Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 290160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #315 on: 18 July, 2023, 02:29:48 PM »

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.

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.

"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.”

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #316 on: 19 July, 2023, 06:14:23 AM »

Parking ticket fury after ‘incorrect’ enforcement

10th December 2019

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.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #317 on: 30 August, 2023, 07:26:31 AM »

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.

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.

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. has contacted CP Plus for a comment.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #318 on: 30 August, 2023, 07:37:59 AM »

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.

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.

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."

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.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #319 on: 27 September, 2023, 02:36:48 PM »

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

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.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #320 on: 09 January, 2024, 03:32:01 PM »

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

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.

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.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #321 on: 09 January, 2024, 03:40:20 PM »

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

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."

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."

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #322 on: 09 January, 2024, 03:56:07 PM »

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.

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."

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

"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.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #323 on: 14 March, 2024, 11:18:03 AM »

High Wycombe: Morrisons responds after man is fined for parking

28th April 2023

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.”

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #324 on: 14 March, 2024, 11:48:24 AM »

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.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #325 on: 08 April, 2024, 03:35:19 PM »

PARKING MAD I was fined £70 for dropping my daughters off at work – it was a technical glitch that should never have happened

Will Potter
Published: 14:04, 1 Nov 2022

A MUM-of-two was slapped with a £70 fine for staying in a supermarket car park for over nine hours – but claims that she actually just briefly visited the car park twice in the same day.

Elizabeth Summerill, 66, said that she was left feeling “shocked and angry” after receiving the unwarranted penalty bill.

Elizabeth Summerrill, 66, was fined £70 for parking in a Tesco car park for over 9 hours – but instead just briefly visited twice in one dayCredit: Ronald Summerill

The full-time carer, from Kingswood, Bristol, said she drops her two adult daughters off every morning at a Tesco car park next to their job at an opticians.

As neither daughter drives, Elizabeth's son-in-law picks them up at night – except for every Thursday when he is unavailable.

But after running her routine drop-off and pick up on Thursday, October 6, she was stunned to be later fined £70 for allegedly staying in the car park from just after 8AM to almost 5.30PM.

Due to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, Elizabeth and her husband Ronald, also 66, said they quickly paid the fine at the reduced rate of £30 as they feared losing out on even more hard-earned cash.

Horizon Parking, which runs the Tesco car park in Keynsham, near Bristol, says on its website it is “unable to deal with complaints over the telephone”.

But the couple said the company's automated online system is overly complicated, making it harder for people in their position to pursue an appeal.

Ronald slammed the faulty camera system as a "cash cow", and said he paid the fine quickly as he worried they could miss the discount period of 14 days.

Ronald, who is disabled and bed-bound due to an adverse reaction to a hepatitis B vaccine 15 years ago, added that he needs to avoid additional stress “at all costs” due to his health problems.

He said the financial burden led him to quickly pay the fine “for peace of mind rather than the hassle".

The 66-year-old added: “Cost of living is concerning for all… Sometimes it’s best to pay the £30 and move on."

Elizabeth said that she was “shocked and angry” when she received the unwarranted fine, especially after using the same car park every week for nearly two years.

“I tried to ring [Horizon Parking], and you just get this automated reply," she said.

"It’s just so complicated".

Ronald echoed these criticisms of the online appeal system, slamming the company as having "no way you can talk to anybody" to explain the situation.

He added: “I’m sure this is a scam - why aren’t they questioning the cameras?

“Where is the camera showing the car going out and going in on the same day? So the camera was either faulty or switched off – but they just don’t care.

"I believe they hope the hassle isn’t worth it and, like us, you pay the lower amount."

Horizon Parking have apologised to Ronald and Elizabeth, and said they will refund the fine.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #326 on: 08 April, 2024, 06:05:19 PM »

STOP IT I was slapped with a £70 fine at Asda after parking company claimed I’d stopped for six hours – I’m refusing to pay

Will Potter
Published: 11:46, 20 Oct 2022Updated: 15:50, 20 Oct 2022

A FURIOUS pensioner was unfairly slapped with a £70 fine after parking at Asda.

Rob Clark, 66, was left "really upset" by the parking fiasco at a Grimsby branch of the supermarket chain last month.

Rob Clark, 66, said he nearly paid the fine out of fear despite it being issued in error

Rob was handed the penalty for using the supermarket car park for nearly six hours - but claims that he actually left and then returned later in the day.

Days after his double-trip to the supermarket, Rob was shocked to receive the fine through the post from Parkingeye, who operate the car park.

Parkingeye said they have no record of Rob appealing the fine, but have since cancelled it "as a gesture of goodwill" after being contacted by Grimsby Live.

Rob's stepson, Ryan Dales, said the fine was particularly unfair amid the spiralling cost of living crisis.

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."

Despite providing bank statements and receipts to prove he visited the Asda store twice that day, Rob was told he would still need to pay the fine.

Ryan added: "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.

"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 admitted Rob initially almost paid the discounted £40 fine out of fear, and had to talk his step-dad into challenging the incorrect fine instead.

"It angers me", he continued.

"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."

A spokesperson for Parkingeye 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.

"If anyone has mitigating circumstances then we would encourage them to contact us."

The Sun has approached Asda for comment.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #327 on: 04 May, 2024, 08:48:53 AM »

NO TIME TO FINE Disabled pensioner given ZERO minutes to buy parking ticket before being slapped with £100 fine ‘for taking too long’

"I have no confidence in anything that Excel Parking does"

Jacob Jaffa
Published: 17:00, 16 Jan 2024Updated: 17:08, 16 Jan 2024

A DISABLED pensioner claims to have been given "zero minutes" to buy a parking permit before being slapped with a £100 fine.

Derrick Walker, 73, was handed a hefty penalty charge for taking too long to register on the car park's app but claims that nobody could reasonably do so in the time allowed.

A disabled pensioner was slapped with a £100 parking fine after being given "zero minutes" to pay

Mr Walker was stung for the sum after stopping off at an Excel Parking Services site in Worksop, Nottinghamshire.

He took 18 minutes to download the company's app and enter his bank details, only to receive a fine notice stating that the maximum time allowed in the car park was "zero minutes".

Excel said it was "satisfied" that he had breached their terms and conditions and that the signage on the site stated that customers have five minutes to purchase a permit, but he rejects this completely.

Mr Walker told The Sheffield Star: "I was attempting to register on my mobile and set up payment with HSBC, which I would argue would take an IT-literate person more than zero minutes.

"I have no confidence in anything that Excel Parking does."

Indeed, he was so outraged that he reportedly lodged an appeal with the Independent Appeals Service, though this was apparently unsuccessful.

The service is run by the International Parking Community organisation, which is funded by parking firms including Excel and counts Excel director Simon Renshaw-Smith among its steering committee.

The IPC disputes that any appeal was made and say they have no record of Mr Walker's case.

During the course of his appeal, the fine was increased to £170 due to non-payment and Mr Walker received a letter threatening court action.

An Excel spokesperson stated that Mr Walker had not directly contacted the company to lodge an appeal and that, therefore, the costs had "naturally" increased.

They added: "The signage at the car park made it clear that the appropriate parking tariff needs to be purchased within 5 minutes of arrival.

"Whilst the car park has various methods of payment, cash, card, pay by phone, it took Mr Walker more than 15 minutes to purchase the tariff and as such he was significantly over the time allowed.

"Had he experienced problems when purchasing the tariff he could have contacted our prominently advertised helpline number.

"The PCN specified the reason why it was issued, i.e. 'Failure to purchase the parking tariff for the registration mark of the vehicle on site and/or within the time allowed'.

"Although the PCN specified that the maximum period was 0 (zero), this is only populated with a positive value when a maximum stay car park is applicable."

As such, they reiterated that Excel is "satisfied" with the charge and that the fine "remains valid".

The International Parking Community has been contacted for comment.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4504
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #328 on: 04 May, 2024, 09:04:08 AM »

A parking firm has been accused of running an 'entrapment scheme'

Parking firm accused of 'entrapping' drivers who are fined after 'not seeing' private sign

A councillor has accused Parkingeye of "entrapping" drivers who leave their cars in what they believe to be a public car park in Milton Keynes as he claims a private sign is hidden

ByTim HanlonNews Reporter
15:45, 4 Apr 2024

A car parking company has been accused of running a “racket” by giving out fines to motorists who didn’t realise it was privately owned.

A councillor alleged Parkingeye was “entrapping” drivers at a small private car park that is located between two Milton Keynes City Council parking zones. Drivers have said that it is easily confused with council parking and a sign showing it to be private parking is behind a tree making it difficult to see.

There is nothing to clearly identify the private parking, operated on behalf of the Tenpin bowling alley, as separate such as with a barrier or road markings. And two small signs saying “patrons only” are easily missed, it is claimed.

Drivers claim the tiny private car park is easily confused for a council one

Initially Parkingeye had an entrance sign on a lamp post that was situated by a council parking meter but at the end of last year the company and Tempin were told to have remove it by Milton Keynes Council, as it was fastened to a lamp post.

The sign was removed and now it is claimed to be difficult to see as it is behind a tree. John Baker, a senior councillor at Central Bedfordshire Council has hit out at Parkingeye alleging that it is running an illegal scheme.

The car park does not have any road markings or barriers at either entrance to separate it from the adjacent council parking

He told "When I learnt about this scheme, and visited the site myself, I was appalled to find Parkingeye had erected a 'Private parking' sign on an MK City Council lamp post, adjacent to an MK Council parking ticket machine. The 'private' car park was immediately adjacent, and looks no different to the vast areas of MK Council parking bays within Central Milton Keynes.

"I also discovered another MK Council parking machine at the other end of the 'private' car park. Parkingeye had clearly set up an entrapment scheme, encouraging residents to purchase an MK Council parking ticket before hitting them with a £100 charge for spending just a few minutes in the 'private' car park."

Many people have taken to social media to complain about the parking

Mr Baker claimed that the company subsequently "hid" signs behind a tree and on a building - neither of which are clearly visible to motorists.

He said: "It is clear that Parkingeye is using an automated system to hound residents through the County Court, only giving up when a motorist requests a hearing with a judge to point out the failings in the scheme. This abuse of the County Court process is merely holding up other legitimate claims. It's about time the government legislated to outlaw these rackets, forcing private parking companies to be licensed by local councils. Without a license, a parking company should have no access to DVLA records, and hence would be unable to do business.

Parkingeye claimed that there are 11 signs around the car park to give maximum visibility

"Companies such as Parkingeye are running the modern-day equivalent of clamping. With the correct controls in place, we can clamp down on poor behaviour, allowing private landowners to operate legitimate car parking schemes without motorists being forced to spend hours fighting unfair charges."

He also wrote on Facebook: “March 2024: Parking Eye has cut away some hedge to attach a sign to (someone else's?) railings, and hedge is now fighting back.. by growing. Entrance signs are not enough on their own: signage is required around the car park, to ensure the motorist is aware of the charges.”

A Parkingeye spokesperson said: "ANPR technology is designed to ensure that a parking charge will only be issued when the rules of the car park have been broken"

Many people have taken to social media to complain about the parking after Mr Baker shared a post about it on social media. "This is typical of PE ( and many other unscrupulous private parking companies) across the country,” alleged one person. “Well done for raising more awareness. People should share this kind of post for general awareness of this going on everywhere. They have a business model built on 'catching' people out, that's their income full stop.”

Another comment said: “Thank you for all the information, it’s a pity you didn’t post this 4 days ago. I paid £20 after sending an appeal to PE and they gave that option,” and a person replied: I did exactly the same as you, paying them £20 after they rejected my appeal. I was parked in a space for 8 minutes whilst dropping my son off at the alley for a party!”

Meanwhile, Parkingeye claimed that there are 11 signs around the car park to give maximum visibility. A spokesperson for Parkingeye told The Mirror: “An Automatic Number Plate Recognition car park management system works where a camera detects a vehicle registration entering and leaving a car park.

“ANPR technology is designed to ensure that a parking charge will only be issued when the rules of the car park have been broken, such as the correct tariff hasn’t been paid or they’ve overstayed. The car park at Tenpin in Milton Keynes is private land and has clear, prominent and fully-compliant signage at both entrances and throughout.

“There are a total of 11 signs positioned throughout the car park for maximum visibility, advising that the car park is for customers only. The signage informs customers of Tenpin that they should enter their vehicle details in the terminal at reception to receive 12 hours free parking.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge. Our correspondence provides clear advice and guidance on how motorists can use our appeals process to highlight any mitigating circumstances.”

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #329 on: 27 May, 2024, 09:22:59 AM »

I got a parking ticket waiting in the McDonald's drive-thru:

Reader wound up with parking charge after waiting 16 minutes for cup of coffee

McDonald's says it's up to to the firm who runs the adjacent car park to sort it
Have you been wronged by a firm? Email


UPDATED: 11:52, 6 October 2023

I received a parking ticket for buying a cup of coffee from my local McDonald's drive-thru.

The McDonald's is on a retail park, which also includes a car park. Both are accessed through the same entrance.

So my car was photographed entering and leaving, even though I didn't park – just joined the queue, waited, got my drink and and left.

I received the parking charge notice a few days later which was for £100, falling to £60 if I paid within 14 days.

Just passing through: But our reader was given a parking charge when waiting for his McDonald's order (stock image)

The PCN recorded me as staying for 16 minutes. This was in the early hours of the morning when there is no free parking.

I understand there is a 15-minute 'grace period,' which I must have overstayed by a matter of seconds due to the slow-moving queue.

I got the PCN over a bank holiday and couldn't reach the company on the phone, so I panicked and paid it.

But this seems most unfair as I was not 'parked' at any time. I didn't even enter the car park area. I simply joined a moving queue to purchase from the McDonald's.

I have contacted the McDonald's head office and it won't do anything. Can you help?

A.J, Poole

Helen Crane of This is Money replies: That is certainly an expensive cup of coffee, and I can understand why the experience has left you with a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the fast food chain.

You told me you haven't ordered from the offending restaurant since this happened a couple of months ago, such is your ire - though you did add that it has been good for your waistline.

McDonald's doesn't operate the car park – that is down to Group Nexus, a private parking firm which has an agreement with the owner of the land it sits on.

But I'd argue that McDonald's must shoulder some responsibility here.

Potentially having to pay for parking to sit in its drive-thru queue is McMadness.

You told staff at the restaurant about the charge, and they said others had also received similar letters.

I spoke to McDonald's, pointing out that the car parking rules were causing some beef between this restaurant and its loyal customers.

I suggested it could speak to Group Nexus to try and solve the car park problem, or at least put up a sign to make drivers aware that they might risk a charge while waiting for their food.

While there are plenty of general signs around the car park, I don't think it's at all fair to assume that waiting at the window of a drive-thru would constitute being parked.

But McDonald's spokesman told me that it was the responsibility of the car park operator and there was nothing it could do.

I then approached Group Nexus – though I'll admit it was without much hope. In my experience, car parking firms can be spiky and tend to stick to their charges no matter what.

But I'm pleased to say I was wrong, and it actually took a very sensible approach.

Coffee to go: But our reader ended up paying far more than the price of his drink when he was slapped with a parking penalty

It told me it would refund the £60 you paid. Even better, it said it would extend the grace period for customers popping in for a late-night snack - though it didn't say by how long.

A spokesman said: 'When we took over this site in June, we agreed a sensible grace period with the landlord based on historic customer usage patterns, to allow McDonald's drive-thru customers enough time to order and collect.

'However, since then, there have been a small number of cases with out of hours (midnight-6am) customers using the drive thru where more time was required.

'So, with the agreement of the landlord, we have recently extended the grace period to be more accommodating.

'We enforce a limited grace period during these hours to prevent abuse and antisocial behaviour.'

It has also cancelled all PCNs currently going through the appeal process, if they relate to this drive-thru.

'If anyone appealed a PCN due to spending longer using the drive through, prior to the extension at the end of August, their PCN has been cancelled,' the spokesman added.

A victory for common sense, and for fans of the Big Mac. I'm lovin' it!


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player