Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 148772 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #45 on: 08 December, 2015, 02:32:57 AM »
Loyal Aldi shoppers outraged at by parking fine claiming they were in store for 19 HOURS
A COUPLE who visited a supermarket on separate days were left furious after supermarket Aldi fined them £70 and claimed they had stayed for nineteen hours.   W:T:F:


NOT WELCOME: Aldi have hired a (BPA Ltd member) company to monitor their car parks



Lee Sandow, 39, visited Aldi’s store in Haverfordwest, Wales, with his wife Christina around midday on 14 October.

They did their weekly shop and parked for 45 minutes in the supermarket car park.

The following day he came back to the shop at 8am to return a pair of wellies which did not fit his daughter Jessica.

The Sandows were amazed when they got a letter from Aldi telling them they owed £70.

Christina, 38, said: "They said our number plate was picked up entering and leaving more than 19 hours apart. But they've failed to notice that it's two totally different visits. It's incredible."


LOYAL CUSTOMER: Christina Sandow may now not return to Aldi



She said: "It made me really angry. We shop there all the time but something has gone massively wrong here. There's no way we'll be paying it.

"How on earth they thought we'd stayed the whole time, I don't know. The car clearly leaves ones afternoon and returns the next morning.”

To rub salt into the wound the letter claimed they could pay a reduced fine - £40 - before 3 November but it arrived on 5 November.

Lee said: "I was angry when we got the letter and I was even angrier when I saw that it had arrived to days after the opportunity to pay the smaller costs. I'm really cross."

An Aldi spokesman said: "This parking ticket was issued in error. As soon as we were made aware of the situation, we contacted Parking Eye who cancelled the charge. We have contacted the customer to confirm this and to apologise."

In September it was reported that record numbers of customers were flocking to the budget supermarkets as households look to tighten the purse strings.

More than 56% of Brits bought groceries from Aldi or Lidl between July and September – up nearly 15% in five years.

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

Ewan's interesting facts #38: Every BPA Ltd office contains a red bucket full of sand. The sand is not there to extinguish any trouser fires but is for AOS investigation staff to stick their heads in whenever a complaint comes in about a BPA Ltd member.
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: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #46 on: 08 December, 2015, 10:53:29 AM »
Ewan's interesting facts #38: Every BPA Ltd office contains a red bucket full of sand. The sand is not there to extinguish any trouser fires but is for AOS investigation staff to stick their heads in whenever a complaint comes in about a BPA Ltd member.


Couldn't resist.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #47 on: 16 December, 2015, 05:29:36 PM »
Retired teacher is hit with parking ticket after he was captured on camera performing a u-turn outside Aldi


  • Tim Woods, 63, fined £70 for leaving his car in Aldi car park overnight
  • But he actually performed u-turn in his new £30,000 Skoda Yeti
  • ParkingEye cameras captured his vehicle at Nottingham supermarket
  • But firm has since rescinded the fine after appeal by the ex-teacher


Tim Woods, 63, pictured, was slapped with a £70 parking fine after cameras caught him performing a u-turn in an Aldi car park in Mapperley, Nottingham


A retired teacher was left stunned when he was slapped with a parking ticket for performing a u-turn in an Aldi car park.

Tim Woods, 63, received a £70 fine after a parking enforcement firm claimed he left his new £30,000 Skoda Yeti in the supermarket car park in Nottingham overnight.

He was sent a letter after cameras at the supermarket captured him performing two U-turns on the premises last month.

Carpark operator ParkingEye believed the cameras proved he had left his vehicle overnight and sent him a parking fine.

Mr Woods, who carried out the manoeuvres at the Aldi near his home in Mapperley, Nottingham, said: 'If their system cannot tell the difference between vehicles doing multiple U-turns and those left overnight, I pity the person who does the same manoeuvre a week later.

'Why would I leave a brand new, £30,000 car on a supermarket car park overnight?

'I'd turned around at the entrance because I was going to a computer shop nearby.

'I had tried getting in touch with Aldi and ParkingEye but they weren't helpful.

'You would have thought they would have CCTV that would show my car was not there.

'I've had a camera fitted in my car since then, not because of this, but it will come in handy should it ever happen again.

'That way I could show them how I was somewhere else.'

Mr Woods' fine has now been cancelled after he appealed to the supermarket.


Mr Woods' parking fine has since been cancelled after he lodged an appeal with ParkingEye


A spokeswoman for Aldi said: 'The company that operates our car park, ParkingEye, has cancelled the fine.
'Therefore we would not make any further comment on the matter.'

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said: 'ParkingEye has received an appeal from the motorist and can confirm that the appeal has been accepted and the charge has been cancelled.

'ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.'


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 coco

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 541
  • Northampton
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #48 on: 21 December, 2015, 12:32:26 PM »
And another one!



A DRIVER has told of his anger after being fined £100 for visiting a retail park for just a few minutes.

Dave Ledger, 52, was sent the fine after visiting Kingswood Retail Park twice in two days.

Mr Ledger was sent a fine in the post accusing him of leaving his car in the car park overnight.

Instead of capturing him entering and leaving the car park on both occasions, the automated cameras, run by national firm G24 Ltd, failed to pick up on the vehicle leaving and re-entering the car park.

Mr Ledger, of Kingswood, said he was "fuming" to have received the fine.

"They said they saw me going in on the Friday night and coming out on the Saturday, but I was in completely different car parks," he said. "There is no direct road between them and they are separated by a roundabout, so there is no way I could have driven to the other side and left the following morning unless I had a drone and lifted my car over.

"You can see in the pictures it is two different sides of the car park, so the cameras must have completely missed me.

"It is a bit of a ridiculous situation to be in."

Mr Ledger had visited Argos in his Ford Focus at 7.23pm on Friday, December 4. He then drove to the nearby David Lloyd club for an event before heading home.

However, cameras at the site did not capture him leaving the car park until 11.43am the following day, after he had picked up a coffee from Costa on the way to watch Hull City. On that occasion, he parked in a different area to the previous day.

Mr Ledger has appealed the fine and says the system needs to be changed in the future.

Its not the first time the cameras have sparked controversy. Earlier this year, a 29-year-old woman complained when she received a ticket after being stuck in two-hour long queues of traffic leaving the retail park.

G24 Ltd, which took over car parking operations at the site in April and describe themselves as "pioneers in car park management technology", use cameras installed with automatic number plate recognition.

Mr Ledger said the systems need to be properly reviewed to avoid cases like his in the future.

"It just shows you the system isn't working correctly and there must be a glitch with it," he said.

"It hasn't seen me leave on the Friday or coming in on the morning.

"If I had just happened to have been in the same bit of the car park, I would have had no chance to successfully appeal.

"I have had to ring up a couple of shops to try and get their CCTV just to prove I was in the other side.

"You shouldn't have to do all this for a mistake they have made."

Mr Ledger said he was worried other motorists would have paid the fine, which reduces to £60 if it is paid within a set amount of days, straight away.

He said he was shocked to receive when it was posted to him earlier this week.

"I was absolutely fuming when it came through the door," he said. "I am just thinking how am I going to be expected to pay this for something I haven't even done in the first place. If I drove into the same car park that morning, I would have no chance of not having to pay the fine.

"Something needs to be done to change the cameras, because they just are not working at the moment."

G24 declined to comment when approached by the Mail





Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #49 on: 21 December, 2015, 04:05:45 PM »
The related article referred to in Coco's previous post is another fine example of how ANPR doesn't work. A camera on the entrance/exit cannot possibly tell how long you are parked for.

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

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/got-parking-ticket-stuck-traffic-outside-Hull/story-25843805-detail/story.html

'I got a parking ticket because I was stuck in traffic outside Hull shops'


Motorists queueing to get in and out of Kingswood Retail Park shortly before Christmas.

A WOMAN who was stuck in queuing traffic at Kingswood Retail Park while Christmas shopping has had a parking ticket overturned.

Sarah Campbell, 29, was one of dozens of motorists stuck in two-hour queues trying to get into and out of the retail park.

She received a parking ticket for going over the free limited parking time of three hours because she was unable to leave the car park queues.

"I was stuck in the queues getting out," she said. "Because I was in the queues, I went over the amount of time you are allowed in there.

"It is very hard to get in, find a space, get all your Christmas shopping, get food and then get out in three hours.

"They have not got any allowance for it.

"I was really annoyed about it.

"With so many people there in the same situation there must be more who have received tickets as well.

"Nobody realised that it could happen."

A spokesman for ParkingEye, which operates the car park, said: "ParkingEye operates an audited appeals process, encouraging motorists to appeal.

"In this case, the driver appealed and provided supporting evidence, so the parking charge has been cancelled."

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #50 on: 29 December, 2015, 05:07:14 PM »
Motorists overcharged 'because number plate recognition technology is flawed'

Thousands of motorists are charged too much for parking because cameras fail to accurately read number plates, it has been claimed


The automatic number plate recognition technology is supposed to capture details of when cars enter and leave car parks

 Thousands of motorists are charged too much for parking because cameras fail to accurately read number plates, it has been claimed.

An estimated one in 20 vehicles passing automatic number plate recognition cameras used by supermarkets and in private car parks are not read properly.

The figures prompted calls for better checks before penalties are issued, according to The Times.

In one case, cameras misread the plates of a shopper who visited a Morrison's supermarket in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, to withdraw cash on the way to work and returned again later that evening to shop.

Cameras in the car park, run by ParkingEye, the country's biggest operator, registered that his car had been there all day and consequently issued an £85 penalty.

When he refused to pay, he was forced into a county court claim.

 David Carrod, the head of Private Parking Appeals, which fights penalties on behalf of motorists, said it was a classic case of "double dipping".

A ParkingEye spokesman said: "We always actively encourage people who receive a parking charge to appeal if there are extenuating circumstances.

In May a pensioner had a penalty overturned after a similar incident, in which is made two separate trips to an Asda supermarket in Preston, resulted in a £70 fine.

It later emerged that a camera misread a letter C on his number plate for a G.

 Complaints by drivers stung by private parking charges have trebled this year, prompting fresh criticism of unfair and harsh ticketing practices by parking firms.

Paul Watters, the head of public affairs at the AA, said: "It's not so much the cameras as the quality of the back office processing systems and practices. We have raised this with the industry. There should be proper cross checks and auditing."

The number plate technology is supposed to capture details of when cars enter and leave car parks but when they are misread they can often make it appear that vehicles stayed longer than they did.

An estimated 3.47 million penalties are expected to be issued by parking companies in 2015-16, almost 500,000 more than in the year before.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/12072577/Motorists-overcharged-because-number-plate-recognition-technology-is-flawed.html#disqus_thread



Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #51 on: 07 January, 2016, 01:09:03 PM »
It appears that the BPA Ltd were fully aware that ANPR is far from being perfect. This advice however has mysteriously disappeared from its website.

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

ANPR

With the ever increasing numbers of vehicles using the roads in this country, and the corresponding congestion associated with the issue, more enforcement is becoming necessary both in the ‘on street’ (public highways and local authority car parks) and ‘off street’ (unregulated private car parks) environments.

In the off street environment, the main concerns of the private Landlord/Landowner are to:
a) Protect his property from unwanted trespass.
b) Ensure that in protecting his property, legitimate users of his facilities are able to park unhindered in his private car park.

There are a number of methods by which this can be enforced, but the newest of these is Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology (ANPR).

How does the system work?
The principle is as follows:
a) CCTV style cameras are placed at the entrance and exit to a car park.
b) Timed photographs are taken of the vehicle itself entering and leaving the car park, and also close ups of the vehicle’s number plate.
c) The duration of the stay of the vehicle is calculated from the times registered on the two sets of photographs.
d) If a vehicle has exceeded the duration of stay either mentioned on the parking ticket or on car park signage (eg. ‘Maximum 2 hour stay for customers only’), then the driver of the vehicle will be required to pay
an excess parking charge (which will also be mentioned in the car park’s signage).
e) If a driver does contravene any of the terms and conditions laid out in the signage, they should be aware that they will not receive a ticket at the car park site. Using the vehicle’s registration number, the operator will access the DVLA’s Vehicle Keepers’ details database (with the Reasonable Cause of pursuing a broken contract for parking on private land) and send a charge certificate to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

As with all methods of enforcement on private land, proper enforcement depends on clear signage that is visible from all over the car park. The BPA’s new Code of Practice contains recommendations for the size,
placement and wording for signage, including the fact that the car park is monitored by ANPR technology and that DVLA will be contacted to obtain keeper details in the event of a parking contravention occurring.

This is new technology: Is it working perfectly?

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a)Repeat users of a car park in a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are aware of this and are now checking all ANPR transactions to
ensure that this does not occur.
b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a ticket even though they have not parked. Reputable operators tend not to uphold tickets issued in this manner (unless advised differently by the Landowner/Landlord), but operators should also now be factoring in a small ‘grace period’ to allow a driver time either to find a parking space (and to leave if there is not one) or make a decision whether the tariff is appropriate for their use or not. This ‘grace period is however at the discretion of the Landlord/Landowner and will also vary in duration, dependant on the size/layout/circumstances of the car park.

I have a complaint about a ticketing operator: what can I do ?

You must go through the Appeals Process as set down by the operator on the signage in that car park. As a membership organisation, the BPA does not become involved in individual enforcement cases. However the Association does take a particular interest in promoting best practice in the parking industry and are concerned when our attention is drawn to incidents which may not reflect this.

At the present time, all complaints received by the BPA against its members are logged. (Complaints will only be dealt with in writing or by e-mail to the addresses below) If there is a breach of our Code of Practice, the complaint is passed to them for review, comment and further action where appropriate. Any action taken by the BPA against a member is based on facts relating to our Code of Professional Conduct and our Code of Practice (available on our website below). If there is a case to answer then a full investigation and appropriate action will be taken which may – in extreme cases result in suspension or termination of BPA Membership.

What if they aren’t members of BPA?

If the operator is not a member of the Association, then our influence is more limited. If it is pertinent, the Association will contact the operator and point out any activities that are in breach of the Code of Practice, and recommend that the operator joins the Association.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #52 on: 08 January, 2016, 09:48:36 AM »
They just keep on coming. And the cheeky bastards say that you have to prove your innocence before they will cancel any charge!

THE LAW DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY YOU MORONS!

And talk about convicting you without a fair trial! Customers who have overstayed in one of our car parks should then just provide us with proof of purchase and we will appeal the charge on their behalf.”

TWO SEPARATE VISITS IS NOT OVERSTAYING!


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

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/confusion-leads-parking-fine-nick-10670187#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Confusion leads to parking fine for Nick Price after visiting Holmfirth Lidl twice in one day

Dad's anger as 10-minute visits end in £90 fine


Nick Price with his car parking fine after using the Lidl car park in Holmfirth.

It was a typical Sunday for Nick Pice, running errands and making dashes to the local supermarket.

But the Holmfirth dad’s innocent calls to Lidl had a penalty to make your piggy-bank blush.

Nick was slapped with a £90 parking fine after making two separate ten-minute stops at the Huddersfield Road branch as he stocked up on items for Sunday lunch.

The calls were four hours apart but Nick, 51, of Highfields, was left dumbfounded when a letter through the post three days later accused him of overstaying his welcome for the entire period, and demanded he pay up.

He said: “I had popped out to pick my wife Penny and my mother-in-law up from church and stopped at Lidl on the way to buy a few bits.

“We had Sunday lunch and I was taking them to the carol service at Huddersfield Fellowship Church.

“On the way back I stopped in again. On both visits I was straight in and straight out again.”

Nick, who works at the Morrisons store in Meltham, was fined after the store’s CCTV took separate images hours apart, both of which was when he was visiting the store.

A letter sent to him explained he had incurred a £90 fine, which was halved to £45 if he paid within 14 days.

Nick said: “There is no way I will be paying the fine.

“I was a regular shopper at Lidl, but I won’t be going in again.

“I just want people to be aware of this so it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

Nick says he has contacted the store to explain his side of the story since the incident on December 13, but was told it was a matter to be taken up with the CCTV agency.

A spokesperson for Lidl said: “The vast majority of our store car parks do not have any car park management systems in place as there is no shortage of parking spaces at these locations.

“In a small number of our store car parks, we have different systems in place to manage the availability of car parking spaces to ensure that our customers take priority.

The spokesperson added: “However, we still encourage any genuine Lidl customers who have received a Parking Charge Notice to get in touch with us directly via our Customer Services hotline number.

“Customers who have overstayed in one of our car parks should then just provide us with proof of purchase and we will appeal the charge on their behalf.”



WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #53 on: 08 January, 2016, 10:56:37 AM »
And again

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

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/how-many-honest-drivers-were-fined-100-in-portsmouth-car-park-charges-error-1-7146065

How many honest drivers were fined £100 in Portsmouth car park charges error?

AN unknown number of drivers were wrongly told to pay fines after buying tickets to park in Portsmouth.

But car park giant NCP is refusing to say how many motorists were incorrectly sent a £100 penalty or for how long the problem lasted.


Kate Watts wrongly received a �100 penalty notice after parking in the NCP Market Way car park in Portsmouth

It came to light after solicitor Kate Watts told of her anger at being issued with a penalty after using the NCP-owned car park in Market Way – despite paying the correct amount.

Kate, 33, left her car there for 48 minutes on November 27, went shopping and then paid the £2 fee before leaving.

So she was surprised three weeks later to receive a £100 parking charge notice for not paying.

Luckily Kate had kept the receipt and was able to send this to the firm and demand the charge be cancelled.

Kate, a mother-of-two, said: ‘It’s not acceptable for a big company like NCP.

‘They must make a small fortune in a year.

‘Something that’s so blatantly wrong should never have happened in the first place.’

The car park uses automatic number plate recognition cameras to monitor how long drivers stay and users pay when leaving.

Kate added: ‘It’s so important that other potential users of either that car park or other car parks that are introducing these ANPR cameras are just a little bit more cautious.

‘I just want to protect other people.’

After contacting the firm, she was told her appeal would take two months before it would be looked at.

But after persistently chasing the company she finally spoke to the car park manager and the charge was cancelled on Christmas Eve.

The firm told The News there was an error in the numbering of the machines and that led to data being mismatched.

A spokeswoman said it affected a ‘number of customer transactions’, but refused to say how many or over what period.

It said all notices issued in the affected period had been cancelled.

The spokeswoman added: ‘We do apologise for issuing a parking charge notice in error.’

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #54 on: 18 January, 2016, 01:17:56 PM »
“I said if you can show me CCTV of my car being in the car park during the day I’ll pay you £6,000 let alone £60.”

Says it all. <Thumbsup>

"New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments."

Says even more. <Piratetreasure>

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


http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14198958.Taxi_driver_triumphs_in_six_month_battle_to_scrap_car_parking_fine/?ref=twtrec

Oxford taxi driver Adi Sadiku wins six-month battle over car parking fine


Taxi driver Adi Sadiku has finally got an Oxford Airport parking ticket cancelled after being threatened with court action

 A TAXI driver has won a six-month battle against Oxford Airport’s car park operator over a £60 parking ticket.

Adi Sadiku has had his parking fine, which eventually reached £220, cancelled after his daily drop-off was confused with a 10-hour car park stay.

The cabbie made the trip to the airport every morning and evening for two months in the summer driving a pilot friend to and from work.

Then one day in July he received a fine through the post for a 10-hour stay he claimed never happened.

New Generation Parking Management finally confirmed to the 28-year-old last month the ticket had been cancelled, but not before getting its solicitors involved and threatening court action.

Mr Sadiku, who lives in Jericho Street, Oxford, said CCTV footage failed to capture him leaving at 9am one morning so when he left again after his evening pick-up it seemed he had stayed for 10 hours.

 The taxi driver, who works for 001 Taxis but also has his own private clients, said: “It caused me a great deal of stress.

“These letters and threats of court went on until the end of December and it happened back in July.

 “I kept e-mailing them explaining what had happened and even showed them proof I did six other jobs that day.

“I’m annoyed that they didn’t believe me – it seemed like a big company just trying to bully me.

“I said if you can show me CCTV of my car being in the car park during the day I’ll pay you £6,000 let alone £60.”

Documents seen by the Oxford Mail revealed the company’s solicitors Wright Hassall threatened to take Mr Sadiku to court over the unpaid fine.

The firm said the outcome could affect his credit rating and his employment, and encouraged him to pay the £220 fine.

The father-of-one said: “I wasn’t just going to pay it when I had done nothing wrong.

“I finally spoke to someone at Oxford Airport and she was great. She got in touch with the company and they confirmed my ticket was cancelled.

“I want to thank her but I am considering taking legal action against New Generation Parking Management for the stress it has caused me and my family.”

New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #55 on: 18 January, 2016, 09:34:47 PM »

New Generation Parking Management and Oxford Airport failed to respond to requests for comments.

Now there's a shock!
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #56 on: 19 January, 2016, 04:40:28 PM »
I can provide a stock parking weasel comment cobbled together from old Monday Musings if you like,

"Parking management is necessary to ensure that there are available spaces for genuine customers. We will of course threaten and bully genuine customers also because our terms and conditions apply to all car park users. If an appellant provides us with proof that they did not breach our terms and conditions, we will threaten and bully them also to demonstrate that we are completely fair and do not show any favouritism to a particular group."

That just about says it for me, you're welcome by the way.    <Hatoff>
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: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #57 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:30:56 AM »
And the fraud continues, as reported here by the Prankster. We get an honourable mention for our efforts on this thread. ;)

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

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/parkingeye-fraudulently-charging-yet.html

18 January 2016
ParkingEye fraudulently charging yet again. Morrisons car park this time

ParkingEye continue to issue fraudulent charges from their flawed ANPR systems. This newpaper report details the story of a 78 year old pensioner who visited Morrisons in Chorlton twice in two days. He picked up some groceries in the afternoon of 4th November and returned next morning to do some more shopping. ParkingEye's blundering ANPR system sent him a bill for staying overnight.

Mr Bloohn appealed to ParkingEye who refused to accept his story.



They only relented when CCTV pictures of his car parked overnight became available. However, many people will have fallen victim to this scam by ParkingEye, who continue to use ANPR when they are fully aware of its failings. Not everyone will have the luxury of CCTV images which can back up their story, and ParkingEye have hounded several people to court despite no contraventions actually occurring.

Here is the typical text ParkingEye use in such cases.



As you can see, ParkingEye are masters of trying to deceive the court, wittering on about NTP and the mythical 19 stage checking process (which has never been detailed, despite multiple requests), when the nub of the matter, which they hope the court does not realise, is that ANPR does not have X-Ray vision so a failure will occur whenever two cars drive too close.



Prankster Note

The Prankster has many times shown proof that ParkingEye's ANPR is not accurate and issues tickets when no contraventions occur. A while back, ParkingEye tried to shut the Prankster up, threatening him with legal action for defamation for suggesting their ANPR is not fit for purpose.

The Prankster replied that truth is an absolute defence against defamation and ParkingEye shut up. Eventually.

The NoToMob have been collecting evidence about faulty ANPR on this thread. The Prankster suggests that anyone facing a court case where they visited twice but ParkingEye claim they visited once prints out the entire thread and files it as evidence.

Meanwhile, Barry Beavis's petition regarding the level of parking charges has hit 8,000 votes and needs another 2,000 to get a parliamentary response. Click on the link to read the petition and add your vote.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

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

Here is the article the Prankster refers to:

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

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/morrisons-car-park-chorlton-cctv-10744845

Pensioner gets CCTV footage to prove his innocence after being wrongly fined for leaving car overnight at Morrisons in Chorlton

78-year-old fought back and proved to parking company that his car was at home in Whalley Range



A pensioner had to produce CCTV footage to prove his car was at home when a parking company fined him for leaving it a mile down the road outside a supermarket.

Lance Bloohn, 78, parked up at the Morrisons car park in Chorlton to pick up some groceries on the afternoon of November 27.

He was there for less than half an hour before driving back home to Whalley Range where he then parked his car overnight.

So he was shocked when he received a letter from ParkingEye asking him to pay a £85 fine for leaving his car at the supermarket overnight.

Mr Bloohn said he has shopped at the Chorlton branch of Morrisons for many years without incident and was baffled when he received a letter asking him to pay a fine.


Lance Bloohn was determined to prove his innocence after being asked to pay an £85 parking fine

He said he was there for less than half an hour before returning home to Withington Road where he parked up for the night.

He returned to the supermarket the following morning to pick up some more shopping and parked up there again.

Two weeks later Mr Bloohn received a letter from ParkingEye informing him that his car had been parked at the supermarket from 4pm on November 27 until 10am on November 28.

He said: “I sent them a letter telling them that they were wrong. I also included a disc of CCTV from the cameras outside my flat which shows my car parked there overnight and got the manager of the flats to send them something to say it had been parked here.


Lance Bloohn's letter from ParkingEye saying his initial appeal had been rejected

“On December 17 I got another letter saying that if I paid the fine by that day it would only be £50 and after that it would rise to £85.

“On January 9 I had a letter from the company’s legal department saying I owed £85.

“I’m lucky I have the CCTV cameras here at my flat to prove it was here. For once technology is working in my favour.

“It’s just ridiculous. It’s tantamount to fraud.”

A ParkingEye spokesman said the fine and letters were sent to Mr Bloohn before his appeal letter and CCTV footage was received.

ParkingEye have now said that Mr Bloohn’s fine will be cancelled.

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #58 on: 20 January, 2016, 12:34:37 PM »
Photographs/videos taken on entry and exit ARE NOT PROOF OF PARKING!

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

Couple handed parking fine...for being stuck in traffic


Bilsthorpe couple Angela and David Burditt were fined at St Peter's Retail Park when they were unable to get out of the car park because of traffic

A couple handed a parking fine after being held up in a traffic jam have vowed not to shop at a Mansfield retail park again.

Pensioners David Burditt, aged 76, and his wife Angela, 68, were left reeling after being sent the £50 fine by Parking Eye, which monitors parking at St Peter’s Retail Park, Mansfield town centre.

Motorists can park for 45 minutes for free at the site, with CCTV cameras monitoring when vehicles arrive and depart.

In December, the Bilsthorpe couple visited four shops on St Peter’s within their allotted 45-minute stay, but their Peugeot 206 became stuck in a huge queue of cars waiting to leave.

Mrs Burditt said: “We couldn’t believe it. Had we gone over the time because we were shopping then fair enough, but we were over by about 15 minutes because the car park was gridlocked.

“Everybody was Christmas shopping, so it was really busy.

“It would be interesting to see if anyone else was given a fine.

“I counted that we waited for the traffic lights leading onto the ring road changing four times before we were able to exit the park.

“We were sent the fine on Thursday, December 30, and had until Tuesday, January 5, to pay it or it would go up to £85 – and we panicked and paid it.

“It’s been a very costly lesson not to shop at this location again. We have shopped in Mansfield all our lives, spending thousands of pounds over the years.

“Mansfield repays us by allowing private car park firms to profit from this busy time of year by fining us.”

Mrs Burditt says she had written to a number of the shops on St Peter’s, but they had responded by saying they could not help.

She has also written to Mansfield District Council, but has not yet received a response.

A spokesman for Parking Eye said: “People using this car park have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable.

“If however, they feel they should not have received a charge due to mitigating circumstances, we encourage people to submit an appeal, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communication and on our website.”

Were you given a ticket in the run-up to Christmas at St Peter’s Retail Park because of traffic? Call reporter Nick Frame at the Chad on 01623 450283.

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/couple-handed-parking-fine-for-being-stuck-in-traffic-1-7684504



WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #59 on: 20 January, 2016, 04:39:16 PM »
It's hard to imagine that Parking Eye Ltd were unaware that being in the car park is not the same as being parked. Especially as a District Judge has pointed it out to them before.

Case No: 3JD08399 in the Altrincham County Court before District Judge Hayes. Parking Eye Ltd -V- Mrs. XXXXXXX

The relevant points being,

36. The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was
parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities.

37. On that balance of probabilities, as I have indicated, I am satisfied the Defendant
was not parked and I am not satisfied that it was clear to the Defendants that by
parking or entering or remaining within the area covered by Parking Eye Ltd they
were liable for a charge, that the signage does not make that clear in my view
unless one gets out of the car, walks up to it, by which point it seems to me one
would be parked, and even if this was not the case, even if there were signs saying
that, I cannot see that a charge for driving around a car park can in any way be a
genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.

(Link shamelessly plagiarised from The Parking Prankster's impressive collection of case law)
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.

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player