spend on a fine that I didn't incur. Appealing is a lot of time and effort, and it takes up a lot of headspace."

Comment from Britannia Parking
A spokesman for Britannia Parking said that it "takes all concerns about our site very seriously". They said: "The Poole Quayside car park is a surface site operating on a pay on arrival system and is long-established in our portfolio of sites.

"Payment for parking can be made by card at the pay machines, or by using the pay by phone service and following instructions provided within the car park. Customers are advised to take care to ensure the correct site code is used when making payment using pay by phone. In the event that a customer receives a parking charge notice, full details of the appeals process are provided on the reverse."

They added: "Britannia Parking is a responsible car park operator and manager of 30 years’ standing. We take all concerns about our sites very seriously.

"We are a member of the British Parking Association and operate strictly in accordance with the industry’s Approved Operators Code of Conduct."

https://www.dorset.live/news/dorset-news/poole-quay-car-park-fury-7785786 (https://www.dorset.live/news/dorset-news/poole-quay-car-park-fury-7785786)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 16 November, 2022, 12:13:07 PM
#264

Parking firm Total Parking Solutions branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘utterly despicable’ after driver slapped with fine, despite sign stating: ‘Free parking until further notice.’

A PARKING company ‘preying on the vulnerable’ has been branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘utterly despicable’ after a driver was slapped with a fine, despite a sign stating: ‘Free parking until further notice.’

By Steve Deeks
17th Oct 2022, 5:14pm


But quick-thinking Daniel Wearn suspected the worst and took a picture of the sign in St Mary's Health Campus, Milton Road, on September 5, helping him overturn a £50 parking notice from Total Parking Solutions.

The 30-year-old photographed the sign on a pay machine despite staff insisting he did not have to pay due to ‘systems issues’ with machines not taking payments.

(https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/webimg/b25lY21zOjIzODhjYzE2LTg4MWMtNDRhYS1iMmYxLWE5MmE0NTM0NDY2YTowN2I0ZjFmOS0yYWUxLTRkYTgtYWNhZS02NGY3NDM4OTQ2Zjg=.jpg?quality=65&smart&width=640)
Daniel Wearn overturned a £50 parking notice from Total Parking Solutions at St Mary's Health Campus, Milton Road, on September 5. Also pictured is the sign on the machine

He was parked in the hospital for 155 minutes after taking his girlfriend for treatment following a badly twisted ankle before being dished out the erroneous fine on October 8 – with the letter stating the firm ‘operates in accordance with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice’.

Despite winning his battle, Daniel thinks others attending on the day could have been unfairly served fines too – and has urged them to use his picture to fight their cases.

Daniel, of Gunwharf, said: ‘Considering staff members were on site preventing members of the public from paying for parking, getting a fine was utterly despicable. I’m fortunate enough to have taken time-stamped photos of the machines on that day.

‘The fact they were aware of this as a business and preying on vulnerable people to gather additional funds via parking notice is completely disgusting.

‘The company cannot be trusted to conduct fair business on that campus, especially when people visiting this campus are often ill or receiving medical attention. The company has shown disgusting processes and procedures.’

Daniel said other people in the car park were asking what was going on – and he advised to take a picture of the sign.

‘If I didn’t take a picture and had taken what staff were saying at face value I would have had no evidence and would have to pay the fine,’ he said.

‘These firms are smart. If your evidence doesn’t disprove what you’re alleging then they will throw your appeal out. I hope others, if they have been given fines, also took pictures. But the picture I took should cover people on the day.’

In a letter seen by The News confirming Daniel had won his appeal, Total Parking Solutions said: ‘We are pleased to inform you that the parking charge notice has been cancelled and no payment will be required.’

Daniel was pleased his fine was overturned but said: ‘We want a fair and transparent parking company that honours things it says will do. Parking firms keep pushing the boundaries.

‘A line has been crossed despite me doing everything right. I feel vulnerable I will get a ticket again.’

He added: ‘Many members of the public use this parking campus and may have received a similar letter to me requesting payment. As many people on the day may not have taken photos it is important to heighten awareness of this company and potentially help other members of the public.’

Total Parking Solutions was approached for comment.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/people/parking-firm-total-parking-solutions-branded-disgusting-and-utterly-despicable-after-driver-slapped-with-fine-despite-sign-stating-free-parking-until-further-notice-3883260 (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/people/parking-firm-total-parking-solutions-branded-disgusting-and-utterly-despicable-after-driver-slapped-with-fine-despite-sign-stating-free-parking-until-further-notice-3883260)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 25 November, 2022, 09:14:10 AM
#265

Newquay beachgoer furious over £100 fine after struggling to use the car park's payment app

Kieran says he couldn't enter the location code on the app and was forced to pay Smart Parking Ltd by phone

By Maxine Denton
17:01, 18 NOV 2022


(https://i2-prod.cornwalllive.com/incoming/article7838567.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_Kieran-Davis-with-his-PCN.jpg)
Kieran Davis and his family were stung with £100 fine for taking 12 minutes too long to pay for a ticket

A beachgoer has hit out at the owners of a beach car park after being stung with £100 fine for taking 12 minutes too long to purchase a ticket. Kieran Davis and has family, from Camborne, took a trip to a beach in Newquay on a busy summer's day in August.

Unsurprisingly, when they arrived at Tower Road car park, it was packed full of cars and it took them some time to find a space before being able to park up. Kieran said that he then attempted to download a parking app to purchase a ticket.

However, he said they spent several minutes struggling to input their location before deciding to give up and call the phone number on the sign to pay for their stay that way, instead. Having saved his phone records, he says the call lasted exactly 4 minutes and 59 seconds, during which they were able to pay for a two hour stay and head to the beach.

They returned to their car two hours later and headed home assuming nothing had been done wrong. However, when a Parking Charge Notice arrived in the post three days later, Kieran was left shocked by the demand that a £100 fine, reduced to £60 if paid within 28 days, be paid to the car park's operator, Smart Parking Ltd.

He said he appealed the fine but it was rejected as an automated camera in the car park highlighted that they had 12 minutes worth of unpaid parking between the time they entered the car park and purchased a ticket. Now, Kieran says he has incurred more charges for not paying the fine and owes £170. He added that he is receiving regular letters demanding a payment.

He described the situation as "completely unfair" and is adding "unnecessary stress" for him and his partner. "When we got to the beach and downloaded the app, I physically couldn't put in the six digit location code to pay for a ticket that way", Kieran said. "I eventually gave up and called the number on the sign in the car park and paid that way so that was that done in my head and we carried on as usual.

"We even rushed back to the car to make sure we got there in time since I'd heard so many other horror stories from family and friends who have been stung with fines from this car park. They have a camera that clocks you from the moment you enter to the moment you leave meaning they could charge you exactly what you owe but choose not to. I strongly believe they do this on purpose to try to create as many fines as possible."

Kieran continued: "The stress of all this is unacceptable and unfair, I wonder how many people have fell victim to this. The ticket is in my partner's name because it was her car but I'm fighting it for it because I just think it's wrong. We've had several letters demanding payment but I will absolutely not be paying it.

"If they want to take me to court, then they can. £170 is like 10 to 12 hours worth of work for some people and it's just ridiculous over a few minutes extra parking when we couldn't get a ticket."

A spokesperson for Smart Parking said a statement is forthcoming but CornwallLive had not received it at time of publishing.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/newquay-beachgoer-furious-over-100-7837635 (https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/newquay-beachgoer-furious-over-100-7837635)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 17 December, 2022, 09:24:52 AM
#266

Mum slapped with £100 fine after being stuck in McDonald's drive-thru

Manjeet Kumari-Lal was slapped with the fine after waiting in the drive-thru queue for 38 minutes

By Kelly Ashmore
05:30, 17 DEC 2022


(https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article22249078.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/1_Wisemore-Maccies.png)

A mum's trip to McDonald's almost left her £100 out of pocket when a parking firm refused to accept she had been stuck in a drive-thru queue for 38 minutes. Manjeet Kumari-Lal was slapped with the "unfair" fine following a visit to a Walsall restaurant - but luckily for her, the area manager stepped in and paid it off in recognition of the "poor service" she had received.

The 46-year-old decided to treat her daughter to a meal at the Wisemore fast-food outlet on Friday, November 11. She said it was "extremely busy" and claimed to have been in the drive-thru queue for 35 minutes waiting to be served, before waiting a further three minutes for the food.

Manjeet said at no point did she park up or leave her vehicle, so she was astounded to receive a £100 penalty notice in the post. She appealed the fine with Ocean Parking - the firm in charge of car park management - but was told it had been rejected and she had two weeks to pay the reduced payment of £60 as she had 'exceeded the 20-minute free parking period and grace period'.

The mum, who lives in Aldridge, contacted McDonald's to request CCTV to prove her claims - and later received an email from the area manager, who apologised for the "poor service" she experienced and offered to pay the fine. A further email, seen by BirminghamLive, confirmed he'd paid the penalty on his credit card and offered her complimentary meals at the branch "as a gesture of good will".

Although she no longer has to fork out for the fine, Manjeet said others may not be so lucky. She said ideally fines would be scrapped amid the cost of living crisis but realistically, more should be done to make all customers aware of the possible penalties.

She said she had since seen Google reviews and social media posts from other customers who have had a similar experience, adding: "If the queue to the order in the drive-thru takes longer than 20 minutes, the customer has no control. I was shocked to receive a penalty parking notice for £100 for waiting in a McDonald's queue for a drive-thru for 38 minutes for food. At no point did I leave or park my car, like other customers I simply waited in the queue.

"The staff at the drive-thru also failed to give guidance to customers waiting in the queue that they would need to go and pay for parking whilst waiting. These parking companies are earning millions of pounds from innocent drivers."

Ocean Parking sent a four-page letter to Manjeet, explaining why it decided to uphold the fine. It stated there was" entrance signage and contractual warning signs located throughout the car park, which explain the terms and conditions for parking at the site" and as "no payment was made to cover the duration the vehicle was parked on-site, the PCN was issued correctly".

It added: "If you have failed to read or chosen to ignore the contractual warning signage in place, Ocean Parking cannot be held responsible for this, nor is this due to the signage not being visible or clear.

"You have failed to provide any evidence to support the claims within your appeal, however the details stated do not negate you from the parking restrictions in place, nor do they justify you failing to comply with the parking tariffs in place at this location."

BirminghamLive approached Ocean Parking for comment on the situation and asked what people were supposed to do if they were drive-thru queue longer than the 20-minute grace period. However the firm would not be drawn in on any details and simply said it 'considers this matter closed' as the parking charge was paid in full.

McDonald's urged anyone who believed they had been issued a ticket incorrectly to appeal the decision. A spokesman said: “We have parking restrictions in place at a number of our restaurants, with a time limit to ensure there is adequate parking for all of our customers.

"At this restaurant the time limit is 60 minutes for customers who are eating in and we make this clear with signage in both the car park and the restaurant. If a customer believes they have been issued a ticket incorrectly they should appeal as per the parking control company guidelines.”

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/mum-slapped-100-fine-after-25687919 (https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/mum-slapped-100-fine-after-25687919)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 02 January, 2023, 12:22:11 PM
#267

Mum slapped with £100 fine after being stuck in McDonald's drive-thru

Manjeet Kumari-Lal was slapped with the fine after waiting in the drive-thru queue for 38 minutes

BY KELLY ASHMORE
05:30, 17 DEC 2022


(https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article22249078.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_Wisemore-Maccies.png)

A mum's trip to McDonald's almost left her £100 out of pocket when a parking firm refused to accept she had been stuck in a drive-thru queue for 38 minutes. Manjeet Kumari-Lal was slapped with the "unfair" fine following a visit to a Walsall restaurant - but luckily for her, the area manager stepped in and paid it off in recognition of the "poor service" she had received.

The 46-year-old decided to treat her daughter to a meal at the Wisemore fast-food outlet on Friday, November 11. She said it was "extremely busy" and claimed to have been in the drive-thru queue for 35 minutes waiting to be served, before waiting a further three minutes for the food.

Manjeet said at no point did she park up or leave her vehicle, so she was astounded to receive a £100 penalty notice in the post. She appealed the fine with Ocean Parking - the firm in charge of car park management - but was told it had been rejected and she had two weeks to pay the reduced payment of £60 as she had 'exceeded the 20-minute free parking period and grace period'.

The mum, who lives in Aldridge, contacted McDonald's to request CCTV to prove her claims - and later received an email from the area manager, who apologised for the "poor service" she experienced and offered to pay the fine. A further email, seen by BirminghamLive, confirmed he'd paid the penalty on his credit card and offered her complimentary meals at the branch "as a gesture of good will".

Although she no longer has to fork out for the fine, Manjeet said others may not be so lucky. She said ideally fines would be scrapped amid the cost of living crisis but realistically, more should be done to make all customers aware of the possible penalties.

She said she had since seen Google reviews and social media posts from other customers who have had a similar experience, adding: "If the queue to the order in the drive-thru takes longer than 20 minutes, the customer has no control. I was shocked to receive a penalty parking notice for £100 for waiting in a McDonald's queue for a drive-thru for 38 minutes for food. At no point did I leave or park my car, like other customers I simply waited in the queue.

"The staff at the drive-thru also failed to give guidance to customers waiting in the queue that they would need to go and pay for parking whilst waiting. These parking companies are earning millions of pounds from innocent drivers."

Ocean Parking sent a four-page letter to Manjeet, explaining why it decided to uphold the fine. It stated there was" entrance signage and contractual warning signs located throughout the car park, which explain the terms and conditions for parking at the site" and as "no payment was made to cover the duration the vehicle was parked on-site, the PCN was issued correctly".

It added: "If you have failed to read or chosen to ignore the contractual warning signage in place, Ocean Parking cannot be held responsible for this, nor is this due to the signage not being visible or clear.

"You have failed to provide any evidence to support the claims within your appeal, however the details stated do not negate you from the parking restrictions in place, nor do they justify you failing to comply with the parking tariffs in place at this location."

BirminghamLive approached Ocean Parking for comment on the situation and asked what people were supposed to do if they were drive-thru queue longer than the 20-minute grace period. However the firm would not be drawn in on any details and simply said it 'considers this matter closed' as the parking charge was paid in full.

McDonald's urged anyone who believed they had been issued a ticket incorrectly to appeal the decision. A spokesman said: “We have parking restrictions in place at a number of our restaurants, with a time limit to ensure there is adequate parking for all of our customers.

"At this restaurant the time limit is 60 minutes for customers who are eating in and we make this clear with signage in both the car park and the restaurant. If a customer believes they have been issued a ticket incorrectly they should appeal as per the parking control company guidelines.”


https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/mum-slapped-100-fine-after-25687919.amp (https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/mum-slapped-100-fine-after-25687919.amp)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 January, 2023, 12:41:46 PM
#268

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28922779.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/0_Fistral-Beach.jpg)
It took the family about 20 minutes to finally find a spot in the busy car park, Lindsay said

Beachgoer slapped with fine for taking too long to buy a ticket in gridlocked car park

Lindsay Bull and her family, from Sheffield, were on holiday in Cornwall when they took a trip to Fistral beach in Newquay, having to drive for some time before finding a space and parking

By Maxine Denton, Abigail O'Leary
20:28, 10 Jan 2023


A beachgoer was fined for taking too long to buy a ticket in a gridlocked car park on a summer's day.

Lindsay Bull was shocked after being slapped with the £100 fine from a day out with her family at Fistral beach during their holiday in in Cornwall.


It took the family about 20 minutes from the moment they entered the packed car park to the moment they were able to purchase a ticket, she said, with intermittent phone signal hindering their efforts while using the mobile app.

After finally managing to pay for a two-hour session on the machine, the family headed to the beach and later returned to their car with some time to spare before their ticket expired - but had to jump-start their car as the battery had died.

Despite that, Lindsay said she was certain they had still left before the session ran out, as she remembered her son checking the ticket and stating they had a few minutes left, reports Cornwall Live.

However, when a Parking Charge Notice arrived in the post a few weeks later, Lindsay was left shocked by the demand that a £100 fine, reduced to £60 if paid within 28 days, be paid to the car park's operator, Initial Parking.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28922416.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2_SSR_DCM201222viewjpeg.jpg)
Fistral Beach in Cornwall can attract thousands of beachgoers every day

She said she appealed the fine, but it was rejected as an automated camera in the car park highlighted that they had 22 minutes' worth of unpaid parking.

Lindsay said she incurred more charges for not paying the fine after the appeal was rejected and owed £170. She added that she started receiving regular letters demanding payment and eventually decided it wasn't worth pursuing it any further and paid the fine instead.

She said she was left "frustrated" by the whole situation, and that it's worth highlighting to others so they don't find themselves in the same position.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28922407.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2_Fistral-beach-Cornwall-England-in-summer.jpg)
Lindsay Bull was shocked after being slapped with the £100 fine from a day out with her family at Fistral beach during their holiday in in Cornwall

Lindsay said: "It's so annoying and frustrating because when we got there, the car park was gridlocked.

"We couldn't find a space because we had to find one that was big enough to fit our van in, so we drove around for a while before we managed to park. It also took us a while to get everything out the boot and pay for a ticket.

"Then when we were leaving, we had to jump-start our car because the battery had died, and while we were doing that I asked my son to check the ticket time, and I remember him telling me that we had five minutes left. But when I appealed it, [the parking company] said the ticket ended at something like 18 minutes past, even though I was certain it ended at half past."

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article27918061.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_Parking-ticket-payment-machine.jpg)

She continued: "You can't buy a ticket while you're driving in and can't get a ticket until you park and go to the machine or download app with bad signal and pay. This all takes time. You also can't backdate the time of your ticket when you purchase, and you shouldn't have to pay from time you drive past the camera.

"I didn't avoid paying, I thought I'd done nothing wrong and did the best I could to follow rules and got a ticket. The most annoying thing is reading all the reviews of the car park online and seeing that so many other people have had the same issues, yet nothing has been done about it. They really should install a barrier that only opens if there's space or have signs that say whether the car park is full. It's put me off visiting ever again."

A spokesperson for Initial Parking said: "Fistral Beach car park has a number of prominent and highly-visible signs throughout which provides motorists with clear guidance on the terms and conditions of using the car park. Drivers have the option to pay by the pay and display machines, or by phone and app. They also have the ability to top-up payments at any time during their stay.

"The motorist made payment for two hours of parking. However, the vehicle remained on site for two hours, 22 minutes and 58 seconds, and was therefore correctly issued with a Parking Charge Notice. The motorist appealed through Initial Parking’s British Parking Association Appeals process, however this appeal was rejected."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/beachgoer-slapped-fine-taking-long-28922394?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/beachgoer-slapped-fine-taking-long-28922394?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 January, 2023, 12:50:39 PM
#269

Man gets penalty notice from car park in Grimsby while he's parked at Heathrow Airport

Dean Graham was astonished to receive a parking ticket claiming he'd been at the Oasis Health Club on Orwell Street in Grimsby - a town he hasn't been in for 10 years

ByJames J TurnerGraeme MurrayNews Reporter
13:49, 5 Jan 2023


A man received a penalty notice from a car park in Grimsby while he was parked in London Heathrow airport.

Dean Graham travelled with his wife to Florida, US and left his vehicle at the Holiday Inn Express near the airport hub.

But he was shocked when came home to a parking penalty notice which said he had been at the Oasis Health Club on Orwell Street in Grimsby, Lincolnshire.

Grimsby Live reports Mr Graham hadn't visited Grimsby for 10 years and could not believe the charge of £100, or £60 if he paid within two weeks.

The car park is not owned or managed by Oasis, it is run by parking firm Civil Enforcement.

In their letter to Mr Graham, Civil Enforcement claimed it had photographic evidence of the 59-year-old's vehicle in the car park but did not send it with the notice.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28882099.ece/ALTERNATES/n310p/20230107_120614.jpg)(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28882177.ece/ALTERNATES/n310p/20230106_141714-1.jpg)
Dean Graham took his wife to to Florida but received a ticket which said he spent a night in Grimsby

Although not its responsibility, Oasis Health Club said it immediately investigated and discovered the camera, owned by Civil Enforcement, had made an error and misread the registration plate.

The notice has since been withdrawn.

Dean said: "How they've managed to do this is beyond me.

"I'm lucky because I've got receipts saying my car was at Heathrow at the time but if my car was just sat in the drive at home I would have no way of proving it was there."

A spokesperson from Civil Enforcement said: "Due to an error during the analysis process, one of the characters in the vehicle registration mark was misidentified leading to the parking charge being issued to the incorrect registered keeper.

"Had the registered keeper of the misidentified vehicle appealed the parking charge upon receipt, using our very simple online appeals portal detailed on the parking charge notice, the error would have been identified and the charge would have been immediately cancelled by our appeals team.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article28882191.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_BRITAIN-TRANSPORT-FINE.jpg)
Oasis Health Club said it immediately investigated and discovered the camera, owned by Civil Enforcement, had made an error and misread the registration plate

"In any event, we have now cancelled the parking charge and will write to the registered keeper to inform them of this, offering our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

"We accept that on this very rare occasion, we fell short of usual high standards.

"However, our appeals system is designed to ensure that such errors, if they occur, are immediately rectified.

"Along with other major parking operators, we continue to work with Government and stakeholders across the industry to ensure the new Private Parking Code of Practice and single appeals service will ensure continued strong governance

The company added that it delivered "effective and responsible car park management" to clients and motorists who park compliantly in its private car parks.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-gets-penalty-notice-car-28881782?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-gets-penalty-notice-car-28881782?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 03 March, 2023, 04:33:12 PM
#270

Grimsby pensioner issued £70 fine for visiting Asda twice in one day

Rob Clark, 66, said he visited the store twice in one day but was accused of parking in the car park for six hours and fined £70


ByLauren Davidson
05:00, 20 OCT 2022
UPDATED10:14, 20 OCT 2022


A Grimsby pensioner was left angry and upset when he was fined £70 after visiting Asda twice in one day.

Rob Clark, 66, visited the Asda supermarket on Holles Street, Grimsby on the morning of Friday, September 30. He claims he left the supermarket in his car and returned that afternoon for a second time. However, he was surprised to receive a fine through the post several days later which claimed he had been parked in the car park for nearly six hours.

Rob's stepson, Ryan Dales, said he felt it was unfair when his stepdad was fined amid the cost of living crisis, and that it left him "really angry" and "really upset". Parkingeye, the company who operate the car park at Asda Grimsby, has now cancelled the parking charge "as a gesture of goodwill" after being contacted by Grimsby Live.

Ryan told Grimsby Live: "He went to the store in the morning, left again and then went back in the afternoon. A few days later he got this fine through the door saying he'd been there all day. He looked at it and said, 'What? I haven't parked anywhere I shouldn't have'. Then when he read into it more, he saw it said he'd been parked in the Asda Grimsby car park for five hours and 58 minutes."

He said Rob has bank statements and receipts to prove that he attended the supermarket twice in one day - but when he sent these off, he was told he would still be required to pay the fine.

He added: "He's got bank statements to prove that he attended the shop twice that day, and the CCTV in that area would be able to prove that he left and returned to the store. On the fine letter, there's a threatening message which says the £70 parking fine would be reduced to £40 if it's paid by a certain time.

(https://i2-prod.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article7718665.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_hum-181022-parking_03.jpg)
He is refusing to pay

"A lot of people would say, 'I'll just pay the fine and forget about it', but it's not fair when people are just returning to a store twice. I'm sure if Asda knew what was going on then they wouldn't be too happy about it, because it means people who shop at the store can't return more than once to do their shopping.

Ryan said Rob was initially so upset that he was considering paying the discounted £40 fine. "It seems to me as if it's a threat saying, 'If you want it cheaper, pay it now and don't think about it', so I had to advise him otherwise and told him to challenge it because he didn't even park there all day," he said.

"It angers me. The company clearly has cameras on either side as you're arriving into the car park and leaving it, so they shouldn't be doing this to people at all. The way the country is at the minute, it's already scary enough - and this is just making things even worse."

Parkingeye, the company who operate the car park at Asda Grimsby, has now cancelled the parking charge "as a gesture of goodwill". A spokesperson for the company said: “The car park at Asda Grimsby has a number of prominent and highly-visible signs that give motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly, of which the vast majority of them do.

“It appears that this particular motorist stayed beyond the allocated three hour free period, which resulted in them receiving a parking charge notice.

“There is no record of the motorist appealing the parking charge with Parkingeye, however, we have reviewed the case and the charge has been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye are proud members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and strictly follows its guides. As part of this we operate the BPA audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their parking charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances then we would encourage them to contact us."


https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/grimsby-pensioner-issued-70-fine-7718426?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button# (https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/grimsby-pensioner-issued-70-fine-7718426?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 18 March, 2023, 07:05:24 AM
#271

Dartford driver willing to go to court to fight £100 fine at Tower Retail Park, Crayford

By: Ben Austin baustin@thekmgroup.co.uk
Published: 05:00, 15 March 2023
Updated: 11:38, 15 March 2023


A driver is prepared to pay thousands in legal fees to fight a £100 parking fine he received at a retail park.

Lawrence Carnie has been on a personal nine-month crusade after he received the charge for parking in the Tower Retail Park in Crayford in June last year for 23 hours according to parking company Nexus.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/57IHIV240OYWG3IAHDF2.jpg)
Lawrence Carnie has been fighting his fine since June. Picture: Lawrence Carnie

The 58-year-old appealed the fine with independent adjudicator Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) but was rejected.

He then contacted the British Parking Association (BPA) who Group Nexus are represented by.

The non-profit organisation ran an investigation into Lawrence's claims but came to the same conclusion.

Now Lawrence, of Kenwyn Road, Dartford, has sought legal help in fighting the fine.

He said: "If I bumped into you in the street and said 'give me £100' you wouldn't do it.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/7HZEC7EJBJCHMZTQOC5C.jpg)
Tower Retail Park. Picture: Google Street View

"That's what's happened here, they're asking for £100 for not being there.

"It's just so wrong what this company is doing."

The former bank manager visited the Currys store on site to look at new televisions and says he was only there for 30 minutes. He then visited again the next day, this time staying for an hour.

But according to parking company Group Nexus, Lawrence stayed overnight in the car park, exceeding the three hour limit.

Following a failed appeal, the motorist contacted CCJ Removals Services, who help people remove court judgments from their credit reports, and they are advising him on his legal standing.

Paralegal Luke Memory, who specialises in challenging parking fines, is overseeing the case.

He said: "Cases like this do not usually make it to court as the legal costs are much higher than the fine but Mr Carnie is an exception to the rule.

"Once a claim is made against Mr Carnie we would instruct a barrister to draft a defence statement which costs £500 and this would lead to a court hearing at which Mr Carnie would instruct a barrister and this would cost approximately £1000.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/N0PZQ9G4BC6URTUW6IE3.jpg)
Stays at the retail park are limited to three hours

"It's off-putting for the common man but Mr Carnie is happy to fight it in court."

He added: "They are very clever these companies as the costs to defend a case is much higher than the fine so people would usually just pay.

"My thoughts are he has a good case. What they are alleging is he stayed too long in the car park, but their own evidence does not prove this and is littered with omissions and errors and clearly demonstrates that their records are inaccurate and unreliable."

Lawrence added: "I am doing this purely because the data they provided was so bad.

"They would have to show it to be impeccable but as I have found it doesn't show that."

When Lawrence appealed, the company provided a 356-page document highlighting all vehicles going in and out of the car park between his initial entry and final exit.

He looked through the document and listed every entry into a spreadsheet. He claims he found a myriad of anomalies within the data.

The car park is monitored by an ANPR system which takes a photo of your car upon entry and exit.

According to the file, 135 visitors were seen either arriving or leaving twice, 799 cars spotted either entering or leaving once and one car was recorded to have left three times without entering.

Some of these anomalies have been explained as the data only shows cars going in and out between Lawrence’s first and last entry - cars could have entered the car park before him or left after.

But the former banker says he found 28 "impossible scenarios" of cars visiting or leaving the car park twice.

Lawrence said: "I know they have lost two of my photos which I know I can't prove in isolation but there are so many entries that can't be explained or have not been explained.

"They are using this poor data to give out fines. There are people out there who can't afford the fine let alone the legal process for it and so to be giving out fines on this data is wrong.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/E5NVP6ILFMGT94L6UTAN.jpg)
The car park is monitored by ANPR cameras

"There are some entries which begin as 1322 which is essentially the area code for Dartford.

"I think the ANPR system could be scanning numbers off the sides of vans from local businesses."

Group Nexus did not respond to a request for a comment on the case.

A spokesperson previously said: "The PCN was upheld on the grounds that the motorist overstayed the free time allocation.

"Issues with the cameras are extremely rare. When there is one, we virtually always find evidence of it on the system.

"In this case we investigated the claim and could find no evidence that this vehicle had visited the site twice."

A BPA spokesman said: "The motorist appealed the charge issued to their vehicle to POPLA which was rejected as they deemed the charge to have been issued correctly.

"The BPA carried out a through investigation of the motorist’s complaint about the management of the car park by one of its members and found there to be no breach of its Code of Practice."


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/amp/i-will-fight-my-100-parking-fine-in-court-283702/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/amp/i-will-fight-my-100-parking-fine-in-court-283702/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 May, 2023, 01:33:35 PM
#272

Woman fined £35 for visiting Tesco twice in one day says she will never shop there again

She says she will now do her shopping at Lidl

BySean McPolinJoe Griffin
10:25, 10 APR 2023


(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article8338024.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_tesco.jpg)
Tesco Extra, Whitfield

A woman has vowed never to shop at Tesco again after she was fined for visiting the supermarket twice in one day. Emily Smith visited the store twice for groceries and fuel and was incorrectly fined £35 for doing so.

It's because the ANPR car parking system didn't register that the 47-year-old had left and returned, and instead thought she had parked at the site for more than 10 hours, reports The Mirror. Charity manager Emily said: "We are being treated like criminals, there is no innocent until proven guilty.

"We have now found some proof because we use a tracking app with my eldest. It’s bonkers, and trying to prove where we were is quite hard."

The £35 charge she was given doubles if not settled within 28 days, and the mum says the fears others could be frightened into paying the charge. She says she was even threatened with further enforcement action if she didn’t pay up to the enforcement company.

Now, Emily switched allegiances and will be visiting Lidl in the future after voicing her disappointment at Tesco for how they handled the situation. She added: "I am deeply disappointed in Tesco - I am not going to risk being their customer again.

"I’m worried that this is going to happen to other people who may just pay the charge because it is really quite frightening. When my husband called Tesco, he was told ‘our cameras do not lie’ - we were basically accused of lying.

"We had to give our time and energy to get this resolved when we did not do anything wrong. I think it is a money-making tool for Tesco and the parking company. Because you are told the fine is less if you pay within 28 days, most people will pay it because they don’t want the hassle.

"People need to know they have the choice to shop somewhere that will not fine them if they visit more than once in a day." A spokesperson for Tesco said: "We are sorry to hear about this and have ensured the charge is cancelled."

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/woman-fined-35-visiting-tesco-8338012 (https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/woman-fined-35-visiting-tesco-8338012)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 May, 2023, 01:45:55 PM
#273

MCFURY

I was fined £100 for visiting McDonald’s twice in one day – it’s completely unfair

Kiro Evans
Published: 10:34, 9 Jul 2022Updated: 21:25, 9 Jul 2022


A DAD has been left furious after receiving a £100 parking fine for visiting the same McDonald's twice in one day.

Spencer Barclay said he visited the fast food restaurant at the Metro Retail Park in Gateshead to get himself a coffee in the morning before work.

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Spencer-Barclay_02.jpg?w=670)
Spencer Barclay has been left disgusted after his £100 fine

The 52-year-old, from Benwell, Newcastle, claims he then went to work at nearby Metropolitan House where he left his car all day in their free car park.

He said that when he finished work at 5pm he returned to the same McDonald's, which is located near the Metrocentre, to collect a happy meal for his six-year-old son.

Days later he was sent a parking fine from UKPC which said he had been parked up at the eatery for eight hours and 43 minutes.

Spencer, a software consultant, told Chronicle Live: "It's absolutely disgusting, it's just blatantly designed to try and get money out of people - it's extortion! This can clearly happen to anybody.

"I think they have got a camera that photographs you but the camera is a snap shot in time. It photographs you coming in and leaving and that's fine but what if you visit twice? If you visit McDonald's twice in a day you can get £100 fine - that can't be right!

"How many other people have been unfairly treated for going for a happy meal?"

Spencer said that he arrived at the restaurant at 8.25am on Friday, June 24, bought a coffee for himself and sat in the car park for a few minutes while he drank some of it.

He said that he then left the site and did not return until just after 5pm the same day when he went to collect a takeaway for his child.

Spencer received the UKPC parking fine, which had been sent out on June 29, in the post on Saturday, July 2. The cameras had captured images of his Ford Galaxy arriving at 8.25am and leaving at 5.09pm.

The letter says he will receive a 50% "early pay discount" if he pays the fine within 14 days.

After that, he will owe the full £100. Spencer said he has complained to the parking firm about the fine but has not received a response.

He said: "It's absolutely infuriating. They have got the photograph of me in the morning and at night but nothing in between. I want to see the video evidence to show I was in that car park for the whole of the day.

"The first thing I said was 'the information is wrong, I arrived at that time and I left at that time but you've got to be a complete moron if you park in that car park and walk to work where there's a free car park'. I have said to them to take me to court.

"My first thought was how can I prove it. We have got to put in a system that's fair - this isn't fair, it's total extortion."

A spokesperson for McDonald’s said: "We are sorry to hear about this customer’s experience. The car park at our Metro Retail Park restaurant is run by a third party provider and we have made them aware of this issue.

"We understand that if the customer contacts the provider directly, their case will be considered under the appeals process."

The UKPC have been contacted for comment.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/19143020/mcdonalds-fine-visited-twice-happy-meal/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunmaintwitter&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1657368786 (https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/19143020/mcdonalds-fine-visited-twice-happy-meal/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunmaintwitter&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1657368786)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 11 May, 2023, 02:06:39 PM
#274



M&S shopper wins parking fine appeal because he's a 'regular customer'

Tim Hall and wife Eileen were left shocked after a Parking Charge Notice dropped through their letter box after one of their regular trips to Marks and Spencer - but the pair have now appealed the fine

ByLevi WinchesterMoney Editor
11:11, 27 Jan 2022UPDATED11:40, 27 Jan 2022


(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article26063475.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/0_SWNS_PARKING_FINE_002.jpg)
Tim Hall appealed the parking fine and won

A man who was given a parking fine despite claiming he paid has had the charge dropped - because he is a “regular” customer.

Tim Hall, 63, and wife Eileen, do twice weekly food and clothes shops at their local Mark & Spencer in Truro, Cornwall.

The couple say they always pay for two hours parking at the nearby Tabernacle Street car park - giving them plenty of time to get back to their vehicle.

But the pair were left stunned to receive a Parking Charge Notice in January this year - demanding they pay £100, reduced to £50 if paid within two weeks.

Mr Hall says the couple visited their M&S on January 13 and got back to the car after "roughly an hour and five minutes" - long before the ticket was due to expire.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article26063537.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_SWNS_PARKING_FINE_009.jpg)
General view of the Tabernacle Street car park in Truro

However, the company that issued the fine on behalf of the car park they used claims a ticket hadn’t been purchased for their car.

Napier Parking admitted this could have been due to the number plate being entered incorrectly.

Mr Hall has now won a rare appeal against the private parking firm - on the basis he is a “regular customer” of the car park.

Tim, a retired ordnance survey mapper, said: "We regularly shop at M&S - we get all of our food there and occasionally clothing too.

"It's great and very convenient. We park at the car park every two weeks on a Wednesday or Thursday, and always pay £2.50 for two hours of parking.

"We are not the sort of people to not pay or be dishonest. We were very upset to get the fine and to be honest were not hopeful our appeal would be accepted.

"The news came as a surprise but we are very pleased. It's good news that on this occasion they decided to drop the fixed charge notice."

Director of Napier Parking, James de Savary, said: "We have received an appeal from the driver. We could find no transaction for the vehicle in question.

"This could be due to an incorrect VRM being entered, as an example.

"However, we have accepted the appeal as it appears that they are convinced they have paid and are a regular customer. They will be notified directly."

He added that they always encourage motorists to appeal should they feel they have grounds to do so.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/man-given-parking-fine-ms-26063511 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/man-given-parking-fine-ms-26063511)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 18 July, 2023, 02:29:48 PM
#275

Tesco Extra in Whitfield, Dover, fines customers who parked twice in one day

Published: 05:00, 05 April 2023 | Updated: 16:27, 05 April 2023

A customer given a parking fine after she and her husband visited a Tesco store hours apart has vowed to never visit the shop again.

Emily Smith, from East Langdon in Dover, says she did nothing wrong but was treated like a "criminal" by the supermarket giant.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/L5RP4VB78N3OWSIVZV60.jpg)
Emily Smith says she will not be shopping at Tesco in Whitfield again after wrongly receiving a parking fine

The 47-year-old says her partner went to Tesco Extra in Whitfield to grab some groceries on the morning of March 20, and she drove back there in the same car that evening for petrol.

But Horizon, the firm which monitors the car park, sent her a fine in the post, claiming the vehicle was left there for more than 10 hours - breaching the three-hour limit.

Mrs Smith says the automatic number plate recognition cameras at the site must have failed to pick up on her husband driving away in the morning.

She fears other shoppers could face similar fines and may be frightened into paying the £35 charge - which doubles after 28 days if not settled.

The charity manager told KentOnline it is "hideous" she was left having to gather evidence to prove where she was on that day.

(https://www.kentonline.co.uk/_media/img/750x0/OA2BSAVIWS8XOTJXVBC3.jpg)

"We are being treated like criminals," she said, speaking before KentOnline raised the issue with Tesco.

"There is no innocent until proven guilty.

"We have now found some proof because we use a tracking app with my eldest - so I can now show I was in Walmer. But we cannot send another appeal.

"It is bonkers, and trying to prove where we were is quite hard."

Mrs Smith says she searched on Google and found "a lot of other people" have been fined in similar circumstances.

"I am deeply disappointed in Tesco..."

In one example, a senior nurse practitioner told her local newspaper how she went to a Tesco store in Warrington before and after work - but received a fine claiming she had been parked there for nine hours.

KentOnline also previously reported how a man from Dartford had received a parking charge claiming he had stayed in a car park for 23 hours. But he says he visited for less than an hour on two consecutive days.

"I am just really worried that this is going to happen to other people - and some people may just pay it because it is quite frightening," she said.

Mrs Smith says she was "deeply disappointed" at how Tesco handled the situation, before the fine was overturned following KentOnline's intervention.

She said: "My husband was told when he rang them 'our cameras do not lie'. We were basically accused of lying.

"We are ending up having to give up our time and energy to try and get this resolved when we did not do anything wrong.

"I am deeply disappointed in Tesco. I was their customer but I am not going to risk being their customer again.

"They show no care, no concern and absolutely no interest.

"All we did was give Tesco our custom twice, and I would really warn anyone not to make that mistake.

"I think it is a money-making tool for Tesco and their parking company - because if you are told you are going to be fined less if you pay it within 28 days, then people will just pay it because they do not want the hassle."

Mr and Mrs Smith had been told they faced further enforcement action if they did not cough up.

"We are going to have to pay if they threaten us with court because they have the power to put bad credit against our name," she said before the fine was cancelled.

"They have the power to do that with no chance for us to argue it."

Mrs Smith, who is also a carer for two children with special needs, added: "I will now be shopping at Lidl.

"People need to know they have the choice to shop somewhere that will not fine them if they visit more than once a day.

"Given it is a known issue, it is negligence on Tesco's part to not look into it. It is hideous."

Know your rights! What to do if you're given a parking fine

KentOnline contacted Tesco to ask for a response to Mrs Smith's concerns.

A spokesperson responded: "We are sorry to hear about this and we have ensured the charge is cancelled.”


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/tesco-fines-customers-for-parking-at-store-twice-in-one-day-284845/ (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/tesco-fines-customers-for-parking-at-store-twice-in-one-day-284845/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 19 July, 2023, 06:14:23 AM
#276

Parking ticket fury after ‘incorrect’ enforcement

10th December 2019

(https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/resources/images/10780204.jpg?type=mds-article-962)
Gemma Brown with her parking ticket for using the Tyne Valley Retail Park car park.

A WOMAN was outraged after receiving a parking ticket she claimed incorrectly stated she had parked for more than 24 hours.

Gemma Brown, of Gunnerton, was handed a parking fine of £100 after parking in the Tyne Valley Retail Park, in Hexham, for exceeding the two hour limit.

The ticket claimed Mrs Brown had been in the car park for a full day, whereas she insisted she visited the same car park twice in two days and the cameras failed to detect that.

Mrs Brown said: “I went to visit Pets at Home on the Wednesday to get medicine for my guinea pig. Then it died, so I went back to look at getting a new one on Thursday.

“They’ve said I have gone in on Wednesday and not left until Thursday. I was so cross – it’s the last thing anyone wants. It’s my first ever parking ticket in 15 years of driving.”

Mrs Brown said she had subsequently sent an appeal to UKCPS, which enforces the parking restrictions at Tyne Valley Retail Park for site owners Advance Northumberland.

She continued: “It’s totally wrong and it’s very frustrating. It’s put me off going. It seems like I’m not the only person in Hexham that has been affected.”

A spokeswoman for Advance Northumberland said it, nor the parking company had received any contact.

He said: “The cameras at the single entrance/exit to the main retail park car park take an image of every car entering and leaving.

"Ten minutes grace is applied over and above the two hours. We’ve had no contact on this and the parking enforcement team whose details are on the signage displayed haven’t had any direct contact either.”

The spokeswoman said the organisation would contact Mrs Brown directly to resolve the issue.

https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/18092335.parking-ticket-fury-incorrect-enforcement/ (https://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/18092335.parking-ticket-fury-incorrect-enforcement/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 30 August, 2023, 07:26:31 AM
#277

Driver with three parking fines overturned tells others how to avoid being ‘ripped off'

AN ELDERLY driver is warning other motorists of parking fines and how they can avoid them after he had three tickets overturned.

By FELIX REEVES
04:00, Thu, May 26, 2022 | UPDATED: 08:27, Thu, May 26, 2022


Malcolm Scothern, a disabled 81-year-old army veteran, has successfully appealed against parking fines on privately-owned car parks in Nottinghamshire. The driver, who was awarded the British Empire Medal, is now warning drivers how they can successfully overturn a parking ticket.

The army veteran, from Kirkby in Ashfield, was first fined after his car was spotted by cameras at a car park in Mansfield.

Malcolm had parked at St Peter’s Retail Park for 75 minutes, paying £2 at the designated machine.

Despite this, he was sent a significant £60 fine from CP Plus, who claimed he had parked without payment.

The determined former member of the 17th/21st Lancers (now the Queen’s Royal Lancers), an Army cavalry regiment, wrote to the car park company, claiming he thought the machine had been faulty.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/parking-fine-overturned-how-to-appeal-driver-warning-nottinghamshire-1616030.webp?r=1653550034554)

Fortunately, he had kept his parking ticket to prove his case.

CP Plus responded by saying: “This parking charge has been cancelled in full. No further action will be taken.

“We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused in this matter, and can confirm that the case has been closed.”

Speaking after the fine was quashed, Malcolm said drivers should keep a hold of their parking tickets and receipts just in case.

He told Mansfield and Ashfield Chad: “There was no explanation that anything had gone wrong, which proves my point that these companies just send out the fines and hope the recipients have disposed of their ticket and so pay up.

"I feel there is a danger that the public are being ripped off terribly.

"I don’t suppose many people keep their receipts and so, to save a lot of trouble, they automatically pay the fine immediately.”

Malcolm’s previous parking fine successes were at the Festival Hall in Kirkby around ten years ago.

The second was at the Commercial Gate car park in Mansfield in February 2022.

It came after the ticket machine refused both cash and card and Malcolm's complaint was upheld by the Parking On Private Land Appeals service.

Citizens Advice recommends to drivers that they should not pay a parking ticket they intend to appeal.

Usually, paying is seen as admitting the ticket was right, meaning they won’t be able to appeal it once they’ve paid.

If they are worried about paying, they should call whoever gave them the ticket and ask them to confirm that they shouldn’t pay if they are appealing.

Most parking tickets will either be a penalty charge notice, a parking charge notice, or a fixed penalty notice.

Depending on which fine a driver receives, the appeals process will be different.

Express.co.uk has contacted CP Plus for a comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1616030/parking-fine-overturned-how-to-appeal-driver-warning-nottinghamshire (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1616030/parking-fine-overturned-how-to-appeal-driver-warning-nottinghamshire)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 30 August, 2023, 07:37:59 AM
#278

Fury over parking fines handed out to elderly drivers unable to use complicated apps

ANGER is mounting over fines given to elderly drivers unable to fathom complicated parking apps.

By TIM BRADLEY
13:12, Wed, May 25, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:13, Wed, May 25, 2022


The issue was underlined by Pete Paphides, an author and broadcaster who sent out a tweet about his late father who died last month. After he passed away his son found unpaid fines of £100 rising to £170 for parking violations.

Other members of the public were quick to add their stories of being “digitally excluded” by parking apps.

Mr Paphides told Radio 4 that his father had struggled to pay for parking while attending a friend’s memorial service earlier this year.

The machine on site didn’t accept cash or a card and the only option was to use an app.

Not wanting to call an automated payment line, the elder man called his son in some distress for advice.

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/Many-older-drivers-are-unable-to-use-the-latest-parking-apps-preferring-to-pay-in-cash-1615799.webp?r=1653480770037)
Many older drivers are unable to use the latest parking apps, preferring to pay in cash

Mr Paphides told The Times: "My dad was unsure what an app was and his bank details were not on his phone.

"He saw that there was a camera, he knew that he would probably be liable for a fine. He was anxious, it was playing on his mind."

Not wishing to miss the service, Mr Paphides’ father parked anyway and asked his son to take care of the fee.

However Mr Paphides said that he was only able to fill in a form on a website, to which he received no response.

Sadly his father then passed away and it was while Mr Paphides sorted through his belongings that he discovered the unpaid fines.

Mr Paphides said that the parking company “didn’t believe me” when he told them his father had died.

Regarding the response and the issue of elderly drivers’ frustration, Mr Paphides said: "In a way I'm not that surprised — these people just don't have a voice.

“The tragic thing is, a lot of them don't even expect to have a voice. They think they have been forgotten and no one is listening."

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/24/590x/secondary/Many-car-park-operators-have-an-automated-line-to-call-in-order-to-pay-4089407.webp?r=1653480781101)
Many car park operators have an automated line to call in order to pay

Consumer champion Dame Esther Rantzen has taken the issue on and asked ministers to intervene to stop elderly drivers being forced to use the apps.

She said the problem was so bad that it was stopping some elderly people from leaving the house.

She told the Mail: “Because parking your car means independence, it means that somebody can get out and about who otherwise might be imprisoned at home.”

There are currently 13 councils in the UK who have moved to completely cashless car parks.

Dame Esther, 81, admitted to having not paid for parking in the past due to the convoluted systems.

She said: “I have been slightly irreverent and thought, well, if they don't care about me, I don't care about them.

“If you're making a demand for payment without offering any alternative or someone on the end of a phone, then if the other person is 55-plus, they should not be liable to prosecution.”

Since the start of last year, cashless council car parks have collected £257million in fines.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1615799/parking-fines-elderly-drivers-apps-anger (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1615799/parking-fines-elderly-drivers-apps-anger)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 27 September, 2023, 02:36:48 PM
#279

Bristol Airport £100 fine ‘too ridiculous to be true’ says driver who stopped after crash

He said he had no other choice than to stop because of the crash, but was still fined

ByTanya Waterworth
00:01, 7 AUG 2023


(https://i2-prod.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/article4432845.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/10_Bristol-Airport-Sign.jpg)

A driver who was involved in a minor crash as he left Bristol Airport's ‘drop and go’ parking, has appealed the £100 fine he received for stopping in a ‘No Stopping’ zone at the airport. He said he had no other choice than to stop because of the crash.

Steve Usher, a private hire driver from Bradley Stoke, said the collision which saw his vehicle being rear-ended, happened on June 27 when it was particularly busy at the airport. He said: “It was really busy, there were queues to get in and out. When I got out of the exit barrier of ‘Drop and Go’, it was gridlocked.”

The collision took place as Mr Usher was trying to leave the airport. Driving the bigger of the two vehicles, Mr Usher said: “I couldn’t pull away or my vehicle would have torn off the front of the other car.”

He said that while they were trying to free the smaller car and he was exchanging insurance details, “the airport car with the camera actually stopped to see if we needed help or if anyone was hurt.” He received the £100 fine for stopping in a ‘No Stopping’ zone about a week later.

“They fined me £100 for being hit up the backside, it’s too ridiculous to be true. There’s no phone number to call anyone when you get the fine, but I appealed it straight away,” he said.

Mr Usher said he had received another fine in the ‘No Stopping’ zone about 18 months ago when he was dropping a passenger off at the hotel airport. He said: “You get a ticket for the hotel parking which you can get validated.

“But the barrier into the car park was not working, apparently due to heavy rain at that time. So I let my passenger out and took his payment which was timed on the camera as 47 seconds. I received a £100 fine two days later.”

He said after months of ‘appeals and stress’ during which time the fine had risen to £491, the matter went to court in February this year. He said the case was dismissed and he was awarded costs in the amount of £129.

Often dropping passengers off at the airport, Mr Usher said he could go to the airport up to four times a day. He said : “I do agree with the red lines and zebra crossings, they are good rules and I know not to stop on the red lines, but there has to be some leeway,” he said.

While the road management around the airport is provided by a third party provider and the airport is unable to comment on individual fines, a spokesperson for Bristol Airport said: “All of the internal roadways at the Airport have experienced a longstanding issue with vehicles stopping in unsafe areas, particularly on pedestrian crossings. This poses a high risk to the safety of our customers, colleagues and business partners and causes delay and congestion to other road users.

"We conducted research with other airports around the UK and investigated the use of an external company providing us with an enforcement service. Signs across the site further underline the message to all customers. Drivers breaking the rules may face charges which will be enforced through a combination of fixed cameras and mobile patrols.

“Facilities are available close to the terminal for vehicles picking up (Short Stay and Pick Up) and dropping off (Drop & Go) passengers, and a waiting zone offering free parking for up to 60 minutes is available. The free car park is located by the entrance to Silver Zone and is linked to the terminal by a frequent shuttle bus service" said the spokesperson.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-airport-100-fine-too-8650130?int_source=nba (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-airport-100-fine-too-8650130?int_source=nba)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 January, 2024, 03:32:01 PM
#280

Couple warn motorists after being stunned by £100 parking fine 'when they were 70 miles away'

They say they won't pay

ByRobert Rowlands
07:03, 25 SEP 2020


(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article4547012.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_LBP_STO_120718Parking_Fine_002JPG.jpg)

A couple have issued a warning to motorists after they say they were unfairly given a £100 parking fine.

Fred Taylor, 68, said he was fined after parking twice in the same car park in one day.

He insists he parked with his wife Christine at the Springfield Retail Park in Bulwell, near Nottingham, for 10 minutes in the morning - and then another 30 later that day after a day trip to Warwick, which is 70 miles away.

But he says parking company Premier Park told him he parked there for seven hours - and wants him to cough up.

Now he is warning others about the issue - and says he will not pay.

He says the fine is totally "unacceptable", and even his local MP is fighting his case.

Mr Taylor told Nottinghamshire Live : “When we got the ticket I said to my wife that it didn’t make sense as we weren’t even there, we were spending the day in Warwick.

“It has been a massive nightmare.

"We went into the retail park at around 8am to get petrol from Morrisons and we went again to the supermarket at 3.15pm in the afternoon to get our tea.

“You couldn’t possibly spend seven hours there.”

Mr Taylor said they stopped at the retail park for about 10 minutes at 8am to fill up the car with petrol at Morrisons.

He says they then left for a day out in Warwick, before returning to the Morrisons at 3.15pm to buy food.

This time he says they spent 30 minutes in the privately-managed car park - and given a ticket unfairly for violating the time limit.

The Taylors' daughter Julie Muckle stepped in to fight their corner - and now they are appealing the decision.

However, they say parking firm Premier Park have been impossible to get hold of.

He said: “I would have just paid the fine without my daughter helping us to appeal it. We would’ve had nowhere else to turn.

“I spent an hour in Halifax getting bank statements to prove that we were in Warwick for the day.

(https://i2-prod.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/incoming/article4547015.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/0_JS219399585.jpg)
Fred and Christine Taylor

“On several occasions, I phoned Premier Park but all I got back was an automated message.”

Julie Muckle said she used receipts to prove definitively that the couple were not at the car park for more than seven hours.

She said she had to spend "hours" appealing the fine.

The couple are now awaiting a decision on their appeal.

The daughter, from Hucknall in Nottinghamshire, said: “When they got the fine last Wednesday, my mum who has dementia was really anxious about it so they were just going to pay it.

"It blew them out of the water.

“If you’re an elderly person and you don’t have a smartphone it is very difficult to appeal. I told them not to pay it out of principle.

“To have it hanging over them is just stress they don’t need.

"But they are absolutely not paying it, I will take them to court. It is totally unacceptable.

“I am livid about it. Using fear tactics to force people to pay fines absolutely needs addressing.”

Now Alex Norris, MP for Nottingham North, is planning to meet with Premier Park representatives.

He said: "People shouldn't be getting pushed into paying fines for things they haven't done.

"The system needs to work properly. I will support residents in their appeals and I will write to Premier Park to call for action."

Premier Park have been approached for comment.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/premier-park-parking-fine-warning-4547011 (https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/premier-park-parking-fine-warning-4547011)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 January, 2024, 03:40:20 PM
#281

Man who gave up his home to accommodate Lidl expansion is fined after visiting the store twice in one day

A customer was sent a £90 parking ticket after visiting Lidl on Cromwell Road twice in a two-and-a-half hour period

By Paige Freshwater Digital Content Writer
06:00, 31 OCT 2018UPDATED10:58, 31 OCT 2018


(https://i2-prod.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article2166799.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_RBP_HMB_251018LIDL_002JPG.jpg)

A 67-year-old man who was sent a parking ticket after visiting a Grimsby store twice in one day is urging shoppers to keep their receipts in case of a dispute.

Peter Waters was posted a £90 parking fine along with photographs of his car entering and exiting Lidl car park after collecting his groceries on Monday, October 15.

However Peter soon noted an error in the Cromwell Road store's camera system which recorded him entering on his first visit and exiting on his second, making it appear he had overstayed the car park's 90 minute limit.

Ironically, he was one of the nearby homeowners who sold up to make way for a huge expansion of the store a few years ago.

His partner Diane Sharman said: "I would like to warn people about Lidl's car park on Cromwell Road.

"You are photographed as you enter and leave and are fined if you stay more than 90 minutes.

"We visited twice in one day and it only registered the first entry and last exit, looking as though we were there over two hours."

(https://i2-prod.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article2149397.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200e/8_Lidl-on-Cromwell-Road.jpg)

Peter said he drove into Lidl's car park at 9.57am and left at 10.07am before returning later that same day at 12.21pm and leaving just one minute later at 12.22pm.

However four days later, Peter was posted a £90 fine which could reduce to £45 if paid within 14 days, but he said he has "no intention of paying either".

Diane added: "Luckily we had the receipts which we don't always have and we have to sent them off with a letter to appeal.

"I just wanted to ask people to keep their receipts as it looks as though the cameras and not operated properly and without them we would not have had proof."

Peter, who sold his home on Marshall Avenue to make room for the store's expansion, spoke to the manager, who apparently said the car park has nothing to do with the store.

He said: "I went into Lidi and asked to speak with the manager. He told me the car park is nothing to do with them.

"Whoever does own the car park doesn't appear to be doing their job properly because we didn't overstay, we visited twice in one day.

"If this happened to an elderly person who didn't or couldn't read the fine letter properly then they might just go ahead and pay it.

"These things need checking more thoroughly because other people could be fined if they are visiting twice in one day as well."

A Lidl spokesperson said: "We were very sorry to hear of this matter, which unfortunately occurred due to a technical error.

"We can confirm that, as soon as they were made aware, Athena ANPR immediately made arrangements to cancel the parking charge.

"We would like to reassure customers that the car park management system is in place to help ensure availability of parking spaces for our customers and help prevent misuse.

"In the unfortunate event that a customer wrongfully receives a parking charge, we encourage them to get in contact with Athena ANPR, so that the matter can be swiftly resolved."

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/lidl-parking-ticket-grimsby-fine-2147129 (https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/lidl-parking-ticket-grimsby-fine-2147129)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 09 January, 2024, 03:56:07 PM
#282

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25282220.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200d/2_JAJ_TEM_191021Kimberley_004JPG.jpg)
Linsey Ellis parked at Kimberley Shopping in Nottingham.

NHS worker slapped with ‘unfair’ £170 parking charge after popping to shops

Linsey Ellis claimed she was wrongly given a fine after parking at the Kimberley Shopping Centre car park at the site twice on the same day for no longer than 15 minutes each time

By Jack Thurlow Graeme Murray News Reporter
10:33, 23 Oct 2021


An NHS worker is furious after being hit by an 'unfair' £170 parking charge.

Linsey Ellis was given a parking ticket after going to the shops on August 23.

The parking sign at the Kimberley Shopping Centre, Nottingham, tells drivers they can park for up to 90 minutes for free.

But Linsey claimed she was wrongly given a fine after she parking at the car park at the site twice on the same day for no longer than 15 minutes each time.

Nottinghamshire Live reports how she didn't receive an initial letter notifying her of the charge, which has now risen to £170.

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25282225.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JAJ_TEM_191021Kimberley_005JPG.jpg)

Linsey said: "I 100 percent haven't overrun the 90 minutes and didn't receive the first letter, so it just is all a bit mad.

"I just felt like it was really unfair."

Explaining what happened, she said: "I had that week off and in the morning at 8.45 I went to Greggs to get a coffee for my mum before I picked her up.

"We had gone out for the morning and then after that I had some clothes that I'd sorted out during lockdown and I wanted to take them to the charity shop, so I thought now I will drop my mum off, I'll pick up my clothes and take them to the charity shop.

"So I'd gone in that car park twice but I bet each time I wasn't there 15 minutes each time.

"Some car parks say you can't return but it doesn't say that at this car park."

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25282223.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JAJ_TEM_191021Kimberley_001JPG.jpg)
Linsey was fined for returning to the car park at Kimberley Shopping Centre in Nottinghamshire, twice in one day

Linsey has now been weighing up whether or not to pay the fine to avoid the stress of potentially being taken to court.

She said: "Now I am kind of thinking 'no, I don't want to pay it, but is it less stressful just to pay it?'

"Because I am being told if I don't pay it within two days 'you will get letters from our solicitors about a court date'," the QMC worker said.

She said the parking charge was dated on August 23 - but that she didn't receive a letter until the end of last week.

The 38-year-old said she was told her parking notice had risen to £170 after being accused of failing to respond to a first letter from Smart Parking LTD, which she claims never arrived in the post

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article25282197.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JAJ_TEM_191021Kimberley_003JPG.jpg)

"The letter said I had not answered a previous letter so the fine had gone up to £170 and if I didn't pay it within seven days then they'd take me to court," she said.

"They said that I overstayed the free amount of time."

Independent councillor Richard Robinson, who represents Kimberley on Broxtowe Borough Council, has taken up her case.

He said he has already successfully appealed parking charges for two people, helping them overturn their fines.

Councillor Robinson said: "I've contacted this company on numerous occasions but I think that they realise that people are onto them now. It's happening a lot."

NottinghamshireLive approached Smart Parking LTD for comment but the firm has not responded.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-worker-slapped-unfair-170-25282131 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-worker-slapped-unfair-170-25282131)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 March, 2024, 11:18:03 AM
#283

High Wycombe: Morrisons responds after man is fined for parking

28th April 2023

(https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/resources/images/16716439.jpg?type=mds-article-962)

A supermarket has responded to customer complaints over ‘ridiculous’ parking fines.

Morrisons, Britain’s fifth largest supermarket chain, has responded to frustrated customers after shoppers were fined at its High Wycombe store car park.

A motorist raised the alarm over “borderline fraudulent” ANPR cameras after he was fined £100 following a trip to Morrisons store and petrol station car wash.

SJ Machrihanish received the hefty fine after shopping and queueing at the car wash meant he had spent more than two hours in the area managed by Euro Car Parks.

However, he had thought the petrol station on Parker Knoll Way, was outside the time limited car park.

Now Morrisons has spoken out about the parking situation.

A spokesperson from Morrisons said: "The changes were introduced back in the summer of 2020 and so have been in place for some time now.

“Our team will take another look at the location of the signs to make sure they are really clear."

READ MORE: Chesham: Whelpley Hill pothole damages woman's car

Although his fine was later cancelled after he raised the issue with Morrisons, Mr Machrihanish wanted to warn others to stay vigilant when parking there.

Other Bucks motorists shared their experience at the car park.

Maureen Matthews said: “I got a fine and just paid it begrudgingly.”

Hannah Walsh, who was fined £60 after a trip to Morrisons and the car wash, commented: “Had I known the £2.99 car wash would end up costing me £60, I wouldn't have bothered waiting! I entered an appeal with Euro Car Parks but it's been rejected.”

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/23485063.high-wycombe-morrisons-responds-man-fined-parking/ (https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/23485063.high-wycombe-morrisons-responds-man-fined-parking/)
Title: Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
Post by: Web Admin on 14 March, 2024, 11:48:24 AM
#284

I was fined £100 for queuing up at a carwash queue

The forecourt cameras only monitor the time a car arrives and departs rather than what the owner does on site

Zoe Wood
Tue 3 Oct 2023 07.00 BST


My husband had to wait in a long queue at the carwash at the Applegreen petrol station near our home in Bristol, and was shocked when a £100 fine (£60 if paid within a fortnight) arrived in the post from the car park management firm Parkingeye.

We appealed and sent it evidence: the actual carwash ticket, the receipt and credit card payment – but it was rejected. We went back to the petrol station and the staff there promised to get the fine cancelled.

But we have since received a “final notice” from Parkingeye for the £100, which threatens further action, including hiring a debt recovery firm or pursuing legal action if we do not pay. We tried going back to the petrol station but the staff seemed unable to help. This doesn’t seem fair.

MW, Bristol


I receive a fair number of letters from readers battling parking charges, with the proliferation of parking apps and number plate recognition software turning the once simple process of using a car park into a technological nightmare.

In this instance, the cameras monitoring this forecourt clock the time a car arrives and departs rather than what the owner does while on site, which in your case involved sitting in a queue.

However, when we contacted the Applegreen head office, they intervened, and the fine has been cancelled. They also contacted you directly to apologise.

Applegreen said: “The customer shouldn’t have been charged in this instance. When they contacted Applegreen locally to query the charge, the fine should have been cancelled at that point, as it is clear they were waiting for a carwash. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. We are happy to resolve the matter and again offer our apologies.”

You were determined not to pay this charge despite the threatened consequences as it was “so bizarre” to be fined for queueing at a carwash. This is not the first time this has happened and is a reminder to be vigilant of signs setting out the maximum stay allowed. Still, a parking tale with a happy ending.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/03/i-was-fined-100-for-queuing-up-at-a-carwash-queue (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/03/i-was-fined-100-for-queuing-up-at-a-carwash-queue)