Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 148764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest 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 #60 on: 31 January, 2016, 05:55:22 PM »
The car park in the following story is, ahem, 'managed' by Civil Enforcement Ltd, who are members of The BPA Ltd, both of which are about as useful as a side-stand on a trike.

Truly epic ANPR failure at hospital car park,

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




Parking fine errors for hospital’s visitors

VISITORS to a mental health hospital are picking up parking fines even though they are registering with its new automatic number plate recognition technology.

The system was installed in July at the Harplands in Hartshill to stop drivers abusing free parking.

People need to log their details onto one of six touch screens each day they park there.

But the North Staffordshire Users Group charity has received complaints of penalties slapped on vehicles already registered.

Now it is to raise the issue with Combined Healthcare Trust which runs the hospital.

Hilda Johnson, the group's development worker, said: "It is causing distress to patients and visitors who have received a fine. We urge them to appeal the fine."

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

There you have it then boys and girls (and any visiting parking weasels). If you park responsibly, correctly within a marked bay and fully comply with any advertised conditions, it won't stop you being charged.
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 #61 on: 03 February, 2016, 12:05:42 PM »
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/206377599-ParkingEye-V-Mr-O-Double-Dip-at-Morrisons


ParkingEye V Mr O - Double Dip at Morrisons

BMPA Support Desk
December 10, 2015 15:55

Outline

A classic case of ParkingEye pursuing a "double dip" incident all the way to court, and discontinuing at the last minute. The defendant then pursued Morrisons for compensation, and they settled out of court.

Background

Mr O's was sent a claim by ParkingEye for apparently overstaying the maximum time allowed. What actually happened was he entered the car park at around 6:10am in October 2014 to make a withdrawal from the cash machine, only staying for a few minutes before driving to the railway station. He returned to the car park later in the evening, to purchase some groceries, a visit of no more than 20 minutes in total. At no time did he exceed any ‘max stay time’ advertised as ParkingEye claimed.

Ten weeks later in February 2015, ParkingEye sent their standard County Court claim for their parking charge plus the "legal" costs that never seem to be incurred but charge for them anyway. Mr O had ignored the ParkingEye letters and missed the opportunity to get the matter sorted at POPLA. But on the other hand, he knew he hadn't overstayed and was not frightened by the rather odd letters from companies like Debt Recovery Plus that ParkingEye arrange to be sent out.

With the help of BMPA members, Mr O completed all the key paperwork needed at the initial claim stage on time. They knew the Acknowledgement of Service had to be in within 14 days from the date on the claims, with an initial defence within 28 days - so in they both went. This was the opportunity for ParkingEye to read the facts presented and to check these with their own. However it is apparent that the company has no interest in admitting they or their systems fail, but will simply let the court process run on in the expectation of people folding through fear and the lack of familiarly with the court process. The courts are not some sort of ATM Cash Machine but ParkingEye think they are.

In June 2015, the Witness Statement served in preparation for the hearing was sent to the court to highlight the same issue - faulty ANPR system, failure to check facts, aggressive and vexatious use of the court system. ParkingEye not willing to risk paying a solicitor from LPC for a claim they knew to be baseless, sent Mr O a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance from ParkingEye, indicating that they were no longer proceeding with the claim. This was just over a week before the scheduled hearing, and 4 months after they had Mr O's defence.

Since there had been a lot of wasted time and effort dealing with the claim, Mr O wrote to Morrisons asking for compensation based on a liquidated damages, for the losses incurred in defending ParkingEye's claim. He saw it as only fair that given the work he had to do and he also knew Morrisons are well aware of the "double dip" issue but fail to act. A couple of weeks later when there was no reply or even acknowledgement, Mr O moved to the next stage of what is a fairly simple process and followed up with a Letter Before County Claim (LBCC) to Morrisons Company Secretary (CoSec). The CoSec is the most senior legal person in any organisation and claims should be sent there.

Morrisons recognising there had been an issue here and seeing that Mr O was serious offered and paid a reasonable amount towards Mr O's costs.

Key issues

1. At any stage you can get whoever hired them (principal) to cancel so it is important to identify them and get them to intervene.

2. ParkingEye appear to enjoy upsetting people by going to the wire with a court claim. You have to keep to the time scales, the first of which is to Acknowledge Service within 14 days.

3. At any stage you can get whoever hired them (principal) to cancel so it is important to identify them and get them to intervene.

4. Early action is preferable to leaving matters getting to court. The old advice to "ignore" is out of place in England and Wales, though it is still relevant to Scotland and Northern Ireland as their systems are different.

5. If you are out of pocket like Mr O, consider making an initial demand for recompense to whoever hired the parking contractor and if need be issue a formal letter before claim.

6. "Double Dip" is a well known flaw with ANPR that can lead to error rates of 10%.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #62 on: 03 February, 2016, 12:08:09 PM »
https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207079665-Double-Dip


Double Dip Scam
Avatar
BMPA Support Desk
January 11, 2016 06:50

We were contacted with the following question.

parked briefly at 12:14 but left the car park soon after as I had a phone call and had to go elsewhere (a 2hr min round trip). I returned to the car park later in the day and did the shopping I needed. The second photo on my charge notice is taken at 18:08. So they are saying that I spent nearly 6 hours in that carpark and I know perfectly well that I didn't. I have never outstayed my welcome in that particular place anyway as I don't want the hassle of appealing.

Double Dip has been defined by the British Parking Association as "equipment failure". In their guide to ANPR which has mysteriously disappeared from their website - but we have a copy - it says:

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.

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.


*The "grace" period mentioned above is now up to 10 minutes on entry and a mandatory 10 minutes when leaving a parking space.

But what makes a simple equipment failure as scam? Simply put it is so well known (up to 10%) and so frequent that it generates a lot of income for the parking contractors to the extent they will

a) deny the equipment is faulty despite having maintenccae records to show this and

b) fail to follow the British Parking Association's advice to "check all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

 

If you suspect or even know there has been a "double dip" then challenge them asking them to check their records. The onus is on them to prove you were there for the period, not the other way around.

 

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/203483615/British_Parking_Associations_Guide_to_ANPR_Double_Dip.pdf


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #63 on: 10 February, 2016, 11:44:55 AM »
Every time this topic starts to drop down the board the Parking($h)Eye($ter$) oblige us with yet more ammo that proves ANPR is not fit for purpose.

Nice one Parking($h)Eye($ter$)
<Thumbsup>                 It won't be dropping down the board anymore.     


 <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot> <shootfoot>

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

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oap-couple-hit-50-parking-7216480

OAP couple hit with £50 parking fine after getting stuck in traffic jam while leaving retail park

Pensioners David Burditt, 76, and his wife Angela, 68, had been
 shopping when they were hit with the fine


St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield

A couple have been landed with a £50 parking fine after being stuck in a
traffic jam as they tried to leave a retail park.


Pensioners David Burditt, aged 76, and his wife Angela, 68, had been
shopping at the outlet where motorists can park for 45 minutes for free
 with CCTV cameras monitoring when vehicles arrive and leave.


The couple called at four shops within their allotted 45-minute stay, but
 their Peugeot 206 became stuck in a huge queue of cars waiting to leave.


They were left reeling after being sent the £50 fine by Parking Eye, which
 monitors parking at St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire.

"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," said Mrs Burditt , from Bilsthorpe, near Mansfield.



"It was really busy. I counted that while we waited the traffic lights
 leading onto the ring road changed four times before we were able to exit
 the park.

"We had finished shopping and we were just trying to leave.


"We were given just a few days to pay the fine or it would go up to £85 so
 we panicked and paid it.

"It's been a very costly lesson and we won't be
 shopping there again".


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."

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 #64 on: 12 February, 2016, 07:48:47 PM »
http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/march_woman_gobsmacked_by_90_parking_fine_for_just_over_30_minutes_in_lidl_car_park_1_4414024?platform=hootsuite

March woman ‘gobsmacked’ by £90 parking fine for just over 30 minutes in Lidl car park


Mrs Gray's parking fine letter implying she stayed in Lidl's car park for nearly five times over the free parking duration

A March woman is “absolutely gobsmacked” having wrongly received a £90 parking fine.

Patricia Gray was sent a civil parking charge notice insisting that her vehicle remained in the car park of Lidl on Dartford Road for nearly five times longer than the allowed stay of duration.

The fine says that Mrs Gray was in the car park for seven hours and 12 minutes last Thursday, however free parking lasts for 90 minutes.

Mrs Gray says she visited at 8.38am and was out by 9am, and returned to the shop at 3.50pm for 10 minutes.

“I picked up a £2.99 Disney puzzle for my daughter, went to work and then in the day thought ‘what a bargain’. So I went back in the afternoon to get some more.”

To complain, Mrs Gray was told to “put it in writing or email the complaints department.

“Surely the cameras should show when I entered and exited in the morning and the same in the afternoon. But I was told that’s not the case.

“It’s very misleading to a lot of people,” she added.

“I’m not going to pay the fine, I’m going to dispute it. But if it was my mum I know she would pay it because she doesn’t know any difference.

“I think a lot of older people would as well because they’re worried the cost would go up. It’s unfair making money from vulnerable people.”

Athena ANPR is unavailable for comment at this time.
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 #65 on: 13 February, 2016, 05:55:52 PM »
Ah well looky here. I've stumbled upon an ancient example dated 24th May 2011. That was back in the day before the Proliferation of Ferrets Act (PoFA 2012). This completely unfair skullduggery has been going on since long before that of course.

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


ParkingEye cancels Orpington parking fine after victim vows to challenge it in court and contacts News Shopper



Linsey Salter with the fine notices she was sent by ParkingEye


AN “UNFAIR” parking fine has been cancelled after the victim threatened to fight it in court and contacted News Shopper to report on her battle.

Linsey Salter, 34, was given a £50 fine after parking her Audi TT at the Nugent Shopping Park in Sevenoaks Way, Orpington, on March 26.

ParkingEye which monitors the car park, said its cameras showed Mrs Salter had parked there for more than the permitted three hours.

But Mrs Salter says she parked there for two separate periods of around 15 minutes, from 10.48am to 11.05am and 3.55pm to 4.06pm.

Mrs Salter, from Chislehurst, wrote to ParkingEye to explain this and ask staff to check the camera footage to see they had made a mistake.

She also told them she had been helping at a fair at Chelsfield School between her two visits to the shopping park, and the headteacher would verify her car was at the school during this period.

But Parking Eye responded with a letter saying the fine had risen to £80 because she had failed to pay it by a certain date.

Unable to reach ParkingEye by phone, wedding photographer Mrs Salter wrote to say she would fight them in court, and contacted to News Shopper to explain the situation.

News Shopper contacted ParkingEye on Friday (May 20) to ask for a comment for a story on the situation.

On Monday (May 23) ParkingEye contacted us to say Mrs Salter’s fine would be cancelled as a “gesture of goodwill”.

Mrs Salter said: “They have only cancelled the fine, which was obviously unfair, because I fought it and got News Shopper involved.

“It’s good for people to be aware about these goings on because lots of people would just pay the fine without questioning it.”

WATCHDOG

In October last year, ParkingEye was criticised on BBC’s Watchdog website after giving an 86-year-old woman a £40 fine when her car broke down at a supermarket.

Eileen Blackman was fined because she had overstayed the permitted parking time by three hours, despite her car being pictured leaving the car park on a tow truck.

Mrs Blackman’s first appeal was rejected, and she paid the fine. However, her second appeal was successful and ParkingEye refunded her money.

ParkingEye was established in 2002 and is based in Chorley.

It claims it has “rapidly become the number one technical solutions parking operator in the industry, through the quality of its product, service delivery and system integrity”.    :rotfl:     :rotfl:     :rotfl:

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

Of course, that was back in 2011 and since then The BPA Ltd have been raising standards (so they tell me). I'm sure you can spot the huge differences between this older story and some of the more up to date ones on this thread. What? You can't see any differences? You know what, I think you're right. It is exactly the same old bollocks. Nothing's changed at all.
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 #66 on: 29 February, 2016, 12:14:05 PM »
The Prankster gets an honourable mention in this one. I thought Trouser Fire deserved a dishonourable one too. ;)

By the way, a link to this thread has been sent to the Grauniad.

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


Fined for parking at Aldi when I wasn’t there

Shopping at supermarket ended up with a demand for 16 hours’ stay


My receipt shows I was elsewhere

Rebecca Smithers
Tuesday 23 February 2016 07.00 GMT


I received a parking charge from Parking Eye for a visit to an Aldi store in Oldbury (near Birmingham), claiming I was there for 16 hours, which I can prove is incorrect. I’d gone to the store on 7 January to buy a fryer on offer. As there were none in stock, I left and was only in the car park a few minutes.

I went back the following evening (8 January) but, again, they were sold out. After leaving Oldbury I visited two Aldi stores in Netherton, finally getting the fryer from the store at Pear Tree Lane and (according to my receipt) paying at 20:13, so would have left that car park around 20:15.

However, the parking charge records say I was still at the Oldbury site and fails to pick me up leaving the store. I have appealed and am disgusted that this is how Aldi treats loyal customers. I also received the letter after the early payment date had passed. My receipt proves my vehicle was elsewhere. What do I do if they reject my appeal? PR, Rowley Regis, West Midlands



Aldi has confirmed the charge was incorrectly issued and has been cancelled, so there’s no need for an appeal. A spokesman said: “Our parking management provider has confirmed that the charge was incorrectly issued due to a technical error [The error being that they are only anywhere between 70% and 90% efficient in any one day]. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused PR.”

That said, we have seen many examples of supermarket visitors wrongly being caught out when making double visits, identified and explained by the Parking Prankster blogger and website.

This is down to automatic numberplate recognition technology, which records multiple short visits being shown as one long visit, typically leading, as in your case, to a parking charge notice being issued when it should not have been.

Parking Prankster explains: “ANPR technology is not the same as CCTV; it does not record a continuous stream of images. A photograph is only taken and recorded when a numberplate is detected.” Many operators, it adds, pretend the “double visit” problem does not occur.

But it seems to happen with such regularity it’s time major parking operators, linked up with supermarkets, take the necessary measures to ensure regular shoppers are not so unfairly penalised.

We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/feb/23/fined-parking-shopping-aldi






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 #67 on: 09 March, 2016, 11:14:20 AM »
From the Prankster

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


Monday, 7 March 2016
ParkingEye lose in court - accuse driver's evidence of being unreliable, but their own evidence destroys their case
07/03/2016 Case B7FC00H1 – Parking Eye v Mrs B, before District Judge McKinnell at St Albans


This was a Barnet Hospital case, where the defendant had gone to pick up her daughter, and spent 34 minutes driving around the access roads trying to find out which department her daughter was likely to be in. She had parked for a brief period in the 20 minute drop off zone, but never parked in any of the Patient & Visitor car parks. ParkingEye alleged that she did, and therefore owed the Hospital £2, which ParkingEye escalated to £100.

There was a previous hearing in December ,which was carried over to March. After this hearing, Mrs B contacted the Prankster, who enlisted the help of Barnet resident Mr Mustard, usually known for his expertise in Council tickets.

Some excellent detective work by Mr Mustard proved the ticket should never have been issued. Mr Mustard made a meticulous site visit, photographing and documenting all aspects of the car park.

This is the photograph ParkingEye filed as evidence claiming that it was of Mrs B leaving the Patient & Visitor Car park.



Mr Mustard noticed the writing on the road. There is only one place in the hospital with writing like this - the 20 minute free stay car park.



 ParkingEye's own evidence was essentially worthless. Their pictures show the vehicle entering the Patient & Visitor Car Park but leaving a completely different car park!

Mr Mustard could not attend the hearing, so at short notice Bargepole offered to be Mrs B's lay representative. He took Mrs B's rather unstructured defence and prepared a concise summary for the judge, concentrating on the fact that no contravention occurred.

In court ParkingEye's representative Mr Harris, said that, as Mrs B’s initial defence on the MCOL form denied ever visiting Barnet Hospital, and then she changed it when she received the photos, her evidence should be treated as unreliable.

He cross-examined Mrs B, and tried to suggest that her subsequent witness statement, in which she denied ever parking, stating that she was driving around the entire time, was made up after discussing the case with her daughter, and 83-year old mother, who had been with her at the time, so it wasn’t a contemporaneous account. Mrs B stuck to her guns, and answered in a positive and assertive manner, to her credit.

Bargepole then pointed out that PE’s photos showed the vehicle entering from one part of the complex, and exiting from a different part, and did not provide any evidence that she had parked for any length of time, or at all.

The Judge sent the parties out for 20 minutes while she considered her verdict, and then went through the case in her judgment.

She found Mrs B to be a credible witness, and accepted her evidence that she never parked. ParkingEye had not made out their case to prove that she parked for 34 minutes, or at all, and the claim would fail on that basis. She also commented that ParkingEye's signage only talks about ‘parking’, and doesn’t claim that the clock starts ticking once you pass the ANPR cameras.

Costs were awarded to the defendant of £47.50 for a half day off work, plus £7.50 parking, total £55.

Bargepole's comment: the lesson to learn from this for anyone receiving a court claim, is don’t rush to put a load of rubbish down as your defence as soon as you receive the claim; acknowledge service and take the full 28 days.

Prankster Notes

Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site.



 When Mrs B made a similar request ParkingEye stonewalled her and refused to supply the data. The Prankster believes the data would have backed up her claim to have been driving around the site and that ParkingEye  should therefore have vacated the claim.

Instead, they spent more than £500 pursuing a claim for an underpayment £2, which it turns out was never owed in the first place.

It is clear that the ParkingEye system at Barnet hospital is unreliable and is issuing tickets which it has no rights to issue. Moreover The Prankster believes that ParkingEye are, or should be, fully aware of this from analysing the camera tracks of Mrs B's journey.

It is also clear that the system at Barnet Hospital is in direct contravention of government guidelines, which state that:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’

 Hospital car parks are huge sources of revenue for ParkingEye, and The Prankster believes this is a serious abuse which needs rectifying. Alternative methods of fairly managing hospital car parks should be used instead, with parking companies getting a management fee only and not a fee based on issuing parking charges.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html

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 #68 on: 09 March, 2016, 12:56:04 PM »
Motorists fined for short Yeovil District Hospital drop-offs

By Western Gazette - Yeovil  |  Posted: March 08, 2016


Alastair Swinnerton was issued a penalty charge by Parking Eye for a "double visit" to drop off and pick up his father from the hospital

   Two Yeovil motorists who believe they have fallen foul of an apparent glitch in the parking system at Yeovil District Hospital are appealing for others who may have been affected to come forward.

Jane Jeffrey was hit with a penalty charge for staying in the drop-off bay for an hour and a half, despite leaving and then returning during this time.

She was taking her daughter and grand-daughter to the hospital on February 17, leaving them in the drop-off bay outside and returning later to pick them up.

She said: "My daughter said she would text me when she was done, so I went to my friend's house and came back when she was finished.

"Then a few weeks later we got this penalty charge saying that I had been parked in the drop-off area for an hour and a half.

"They had taken the photos from when I first went in and then when I went out the second time so it looked like I had been there for a long time."

Jane struggled to get through to anyone from the company who issues the fines, Parking Eye, and did not want anyone else to get hit with a penalty charge.

"You feel really under pressure to pay the fine because you can't get through to Parking Eye at all. If you challenge it the fine also goes up from £40 to £70.

"They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this and I feel sorry for anyone else that has been caught by them. It's really concerning and just makes you wonder how many times this has happened before.

"Luckily I went to the hospital and complained and they quashed the fine for me but I was very close to just paying it."

Alastair Swinnerton was issued with a similar charge by ParkingEye for a "double visit" to drop off and pick up his father from the hospital in January.

He says he pulled into the 20 minute drop off area at around 9am on January 29 so his father could go into the hospital for a scan.

   Since he only lives a short distance away, Mr Swinnerton drove home and came back around an hour and a half later to pick him up.

He later received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from ParkingEye, saying he had stayed in the short stay zone for the full hour and a half.

Mr Swinnerton appealed the charge, assuming the company had made a mistake, but was unsuccessful. He appealed again and, after contacting the Patient Experience Team at the hospital, his charge was rescinded.

He is now seeking other people who may have received a charge in similar circumstances, and is not going to give up easily.

He said: "A lot of the "advice" on the internet is to just ignore these kinds of tickets but the serious forums say the opposite.

"You should appeal as soon as you get the charge notice, and keep appealing. As long as you know you are in the right, and can prove it. Tell them you're happy to let them take you to court.

"From what I've seen in internet case studies, that usually gets the ticket cancelled. If you just ignore it they will start sending debt recovery letters, and ultimately obtain a county court judgement against you."

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: "People parking at Yeovil District Hospital have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable.

"In both of these cases, the parking system identified that Mr Swinnerton and Ms Jeffery overstayed by at least 80 minutes and so were issued with a charge.

"We encourage people to submit an appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website."

Yeovil District Hospital have been contacted for comment.

http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Motorists-fined-short-Yeovil-District-Hospital/story-28883831-detail/story.html

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


"People parking at Yeovil District Hospital have a responsibility to make sure they do not exceed the free parking limit otherwise a parking charge will become payable."

THESE PEOPLE ACTED ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLY YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON!

Now let's see if Mr Trouserfire has anything to say on the subject.





Oh dear! He seems to be siding with the moron.

But the Parking(sh)Eye(ster) Ltd moron doesn't finish there. He goes on to say:


"We encourage people to submit an appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances,"

So let's examine this little gem shall we. First let's examine the meaning of the word "mitigate".

mitigate
[ˈmɪtɪɡeɪt]
VERB

    make (something bad) less severe, serious, or painful:
    "drainage schemes have helped to mitigate this problem"
        synonyms: alleviate · reduce · diminish · lessen · weaken · lighten ·

    lessen the gravity of (an offence or mistake):
    "he would have faced a prison sentence but for mitigating circumstances"
        synonyms: extenuating · exonerative · justificatory · justifying ·

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that in order for there to be "mitigating circumstances" to be considered, it must have been established that "an offence or mistake" has already occurred. Put simply, you only need to mitigate against something if you have done something wrong.

Fortunately, in this country there remains the judicial presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty, but this doesn't seem to matter to the Parking(sh)Eye(ster) Ltd moron. Perhaps the Ltd in this case refers to his intellect?
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #69 on: 16 March, 2016, 02:31:35 PM »
Shoppers say they were wrongly fined for parking in Stafferton Way retail park

Hefty charges for extended parking stays at Stafferton Way retail park that have not been made are being issued by the car park company.



Users of the car park have reported receiving notices demanding £100 for overstaying from car park management firm G24.

The affected visitors are contesting the fines.

Laurie Dingwall regularly visits the retail park to use Pets at Home. On January 27 he visited the store to make an appointment with the in-house vet for his pet rabbit at 12.50pm. He says he left shortly afterwards and did not return until 5pm when he stayed for around half an hour. G24 says he stayed in the car park for the four hours.

Laurie, who lives in Holyport, is now wary of going again in case he is sent another fine.

He said: “It makes me reluctant to go there more than once in case something might happen. The staff at Pets at Home have said that it happens regularly.”

He has tried to appeal the notice with G24 and is now sending a written application to the management firm with a letter from Pets at Home clarifying the times he was in store.

Paul Allgood, owner of timber treatment company Allgood Treatments, was also sent a fine by G24 after visiting the car park twice on January 21.

Paul, who has been trading in Maidenhead for 30 years, said its van had been driven to Homebase in the morn-ing to buy work materials and then again in the afternoon to replace a light bulb at Halfords.

“They say we went in at 9am and left at 5pm but that is absolute nonsense,” he said.

“There is no way we would leave our working van in a place like that all day. There is something really weird going on.”

Paul is concerned that there may be others like him who have been wrongly fined, but who would have paid anyway.

He added: “For elderly people who go there it is frightening. I bet there are people who have paid the fine who shouldn’t have.”

Shoppers are allowed to park free for three hours.

G24 refused to comment when contacted by the Advertiser.


http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Shoppers-say-they-were-wrongly-fined-for-parking-in-Stafferton-Way-retail-park-10032016.htm


Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #70 on: 23 March, 2016, 09:32:05 PM »
Any system that allows you to put in the wrong registration number is not fit for purpose.

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


http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/couple-s-fury-over-south-shields-hospital-parking-fine-1-7783472

Couple’s fury over South Shields hospital parking fine


Ann Graves angry over parking issue at South Tyneside District Hospital.

A couple have called on hospital parking bosses in South Tyneside to make their complaints process clearer after they struggled to appeal against a fine.

Ann and Doug Graves, from Quarry Lane, South Shields, visited South Tyneside District Hospital to see their daughter Jacqueline, 29, who had just given birth, and Doug’s brother Dave, 59, who had suffered breathing difficulties.

The couple faced a fine after firm Parking Eye said they had keyed in the wrong registration number.

But the couple say they took extra care to key in their car’s registration number to the machine near the maternity unit, after Ann fell foul of the system and put in the wrong plate details twice when she went to Sunderland Royal Hospital, which has the same system.

ParkingEye says they keyed in the wrong number but has agreed to drop the fine of £55 if paid within a week, and £70 if paid beyond that.

Ann, 59, a domestic at Perth Green House, and Doug, 61, a minibus driver, say their issue is with how difficult it is to reach the company to raise a complaint. They say the email addresses on their ticket did not work and the telephone number given does not give the option to speak to a person and only gives automated responses.

Ann said: “We were totally shocked and fuming because I knew for a fact we’d put in the right reg. It’s only because we sent them a letter that we got a reply.”

A ParkingEye spokesman said: “Mr and Mrs Graves received a parking charge as they incorrectly entered their vehicle registration into the machine on site.

“As soon as they appealed and made us aware of the mistake, we cancelled the charge.”

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 #71 on: 15 April, 2016, 11:56:11 AM »
Courtesy of the Prankster

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


Thursday, 14 April 2016

Bogus ParkingEye claim for Riverside Retail Park thrown out of court

ParkingEye's deficient ANPR technology was found wanting yet again in court.

In this latest case an unfortunate motorist found they had a CCJ registered against them when they attempted to make a purchase of a new car. On investigating, this turned out to be from a claim which ParkingEye had taken out against them. The lady had never received any court papers so applied for a set-aside, asking the British Motorist Protection Association for advice.

The parking event, which happened back in 2013, was in the same car park where Barry Beavis was charged in the ParkingEye v Beavis case. However, in this particular case the motorist visited the car park twice. In the first visit, she found she had forgotten her purse. She then returned home to get it, and visited one shop where she spent £61. She retained the receipt, which she was able to show the judge.

ParkingEye's ANPR system, which has been proved not fit for purpose in many court claims previous to this, was one again found wanting, recording just one long stay instead of the two visits. With the help of the BMPA the motorist filed a witness statement containing the following information.

    The alleged contravention never occurred. I visited the shops twice on that day. On the first visit I forgot my purse and had to return. I then only visited one shop where I still have my receipt for £61, which I will bring as evidence. ParkingEye's ANPR cameras incorrectly recorded my two short visits as one long stay.

    ANPR cameras are not 100% accurate and a large number of cases similar to this are documented on the internet. I have contacted the British Motorists Protection Association who inform me that one way ANPR cameras fail is when vehicles drive close to each other and block off the numberplate from the camera. Other errors are introduced if there is glare from sun or snow, if the camera angle is wrong, if the camera is misaligned with the road or if the road is too wide for the camera capabilities. Depending on the site, the camera accuracy will vary from as low as 70% to the high 90's. Normally this works to the benefit of the motorist, as the stay will not be recorded. However, in the case of double visits, this works against the motorist.

    This means that on the day of the incident I was one of the unfortunate victims of poor technology, with the cameras missing my first exit and second entrance.

    ParkingEye measure the accuracy of every site by recording the number of cars entering, but apparently never exiting, and also exiting, but apparently never entering.  To protect against issuing charges for double visits they cancel all charges when accuracy falls below 70%. This is far too low a percentage, and accounts for the large number of complaints against ParkingEye by motorists who have made double visits.

In the set-aside hearing, ParkingEye decided not to appear to contest the claim, but to send in papers only. After considering the papers and speaking to the motorist, the judge not only decided to grant the set-aside, but also decided that ParkingEye had no prospect of success in any future hearing. He therefore used his case management powers to dismiss the claim.

Prankster Note

It is fairly unusual to dismiss a claim during the set aside process. However judges do have wide reaching case management powers, and if the judge found that there was two visits then no contravention occurred and the sensible thing to do was to dismiss the claim. This saves time and money for both parties, as well as the court.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bogus-parkingeye-claim-for-riverside.html
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 #72 on: 29 April, 2016, 06:53:49 PM »


Man turns private investigator to win £100 parking fine battle







A MAN spent two weeks gathering evidence to prove his innocence after being accused of parking his van in a private car park all day.

Workman Shaun D'Wit was sent a £100 fine after cameras apparently caught him entering the car park at The Range, in Cowdray Avenue, Colchester shortly before 10am and not leaving until 5.38pm.

But Mr D'Wit had in fact spent less than 15 minutes in the store in the morning of March 18 when he went looking for carpet fittings and had arrived briefly later the same day to buy on-offer sanding blocks.

Mr D'Wit, who lives in Elmstead Market, then spent two weeks after being sent the fine in the post "working as a private investigator" in a bid to prove his innocence and escape the £100 punishment.

He believes the car park's cameras are not equipped to clock cars going in and out, leaving every ticket open to a challenge.

The married dad-of-two said: "I can't believe what I've had to do just to clear my name - it's unreal.

"When I got it, I couldn't believe it. I've never spent more than an hour in The Range and I'd remember if I left my van there all day."

During the "investigation" he sought written evidence from Wickes, in Clarendon Way, to prove he had been shopping there during the time his van was meant to be parked less than a mile away at The Range.

He also dug out receipts from other places he had been during that day to add to his case.

The 56-year-old added: "The only reason I've got this done is because I ran around gathering up all the information like a blooming private investigator.

"They would have quite happily taken that money off me - no questions.

"My worry is this 'nastiness', which is what I call it, might have worked on someone else, perhaps a single mum or an older person who doesn't have the internet might have just paid up and never thought about it.

"That's why I want people to know what's happened - to let people know they don't have to just pay without thinking."


A spokesman for Parking Eye, which runs the car park, said: "“Unfortunately, Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error.

"The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation was sent to him."


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


A spokesmanwea$el for Parking(sh)Eye(sters) (Ltd, mustn't forget the Ltd), which ru(i)ns the car park, said: "Unfortunately, Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error."


          Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error         
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 #73 on: 29 April, 2016, 07:29:15 PM »

 Mr D’Wit was issued a parking charge in error."



I wonder what Mr Trouserfire has to say on this subject? Let's ask him shall we?


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 #74 on: 29 April, 2016, 09:51:30 PM »
We're all about the balance on here BE. If there's a story about someone called D'Wit then it's only fair that a f :o ckwit should be allowed to voice their opinion.
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