Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 112224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #30 on: 15 November, 2015, 08:00:29 PM »
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.





 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
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #31 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

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.”
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #32 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
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #33 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
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #34 on: 15 November, 2015, 08:45:50 PM »
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
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #35 on: 15 November, 2015, 08:54:04 PM »
Annnnnddddd rest.... <Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline dangerous beanz

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #36 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:
If there is a tourist season...how come we can't shoot them?

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #37 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

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

16 November 2015



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.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #38 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.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #39 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

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.


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.'
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #40 on: 18 November, 2015, 07:54:42 PM »
Man's shopping trolley gets £100 parking fine


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.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #41 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

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #42 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:



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

Stafford motorists hit out at "unfair" parking charges



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.



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
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2224
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #43 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

 <flyingpig>
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #44 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

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

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



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.”
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player