Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 99037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #90 on: 30 October, 2016, 10:29:20 AM »
Another one from Pranky

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


Saturday, 29 October 2016

ParkingEye lose in court - unsolved mystery with ticket machine was not defendant's fault

Claim No C0FC15W4, ParkingEye v Ms G. Judge Middleton, County Court at Bodmin. 2pm, 26 October 2016

In this case Ms G paid for a parking ticket at Tower Road Newquay, but due to a machine malfunction the registration number was not printed on the ticket. ParkingEye therefore claimed that a breach of contract had occurred.

Ms G didn't reply to ParkingEyes initial charge on April 4th, which accused her of getting a parking charge either because she either hadn't paid for enough parking time or had overstayed. This, together with photos and times of her going in and out was the only data given. There were no other explanations or evidence and as Ms G knew she had paid and left within time she treated it as 'spam'.

Eventually ParkingEye filed a court claim in June. Ms G had to file a defence not knowing what she had done wrong, and asked ParkingEye several times for information without reply. On August 20 they replied to her defence sending a printout which proved, linked with the entry & exit times that she had paid after all but there was a blank space where the VRN should have been.

ParkingEye therefore added a new particular of claim to their reply to defence that the defendant had paid after all, but had breached the contract by not entering a correct VRN.

However, it is not possible to get a ticket without entering a VRN. Ms G went back to the car park prepared to invest £1.50 to prove this. The machines would not issue a ticket unless a VRN was entered.

The Hearing

In court, Ms G was ready to resort to the fact that they had neglected to accuse her of the missing VRN in the first place. (Prankster Note - claimants are not allowed to change the particulars of claim without filing a form and paying a fee. ParkingEye are well aware of this because they include this information in their reply to defence)

However, the judge knew you couldn't get a ticket without entering a VRN and that some blip had occurred. He could see Ms G had stayed for less time than she had paid.

He first asked their representative to explain why this had come to court when Ms G had clearly paid. The guy said something to the effect that 'I think PE were saying it was breach of contract by not putting the number in...'

The hearing was over in 10 minutes and the judge dismissed the claim. The exact reason for machine failure remained an unsolved mystery not central to the judgment.

Prankster Note

Although this wa a good win for Ms G, she still felt truly intimidated and bullied by the things ParkingEye wrote - as if she set out to cheat them when the most she could have done was have made an unintentional mistake, and in all probability this was a machine failure.

Modern ticket machines do not let you enter a registration unless the ANPR detects that the vehicle is in the car park. ParkingEye could enable this on their systems, but this would cut down on the number of parking charges they could issue, because relying on mistakes is the central core of their business.

There are a number of known errors with the parking machines ParkingEye and Excel parking use and several recent cases have been dismissed due to machine errors.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #91 on: 30 October, 2016, 11:38:07 PM »
Once again courtesy of the Prankster

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


Sunday, 30 October 2016

ParkingEye ANPR flaw at M40 Oxford Services

ParkingEye have yet again failed to cancel a parking charge wrongly issued by their flawed ANPR.

In this case the vehicle keeper (Stan) visited a friend for her 50th birthday party in Oxford, travelling in convoy with another vehicle. They stopped at the M40 Oxford Services between 13.55 and 14.10 for 15 minutes. On the way back, they popped in to fill up with petrol, stopping from around 18:35 to 18:45.

Some days later Stan received a parking charge from ParkingEye accusing him of staying in the car park for 4 hours and 52 minutes.

Stan appealed, explaining that he visited the car park twice on his way to and from a party.

ParkingEye requested proof.

Stan sent them 3 witness statements confirming he was at the party.

ParkingEye ignored this, and sent a letter asking Stan who the driver was.

Stan sent another letter, telling them to read his previous two letters and witness statements

ParkingEye told Stan he had reached the end of their internal appeal process and gave him a POPLA code

Stan appealed to POPLA, including as evidence the witness statements and also a photo he took at the party.



ParkingEye submitted a 93 page evidence pack, including 40 pages listing the last 3 digits of all the vehicles that had entered and exited the services that day.

The registration details of Stan's friend's car was not listed amongst all these numbers, despite the fact that he, too, had also visited the service station twice.

Stan sent an email to POPLA pointing this out, along with a signed statement from his friend including his registration number.

POPLA upheld the appeal

Prankster Note

It is clear that ParkingEyes ANPR is fatally flawed. Stan's friend passed the entrance/exit four times, yet his registration was not listed even once in ParkingEye's printout.

Stan also passed four times and his registration was only listed twice.

ParkingEye are fully aware their ANPR is not fit for purpose yet their appeals service fail to cancel charges even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

This situation is not healthy and need to be addressed.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-anpr-flaw-at-m40-oxford.html

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1690
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #92 on: 31 October, 2016, 09:58:11 AM »
Having been to Oxford MWSA on a number of occasions, I know that the fuel area and the car parking area are totally separate - to get to the fuel, you turn right, to park you go left. It would appear that PE have positioned the ANPR so that it captures every vehicle going into the Services regardless of whether they park or not. Revenue maximising? Surely not!!

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #93 on: 04 November, 2016, 01:33:56 PM »
Driver, 23, is fined £100 for a seven hour stay in a car park but he claims all he did was two different three-point turns at the entrance

A driver has been fined £100 for a seven-hour stay in a car park he claims he never even entered.
George Chihaia, 23, has been embroiled in a four-month battle to clear his name after being hit with the charge for an apparent stay at the National Car Parks site.

But the groundworker from Edgware, north London, insists his Chevrolet Aveo did not access the car park at Canons Park Underground station.




On camera: The groundworker from Edgware, North London, insists his Chevrolet Aveo did not access the car park at Canons Park Underground station (pictured at 5.30pm on July 9, when it is claimed he entered the car park)

He also claims number plate recognition cameras have wrongly clocked his registration while he did two separate three-point turns outside the entrance.

NCP claims its cameras show the Chevrolet entering the Donnefield Avenue car park at 5.30pm on July 9, then exiting at 12.16am the following day.

But Mr Chihaia rubbished the supposed evidence and said he was doing a turn in the road and used on-street parking while he visited a friend’s house nearby.
He said: ‘I am so angry and confused. They say there is clear photographic evidence of me coming and going, but none of their pictures show me in the car park.
‘That is because I never even went in the car park. I did a turn in the road while I looked for a space on the street. Then I did the same when leaving.


In the dark: Mr Chihaia claims cameras have wrongly clocked his registration while he did two separate three-point turns outside the entrance (pictured on July 10 at 12.16am, when it is claimed he left)



Night vision: NCP claims its cameras show the Chevrolet entering the Donnefield Avenue car park at 5.30pm on July 9, then exiting at 12.16am the following day

‘Then I get this letter saying I have been in the tube station car park for almost seven hours. It is not true. My immediate reaction was one of shock.

‘I never even entered the car park, so why should I pay a fine? Their cameras are wrong. The picture taken when it was light is supposed to show me going in to the car park.

‘Why would I be reversing in? It makes no sense. I won’t be paying it and I’ve told them that. They should cancel my ticket.’

In a letter from NCP on July 20, the operator said he was being fined for a ‘failure to make payment upon exit from an ANPR Approved Device controlled car park’.


Appeal response: In a letter submitted to the Parking on Private Land Appeals on October 3, NCP wrote that the ANPR technology picked up the vehicle movements


Letter: Mr Chihaia rubbished the supposed evidence and said he was doing a turn in the road and used on-street parking while he visited a friend’s house nearby


Site: The NCP site at Canons Park Underground station on the Jubilee line in North London

NCP rejected his appeal on August 12, which prompted Mr Chihaia and parking campaigner Derek Dishman - known as Mr Mustard - to present his case to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (Popla) ombudsman service.

In a letter submitted to Popla on October 3, NCP wrote: ‘The appellant has appealed on the basis that they did not park within the operator’s car park and therefore no parking session fee was due.

‘They state they were not parked at the location where the PCN (parking charge notice) had stated and it was for NCP to prove where they had parked.

‘We note the appellant’s comment, however, if the appellant’s vehicle had not entered the operator’s location, the ANPR technology would not have picked up their vehicle movements as shown in the evidence photos.’

NCP also stated that independent research has found Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to be ’99 per cent accurate’.

Mr Chihaia said: ‘I wrote to them July 29 saying I wouldn’t be paying because I wasn’t there.
‘I can’t believe it’s gone this far. Nearly four months later there is no evidence showing my car in the car park. It’s simple.’

An NCP spokesman said: ‘NCP will be happy to speak to Mr Chihaia so that we can understand what has occurred in order to address the situation appropriately.

‘If Mr Chihaia has not in fact used the car park, although his vehicle registration has been identified on our automatic number plate recognition system, then he will not be liable for the PCN. NCP will be contacting Mr Chihaia directly.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892978/Driver-23-fined-100-seven-hour-stay-car-park-says-never-entered.html

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #94 on: 04 November, 2016, 02:14:49 PM »
Excel ANPR flawed. Car was having MOT at the time. Costs awarded to defendant for unreasonableness under 27.14.2.g

C8DP13F2 Excel Parking v Ms S Manchester Court 3/11/2016

In this case Ms S drive through a car park on her way to an MOT, in order to avoid a blocked junction, then drove back again afterwards. Excel's ANPR being flawed, she was issued a parking charge for one long stay. This was disputed, but Excel refused to see sense and dismissed the appeal, then eventually filed a claim through BW Legal.

The Hearing

In the red corner, Mr Pickup of LPC Law; in the Blue corner, Mr Wilkie of PPA.

The claimant claimed, and was supported by both the witness statement and photograph evidence, that the car, driven by the Defendant, entered the Square, Chorlton-Cum-Hardy at 9.51 on 23 Feb 2015, and stayed for 351 minutes. The statement covers the usual issues of Contract, Signage and Pay and Display terms, all of which were fully conceded by the defendant. There was no issue over who was driving, no denial that the car entered at the time stated, or left at the time stated.

The only problem is, the car park, which has two entrances and exits was being "cut through" to avoid a blocked junction, and the driver was taking her car to a garage for an MOT.

Despite this, Excel's ANPR didn't detect her first exit and second entrance, and so an NTK was raised for the full 351 minutes. The Defendant appealed, supplying a copy of the MOT, proving the car could not have been there at the time. This was, as is par for the course, rejected, and the Defendant elected not to ask Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and his joke "Independent" Appeals Service to give an opinion.

BW Legal sued on behalf of Excel. The Defence was the same as the appeal, and again supplied a copy of the MOT. In fact, the Defence and the MOT were the only documents supplied.

It was suggested by Mr Pickup that maybe the car was parked in the car park while it was being MOT'd half a mile away. The judge discounted this, stating that there was no evidence to rebut the timing on the certificate as being a time the car was present at the test centre.

The judge, in summing up, made the point that the Defendant's defence has been consistent throughout, and,given the status of an MOT certificate, this is compelling evidence that the Defendant's car was not present for the entire time.

The judge did point out that signage states the car park is not a right of way, but nothing in the terms deals with trespass and trespass was not pleaded. As such, since the claimant could not rebut the compelling evidence that the car was 1/2  mile away when they claim it was parked, the claim
failed.

Additionally, since the evidence of this had been provided long before proceedings were commenced, this meant the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge therefore found that the claimant had acted unreasonably, and so made an award of punitive costs against the claimant in the sum of £160.95 using CPR 27.14(2)g.

Prankster Note

Parking Companies have a duty to properly consider appeals. ParkingEye, a BPA member, claim that they allow about 60% of appeals, and have a further 45% cancelled at POPLA. Excel are IPC members, and as such do not have a fair and open appeals process. Simon Renshaw-Smith, Excel's main shareholder, stated that the main reason he moved to the IPC was so that he would not lose so many appeals.

It is clear this decision has come to bite him in the foot. There is really no justification for a parking company or an Associated Trade Association to run a sham appeals service.

Mr Pickup was reported to have stormed out following the hearing. The Prankster can sympathise as he had just lost 2 cases on consecutive days; however, he was handed hospital passes by both clients. Mr Pickup can take heart by remembering that his duty as an advocate is to help the courts reach the correct decision, which is not the same as ensuring his clients win. As the correct decision was reached both times, Mr Pickup can sleep soundly in his bed tonight.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/excel-anpr-flawed-car-was-having-mot-at.html

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 #95 on: 11 November, 2016, 01:00:15 AM »
Pensioner fined £100 despite having bought a parking ticket at Aldershot Centre for Health



Unhappy motorist Keith Ayer has been issued with a fine despite having bought a valid ticket at the Aldershot Centre for Health


A pensioner is being told to cough up a £100 parking fine despite having paid for a ticket at Aldershot Centre for Health.

Keith Ayer, of Freshwood Drive in Yateley, said he paid £1.20 for two hours of parking on Wednesday October 26, but has since been slapped with the fine despite telling Smart Parking, the operator, he had paid.

The 67-year-old also said the times on the fine letter do not match up to when he parked there.

“I went in at 11.09am and came out at 11.56am,” he said. “They’re conning people. I’m not paying it.

“I would never not pay for parking because there’s no point. I paid for a parking service, I had a ticket and it was on the vehicle.”



Keith Ayer paid for parking, yet has still been fined


My Ayer said he has been told to send his ticket to Smart Parking, but he ‘doesn’t trust them not to lose it’.

The wrangle is the latest in a long list of complaints about the new automatic number plate recognition system at the centre, introduced at the end of August.

NHS Property Services has advised people to email info@smartparking.com with any queries about fines.



Aldershot Centre for Health, Hospital Hill, Aldershot


A spokesman said last month: “We will continue to review the scheme with Smart Parking and our tenants, Aldershot Centre for Health, and would like to apologise for any confusion or inconvenience the new system has caused.”

Smart Parking has not responded to request for a comment.

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

In other news, Patrick Trouserfire of the Bullshit Purveyors Association is so pleased about the number of innocent motorists being caught out by this flawed technology that he is lobbying government to allow the use of ANPR in council car parks so that even more innocent motorists can be unfairly pursued by unscrupulous BPA Ltd members.

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: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #96 on: 11 November, 2016, 04:57:10 PM »
Another one courtesy of Pranky.

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


Picture of the week - ANPR error

This picture shows how some types of ANPR errors occur. This occurred at the CitiPark Gade car park in Watford.



The second letter 'L' has been misinterpreted as an 'E', possibly because of the faint smear of dirt on the plate. This is a barrier controlled car park, so this could cause a minor problem on exit if the misread does not happen a second time, and different lighting conditions cause the ANPR software to correctly recognise the 'L'.

In an ANPR only car ark where there are no barriers, this could cause the software to record a car which entered but never exited. Normally this would be to the benefit of the motorist, as if they overstayed the ANPR would not know, and no ticket would be issued.

Problems occur if the motorist visits twice, and only the first entrance and second exit are detect. In that case the keeper would be issued a ticket for an overstay, when actually they only made two hort visit.

Although car park operators like to give out the aura that ANPR is infallible, it does actually have a high percentage of errors. This article from Parking Trend International (http://nebula.wsimg.com/496959ac4558db3f7dddddc81ee2f8a6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) reveals that although manufacturers claim 98% reliability, operators find they only get 90%-94% accuracy in real conditions, so as many as 1 in 10 plates are misread. In non-ideal conditions accuracy can fall as low as 60%.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/picture-of-week-anpr-error.html
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #97 on: 21 November, 2016, 05:08:53 PM »
Another one courtesy of Pranky

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


BW Legal incompetence in pursuing double dip case

C8DP22F0 Excel Parking v Mr Bush 16/11/2016 Wakefield, in front of DJ Dodd

In 2014 Mr Bush briefly visited an Excel car park (Providence Street Wakefield) to drop off his friend. He stayed only long enough to do this, and then drove to another car park (Trinity Walk) where he parked up, ran some errands and ate some food. He then returned to pick up his friend, reversing in the car park entrance (but not actually entering the car park), and left.

He was therefore a little surprised ten days later to receive a parking charge for staying two hours in Excel's car park, from 18:12 to 20:15.

He appealed to Excel, but they turned this down and then harassed him for two years before eventually filing a claim.

Mr Bush did not retain his ticket, but did pay by card. His bank sent him a letter timing the purchase at 20:05



The important point to note is that Trinity Walk is a barrier controlled car park. The only way you can get a ticket is by driving a vehicle up to the barrier. The only way you can get your vehicle out is by putting the ticket in a pay machine.

This is therefore pretty conclusive proof that Mr Bush was parked in Trinity Walk, and was not parked in Providence Street.

Mr Bush made many efforts to get Excel to drop the case, but all these fell on deaf ears.

The Hearing

Excel Parking handed the claim management to BW Legal, who used Elms Legal to provide an advocate for the claim. They in turn used a free agent, Miss Devans-Tamakloe, a barrister in search of chambers.

Miss DT was handed a bit of a hospital pass by BW Legal, as they did not give her Mr Bush's witness statements and only gave 1 piece of the 19 pieces of his evidence. Nevertheless, she managed a creditable performance.

Mr Bush had a lay representative from the British Motorists Protection Association, Mr PP.

The hearing was in front of DJ Dodd, a former associate of LPC Law. Ms Dodd explained the procedures for the benefit of the lay representative, arranged for photocopies of the witness statement to be provided for Miss DT and agreed with both parties there were no legal issues to consider. The claim was purely on the facts.

Miss DT then took the floor, working through the witness statement of Sohail Ismail, a litigation executive employed by BW Legal. Most of M. Ismail's statement was not relevant, being a BW Legal template witness statement. There was a section attaching Mr Bush's defence but sadly most of that had been copied and pasted from another claim, and therefore was entirely irrelevant. The only statement addressing the actual defence accused Mr Bush of lying using fact his brake lights were on.





All parties scrutinised the picture of the car exit for some time, looking for the brake lights, but were unsuccessful. Miss DT hazarded a guess that there was a white spot which might have been a brake light. DJ Dodd was not convinced.

Miss DT then explained that what the witness actually meant to say was not that the brake light was on, but that the reversing light was off. Mr PP objected that as the witness was not there they should go with what they had said, not what they might have meant to say.

Miss DT rested her case.

Mr PP asked if could point out several other anomalies in the witness statement but DJ Dodd refused. As there was no witness present, there was nobody to cross-examine.

Mr PP then took Mr Bush through his witness statement. DJ Dodd was critical about the presentation of the evidence as it was not numbered and therefore very hard to find. Additionally, some had suffered in the printing process and was not readable, as the court had printed the emailed evidence pack in black and white.

A key moment occurred when Mr PP whipped out the picture of the car park Mr Bush had actually parked in. DJ Dodd asked what the relevance was. Mr Bush, under questioning, explained the picture showed this was a barrier car park and you could not get in unless you took a ticket to raise the barrier, and could not get out unless you put the same ticket in the payment machine, and paid the due amount. The due amount matched the amount confirmed by the bank.

Mr Bush's evidence contained a lot of information regarding ANPR inaccuracy and DJ Dodd ruled Mr Bush could not be questioned on this as he was not an expert witness.

Mr PP then summed up by stating Mr Bush had produced a credible and consistent version  of events backed up by evidence and that Excel had produced nothing to address the accuracy of their ANPR and it was up to the claimant to prove their claim. DJ Dodd stated that was up to her to decide.

She then made her judgment.

She stated the claimant's witness statement apparently showed the car exiting and leaving. However, it was signed not by an employee of the parking company but by an employee of their solicitor and so she would give it due weight on that basis. Moreover, Mr Bush had made ANPR accuracy his only defence from day, and the witness statement did not address this in the slightest.

Mr Bush on the other hand, was a credible and honest witness, and claimant had done nothing to address the purchase of a ticket in another car park. Mr Bush had also put a huge amount of work into his bundle.

She therefore preferred Mr Bush's version of accounts and the claim was dismissed.

Costs

Mr Bush asked for his lay representatives travel costs based on unreasonableness. DJ Dodd refused to accept Excel were unreasonable in pursuing the claim.

Mr Bush asked for a day's lost wages as he had to take a holiday. DJ Dodd replied that if he took a holiday there were no lost wages, that he had not brought along any proof of what he earned and in any case only needed a half day off. Lost wages therefore were refused.

Printing costs were refused.

Mr Bush's travel and parking costs of £5.25 were allowed, to be paid by 30th November.

After the hearing DJ Dodd commended Mr Bush on the quality of his evidence, stating that that was the only case she had seen today where the defendant even bothered with a witness statement.

She also mentioned she had found for the defendant in a similar claim the previous week where Excel had claimed the defendant has parked while they were actually in a restaurant several miles away - the car park has two exits and is used as a rat-rn to cut off a corner.

Mr Bush stated he would now never use Excel's car park and would always use Trinity Walk, which was cheaper, safer, well-lit and more reliable.

Prankster Note

Lessons to be learned

1. Number the pages of your evidence and provide a contents page
2. Bring along a wages slip to show proof of wages
3. Send a schedule of costs to the court ahead of time
4. If your claim is block-listed then this would be a good reason to take a whole day off



Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/bw-legal-incompetence-in-pursuing.html



WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #98 on: 29 November, 2016, 09:23:28 AM »
Have checked out this location on Googlemaps and you can see the ANPR camera high up on the wall of the pub, facing the only entrance to the car park.

Looks like they were down on their targets so decided to target genuine customers.

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


Apology after Hemel Hempstead Harvester cars slapped with mystery £100 parking tickets



A Harvester restaurant has been forced to apologise after thousands of pounds worth of parking tickets were issued to unsuspecting customers. The Mallard, next to Hemel Hempstead Station, has long been a free-parking restaurant as long as drivers enter their details into a machine and leave within four hours.

But scores of punters have been left horrified in recent months after receiving an invoice of £100 for using the restaurant-owned car park – despite keying in their details correctly. It turns out that The Mallard had struck a deal with private parking company Absolute Parking Management (APM) and letters were sent out automatically.

“I was very upset,” said Valerie Marsdon, 82, who was enjoying a wedding anniversary meal with some friends when she was stung. “I was already upset because my cat was poorly and then this – it seems like a scam. “I don’t want my money back, I just want things to be right. It shouldn’t happen like this.”

Kelly Sleigh, whose husband was hit with the fine, described it as “horrendous”, Kim Wilson said it is “unbelievable.” A spokesman for the restaurant chain said: “We apologise for any upset this has caused any of our guests. “We are both concerned and disappointed at the number of guests who have been affected by the car parking fines. “Unfortunately, this car parking arrangement was previously agreed at a local level and is not standard practice across Harvester restaurants.

We would like to reassure our guests that we are working as quickly as we can to resolve this situation.” Anyone who has been affected is asked to appeal the decision with APM or to call 0121 498 7098 to make a complaint.

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/apology-after-hemel-hempstead-harvester-cars-slapped-with-mystery-100-parking-tickets-1-7692686
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #99 on: 05 December, 2016, 10:56:02 AM »
Another one courtesy of Pranky.  :aplude:

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


Excel lose double dip case at Peel Centre. BW Legal rival Gladstones for incompetence

Excel v Moyle  02/12/16

Guest report

Just thought I'd let you know how I beat BW Legal yesterday.

I was in the court waiting area when this BW Legal chap started talking to me, asking "Had I sent my court file to them?", "Did I have any other evidence?" e.t.c. He had nothing! I thought 'what a joke', so I asked him if he was actually a solicitor, and he then proceeded to act in a flustered manner and didn't actually answer me...so I informed him that all my paperwork had been sent to BW Legal via recorded delivery and had been received and signed for; it had clearly not been passed on to him! And yes, I did have some additional evidence.

The guy came across as an imbecile.....!

In the courtroom, the Judge was not impressed that his court pack had arrived two days late; my pack was also received two days late. BW's guy went through his patter blah, blah -  I then delivered my killer extra written statement to the Judge...I claimed that I had left the car park within the fifteen minute grace period, and returned half an hour later (it's the Peel Centre Stockport, where I clean windows).  Mr BW Legal protested, so I therefore produced all my signed work dockets. He went into a flap and was lost for words...I was reprimanded by the judge for not including this extra evidence in my court pack, whereas I replied that I was very sorry, but these people do not play fair.

I did have a strong case anyway i.e. the usual stuff - the pants signage.  Anyway, the judge summed up that because his papers were late, if she permitted the case to continue, she would have to accept my new evidence, so she then dismissed the case.  I personally thought that she was amused, as after her decision, she made light of the subject.

Great result after only half an hour! BW guy looked visibly deflated.

Prankster Note

The Prankster does not recommend trying to ambush the other side. This can go horribly wrong and a cast iron defence can vanish at the whim of the judge.

The Prankster has seen many hearings where parking company representatives forget vital evidence and get the case adjourned, but not many when a judge will adjourn on behalf of a motorist. This may not be fair, but this is the reality.

If the other side asks for an adjournment due to their error The Prankster suggests that the motorist asks the judge not to do this on the grounds of proportionality. The claim is for £100 yet the other side is using a solicitor at a cost of around £200. It does not make sense financially to adjourn the case as the other side will incur another £200 in the next hearing.

Additionally the other side have professional representation against an unrepresented defendant and therefore ought to know full well what will be expected evidence in a parking claim.

Lastly, if the claim is adjourned ask for a wasted costs order and your full costs for the day. Point out that the other side are quite happy to spend large amounts of money on the claim which bears no relation to the amount at stake.

Take a wage slip to prove your salary. If you had to take leave this is an allowable cost under 27.14.2.e.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14

27.14.2(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #100 on: 19 December, 2016, 03:51:59 PM »
Athena said Mr Davies received the charge because the "incorrect car registration number was either given or inputted."

Any system that allows you to input a number plate that doesn't tally with one picked up by the ANPR cameras is not fit for purpose.

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


Outraged Lidl shopper gets £90 fine for parking in space 'free-of-charge for customers'

Aneurin Davies, 68, was shocked at getting the fine for stopping in the free car park outside a Lidl store with his wife



A man was fined £90 for parking outside a supermarket for 20 minutes, despite doing his weekly shop in the store.

Aneurin Davies was shocked to receive a notice in the post which ordered that he pay the fine after he used the free parking space outside Lidl.

Mr Davies and his wife were customers at the store in Carmarthen, Wales.

They had parked outside the store and proceeded to spend a total of 22 minutes inside, before supplying the cashier with their number plate when asked to do so.

"We gave our number plate and the cashier said everything was OK so we went on our way," said Mr Davies.

"So, you can imagine our surprise when we received the notice in the post demanding that we pay £90. The reason given was that we had outstayed our 'Allowed Duration of Stay'

"This made no sense to me at all so I called the number on the charge notice but they wouldn't help me."

South Wales Evening Post got in contact with Lidl to express Mr Davies' concerns, to which they replied: "In a small number of our store car parks, we have systems in place to manage the availability of car parking spaces to ensure that our customers take priority. Some of these car parks are managed by ourselves or accredited contractors."

The parking notice received by Mr Davies was issued by a company called Athena ANPR Ltd, who said that "failure to pay the parking charge within the time period described may result in Athena ANPR transferring your case to a debt collection company or to further legal proceedings where additional costs could be incurred."

They made it clear that the £90 fine would be reduced to £45 if it was paid within 14 days of the issue date, and invited Mr Davies to call them to make immediate payment over the phone.


Mr Davies was not prepared to do this, adamant that he had not done anything that would contradict the notices on display at Lidl.

Athena themselves state on the charge notice that "the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly displayed on signs in prominent places."

There are indeed prominent signs outside the Lidl store, but they merely state that parking is free of charge for customers for a period of up to 90 minutes.

Lidl said that "any genuine customers" who have received a parking charge notice should get in touch via their customer services hotline.


Lidl said it was part of a new fines system to stop non-customers parking

Mr Davies did just that, and he was told over the phone that the charge would be dropped and confirmation of this has since been sent to him in the post, along with an apology.

"I was adamant that I wasn't going to pay it because I hadn't done anything wrong," said Mr Davies.

"But the point is – is it right that people have to go through such worry and stress through no fault of their own?

"And, more worryingly, how many people have paid the 'early fine' of £45, just to avoid the hassle? A lot of people may have thought it easier to just phone up and pay there and then, especially when the notice mentions legal proceedings."

Athena said Mr Davies received the charge because the "incorrect car registration number was either given or inputted."

They also confirmed that they have now changed this system so that customers can input their registration themselves at a terminal placed behind the tills.

"It just goes to show, if you think you haven't done anything to warrant a fine, it's worth fighting it. People need to know that this sort of thing can happen and to be wary of it."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outraged-lidl-shopper-gets-90-9441941
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #101 on: 24 December, 2016, 02:55:18 PM »
Another one courtesy of Pranky.  <Thumbsup>

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


Excel Parking Services ticket machine failure explained

The Prankster has received significant numbers of complaints from motorists who received parking charges from Excel Parking even though they purchased tickets. When they appeal, Excel claim to have no record of their purchase and therefore dismiss the appeal.

Today, at least one of the reasons why their machines fail has become apparent.

A motorist visited the Peel Centre for a KFC. Although the Peel Centre is one of the worst signed car parks in the country, his years as a Fast Jet pilot allowed him to take in large amounts of poorly presented yet critical data (their signage).  HI therefore bought a ticket. Although he checked that his registration was correctly entered, he did not check the rest.

This is what he received. Pay attention to the date of issue.



Excel Parking were only awarded the contract to manage the car park on 1st October 2012, so issuing a ticket in 1998 is obviously impossible.

The Prankster therefore thinks the following is happening.

On occasion, a pay machine will encounter an error and reset itself. When this happens, the date resets to 1 Jan 1998 00:00. The machines should synchronise themselves using NTP or some other method, but this obviously does not always happen. From the time on the ticket it appear the machine has failed to synchronise for a considerable period - 49 minutes.

The ANPR cameras are not synchronised correctly with the time on the pay machines. So when Excel download the data from both ANPR and pay machines they find a vehicle which parked in 2016, but no matching payment; the payment of course, according to them, happened in 1998, which is before their contract even started.

What Happened Next

Excel issued the motorist with a parking charge. Luckily the motorist had kept the ticket, and was surprised to find the error. The motorist appealed to Excel, sending a copy of the ticket. Any reasonable person would now expect Excel to cancel; however this does not take into account the greed and lack of morality of their owner, Simon Renshaw-Smith.

Excel refused the appeal on the grounds that the motorist ‘did not comply with the Terms and Conditions of parking by failing to purchase a valid P&D ticket’.

Excel's view is that if their machines issue faulty tickets then it is the motorist's fault and not theirs. The motorist should minutely scrutinise their ticket and if there is any mistake they should accept the loss of their money and leave the car park.

The Prankster's view is that this would lead to the absurd situation where Excel make more money when their machines have faults than when they are operating properly. Given the frequency which the machines are out of operation at the Peel centre it appears that Simon Renshaw-Smith has come to the same conclusion and he prefers to rake money in by running poorly maintained and/or out of date systems than by running a proper parking operation.

According to a security guard at the Peel Centre, the machines are 'always breaking down'

The Options

As the IAS is to all intents a kangaroo court and is staffed in The Pranksters opinion, by assessors who are either corrupt or incompetent, led by the inept and bungling Bryn Holloway there seems little point in appealing to them.

Instead, The Prankster suggests contacting the manager of the Peel Centre, Adam Jolley, and ask him to get the charge cancelled. His email address is a.jolley@peel.co.uk.

Alternatively his colleague Nicola Dearden may also cancel the ticket.

Data Protection Breach

Excel think that motorists should pay when Excel's payment systems fail.

The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 ( http://nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b82bcc6b68408a75d23021?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 ), which also concerns a ticket failure at the Peel Centre, suggests the judiciary think otherwise.

Given this state of affairs, there was no just cause for Excel to have applied for keeper data from the DVLA. Their machine failure is their own responsibility and does not excuse them. There has therefore been a possible breach of the Data Protection Act, and the motorist can potentially sue Excel for this. An amount of £250 would normally seem to be appropriate. However Excel have compounded this by continuing even when their own mistake is pointed out, which means a larger amount would not seem amiss.

The Prankster suggests considering banging out a letter before claim at the appropriate time.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/excel-parking-services-ticket-machine.html
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4314
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #102 on: 11 January, 2017, 11:26:07 AM »
Another system not fit for purpose.

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


Watch as dodgy parking meter tricks drivers



This video appears to show why scores of people have received fines after parking at a car park near Plymouth.

Adam Godfrey filmed the parking meter at Keaton Road Car Park in Ivybridge, operated by Premier Parking Solutions (PPS), to highlight what he describes as a "design fault" with the machine.

As previously reported by the Plymouth Herald, more than 100 complaints about the car park have been referred to Devon and Somerset Trading Standards Service (http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/parking-firm-pps-refunds-fines-after-trading-standards-steps-in/story-29994346-detail/story.html).



The video shows that as Mr Godfrey presses the first digit of the registration plate, the machine beeps but does not register the letter.

Explaining the process, he said: "This gives people so-called invalid tickets, which means they get sent a fine".

Mr Godfrey added that he would be sending the video to trading standards.

Roger Croad, Devon County Councillor for Ivybridge, said he was inundated with complaints from people who received penalty charges, which he referred to Devon and Somerset Trading Standards Service.

Following negotiations with trading standard officers, PPS agreed to refund drivers, minus an administration fee of £18.

But the agreement was only applicable to drivers that had already lodged a complaint.

Mary Rogers, from Torpoint, is among several motorists who have contacted the Herald after receiving hefty fines in the post.

She said it was unfair the agreement was only applicable to people who had already complained to trading standards and that all customers affected should receive refunds.

She said: "PPS have accepted that their machines presented incorrectly and have agreed to change them. They have offered some customers a discount but not others.

"It would be instructive to know what moral distinction PPS draw between people who complained or, like me, simply followed their appeal process in the naive belief that the mistake would be corrected."

"Meanwhile the elderly lady, who was having a lift with me and kindly, paid for my ticket and operated the machine, is being made ill with guilt over the whole matter."

She welcomed the company's threat of legal action, adding: "For myself, a meeting in court will furnish a chance to give further attention to the whole rotten business."

When the Herald brought the video to the attention of PPS, the a spokesman declined the opportunity to comment.

Following the negotiations with trading standards, PPS agreed to adjust its ticket machines, signs and ticketing procedures to help minimise any future errors.

The company declined to say whether the parking meter has or will be changed.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/watch-as-dodgy-parking-meter-tricks-drivers-scores-of-people-have-been-fined/story-30043104-detail/story.html

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1690
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #103 on: 11 January, 2017, 11:54:02 AM »
Words (almost) fail me. These cheeky f***ers use machines which are obviously not fit for purpose, then when they're caught out charge their victims £18 to refund money that they were never entitled to in the first place!!! I'm shocked that Trading Standards actually brokered this "deal".

Offline Overlord

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 185
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #104 on: 11 January, 2017, 03:12:35 PM »
Private Parking Solutions are a bunch of effing con merchants and if Trading Standards are in on it too, what can you do!  :idea:

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player