Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 154216 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #75 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.

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.


Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #76 on: 31 May, 2016, 11:57:37 PM »

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."

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".
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 Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #77 on: 02 August, 2016, 12:59:38 PM »
Grandmother fined £70 for going to car park twice

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.

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.’

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #78 on: 02 August, 2016, 01:06:17 PM »
Driver slams parking enforcers after he is fined £100 for visiting shop twice in a day - now cancelled after Gazette inquiry

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.”

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #79 on: 02 August, 2016, 01:13:51 PM »
Driver in row over parking fine at Focus in Dorchester

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.”

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #80 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.

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.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #81 on: 02 August, 2016, 01:29:39 PM »
Asda Altrincham car park: 'How many others are getting unjustified fines?'

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


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #82 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.

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.

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.'

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #83 on: 12 September, 2016, 02:54:38 PM »
There is no reason I can think of as to why the system cannot be configured so that it would not accept a number plate that the anpr cameras have not picked up.

Strike that!

Silly me. I've missed the obvious one haven't I.



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’.

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.

‘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.

‘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.’

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #84 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.

Offline BGB

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 661
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #85 on: 14 September, 2016, 08:48:34 PM »
'TAKE ME TO COURT THEN' Driver with two near identical personalised number plates keeps getting fines for the car parked in his garage.

The dad has racked up nearly £500 in fines from the Dartford Tunnel

A DRIVER has racked up almost £500 in fines using the Dartford Tunnel because of a computer mix up.

Bob Long, 63, owns a fleet of vehicles with personalised number plates and regularly uses his Jeep, which has the reg ‘1 ONG’, to travel on business using the automatic Dart Charge.

But ANPR cameras on the Dartford Tunnel are mistaking the licence plate for his rarely-used classic car which he keeps in the garage.

The 1959-era Fiat 500 has the plates ’10 NG’ and isn’t registered to the automatic £2.50 charge – meaning Bob is getting stung with a £70 penalty notice every time he uses the tunnel.

Jeweller Bob, from Bungay in Suffolk, said: “Ever since I set up an automatic payment system on my jeep to make my life easier I’ve been getting these charges.”

He added: “They (courts) can’t find against me, my case is one million percent water tight, I wouldn’t let it get go to court otherwise, in fact I’m quite looking forward to getting the next ticket, to make them look such bloody idiots.”

If he were to take an alternative and not use the Dartford Crossing, by travelling through North London, it would add at least an hour to his journey.

The Dart Charge system has been beset with a number of issues since the introduction of the remote payment system in April 2014.

A Highways England spokesperson has since said: “We are aware of Mr Long’s situation.

“Our review team did check each of his crossings at the time and ensured that they were allocated to the correct vehicle.

“Unfortunately, a technical fault occurred which meant that the penalty charge notices were still generated in error.

“We have investigated the error, the notices have now been cancelled, and an apology is on its way to Mr Long.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #86 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.

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


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #87 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.

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.

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.

This article from Parking Trend International magazine (2008) 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.


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #88 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


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4366
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #89 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.

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.

Here is the picture of the motorist reversing into the entrance in the morning. Once again, the reversing lights are on.

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.

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


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player