Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 53517 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #105 on: 13 January, 2017, 10:35:05 AM »
Porsche man’s fury at fine for vehicle mix-up



A Porsche driver who was fined £70 after his silver car was mistaken for a Renault van with a company logo in a Hucknall car park, is furious because he has never visited the town in his life! Hedley Riches received the fine, along with images which show the van entering and leaving the Aldi carpark on December 21.

He said his Porsche 911 Carrera 4 is “neither taxed or insured and permanently remains under wraps as a long-term investment in my home garage at Ellington, Northumberland. Furthermore I have never been to Hucknall in my life. “Any idiot can see that the vehicle clearly displayed in the photograph is a Renault commercial vehicle with the company name displayed on the rear doors. In any event it is clearly not a silver Porsche 911 Cerrera 4.”

Mr Riches replied to ParkingEye, the Chorley-based firm which issued the notice and suggested the culprit be “dismissed on the grounds of total and utter unacceptable incompetence.” He said: “No doubt the matter will be attributed to a computer error. In this case the accuracy of visual recognition and powers of logical and reasoned deduction are clearly inadequate and the programme must be called into question. I wonder how many elderly or infirm people may have been bullied and harassed by the tone of your notice and have simply “coughed up the cash”.”

He told the firm he was not appealing and had “no intention of paying this spurious fine.” A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances. Upon assessment of his case, ParkingEye has cancelled the parking charge.”

http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/porsche-man-s-fury-at-fine-for-vehicle-mix-up-1-8327173

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #106 on: 13 January, 2017, 10:56:47 AM »
A story like the one above is never complete without Mr Trouserfire's wise words being added.



By the way, this is the 89th article in this thread and as of today it just passed the 27,000 views mark. I consider this a sign of the scale of the abuse being suffered at the hands of parking wea$el's.
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Coco

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Northampton
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #107 on: 13 January, 2017, 03:26:25 PM »
And I'm certain that these reports represent only a small number of cases that occur around the country!

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #108 on: 24 January, 2017, 05:15:12 PM »
Another case where the system lets you input data it does not recognise.

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


Car registration space on Parkmobile app cost me £100

We paid the parking charge and got confirmation, but UK Parking Control won’t budge on the fine


Clear signs to pay and display … only problem, we paid by the app.

Can you help me with a £100 fine levied by UK Parking Control? In October my partner parked in Cheltenham and paid via the mobile app promoted by signs in the car park – Parkmobile.

She entered the registration of the hire car she was in, paid the £4.10 charge and received confirmation messages, leaving her confident that all was as it should be.

However, it appears the app has not been designed around user behaviour. She inputted the registration number with a space in it, as it appears on a car. As a result we were sent a £100 fine.

Attempts to appeal, both through UKPC and the ombudsman, have been met with a blanket response that the need to pay and display was “clearly displayed”, without any reference to the fact we had paid via the app.
JP, Cheltenham

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

Using a mobile phone app to pay parking charges is becoming ubiquitous, but this letter also shows the perils involved, as if there is even the tiniest of mistakes the user can end up with a fine.

It also shows up how useless the parking appeals service has become. I asked Parkmobile about your case and, following discussions with UKPC, the fine has been cancelled as “a gesture of goodwill”.

Other users of these apps should take note and check that the car registration details are correct at each stage. Paying cash must be easier.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/23/parkmobile-app-fine-car-registration-space-uk-parking-control

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


WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #109 on: 09 February, 2017, 11:29:33 AM »
‘Considering these timings were on entering and leaving the car park no consideration is being given by the company that in between those timings I had to obtain a ticket allowing me two hours of parking.

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

Pensioner facing court for overstaying time in car park by one minute



An 81-year-old pensioner who overstayed his time in a Sports Direct car park by one minute is being threatened with court.

Rod Wilson parked his vehicle in the car park on September 19 and two weeks later, he received a £45 fine from Smart Parking, who lease the site.

He appealed – but the fine has since been increased to £160, and debt collectors are now threatening to take him to court.

Mr Wilson said: ‘Considering these timings were on entering and leaving the car park no consideration is being given by the company that in between those timings I had to obtain a ticket allowing me two hours of parking.

‘I have been driving for over 60 years and never once have entered and left a car park without paying.
‘I am 81 years of age and utterly disgusted that a company can operate in this way.’
Smart Parking have been contacted for a comment, but did not respond.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/08/pensioner-facing-court-for-overstaying-time-in-car-park-by-one-minute-6434809/
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #110 on: 25 February, 2017, 11:33:40 AM »
Disabled driver's fury over second wrong parking ticket this year

Driver says some motorists will pay because they are 'scared' by parking charge notice


A copy of the parking charge notice Diane Kinvig, 64, of Summer Close, Runcorn, received in the post from ParkingEye

A disabled shopper has slammed a parking firm over a wrongly issued £40 parking ticket after a trip to a Runcorn supermarket visit – for the second time this year.

Diane Kinvig, 64, who has rheumatoid arthritis, received the first ticket in the post from ParkingEye in January, accusing her of parking at Asda for four hours when in fact she had made two journeys.

The second was issued on February 11 and although it shows an ANPR image of her car entering the car park, it clearly shows a different vehicle with a different number plate leaving and claimed she had parked overnight between 8.15pm and 7.07am.

Mrs Kinvig, of Summer Close, had the first ticket quashed and, in reply to a query from the

Weekly News, ParkingEye said it had issued a cancellation letter in the post.

However, Mrs Kinvig said shoppers should not be receiving tickets in the first place and can do without the alarm of receiving a notice that threatens a £70 fine, discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days.

Her call follows the similar plight of Mike Holden, of Halton Lodge, who had his ticket cancelled in-store in December.

In relation to the second ticket, Mrs Kinvig asked why she would have parked overnight.

She said; “That wasn’t me going out at that time in the morning. They said I stayed there for 10 hours.

“How many people are they doing this to? What do they think they’re playing at? Some people get scared and just pay it.

“You can’t email them, you can’t phone them.

“By the time you’ve written to them your fine could have gone up to £70 and by the time you’ve got a response back you could end up in court.”

A ParkingEye spokeswoman said: “Unfortunately, Ms Kinvig was issued a parking charge in error.

“The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation has been issued.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-drivers-fury-over-second-12641083

#92

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #111 on: 25 February, 2017, 11:44:21 AM »
From the Prankster

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


ParkingEye scam fails. Car parked elsewhere
[Due to some unspecified google error The Prankster had to rewrite this blog]

ParkingEye attempted to scam a driver out of £85 by claiming they were parked in a car park for 18 hours.



The scam only failed when the driver proved they were parked over 15 miles away in a secure car park at work at the time.



In an amusing twist to the tale, the ANPR at the works site misread the registration, interpreting a 'F' as a '6'. Perhaps this gives a clue as to why ParkingEye's system also failed.

Prankster Note

Parking companies like to maintain the fiction that ANPR is an infallible technology, when the reality is that it is anything but.

Not all drivers have a secure car park they can use to prove they were not in a ParkingEye car park. ParkingEye play on this, and sadly have even won court cases where their clever advocates persuaded judges that ANPR technology is infallible. It is of course, not fair or just that drivers then have to pay several hundred pounds for a contravention that never even occurred.

Parking companies use ANPR to save costs of parking wardens. It is not right that they use a minimum cost solution which does not work properly and issues bogus charges. Technological solutions and failsafes do exist, and create a much fairer environment. The Marlborough Hill site in Bristol ( http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/model-hospital-car-park-shows-how-it.html ) is one such example - freedom of information requests reveal that the number of charges for overstays are minimal.

Sadly, such technology is rarely used. The Prankster believes this is because it would cut down ParkingEye's income to a point where they would not be financially viable. The Prankster is of the same mind of the Government and believes it is not fair to deliberately run a car park in a way to maximise the chances of issuing a parking charge:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles )

The Prankster calls for a change to the code of practice to ban the use of ANPR except on sites where a failsafe is in place.

Data Protection

It is likely that the driver, now has a valid data protection claim against ParkingEye. They have used their data in a way which is clearly not fair or lawful, which violates data principle 1.

A valid claim would appear to be in the range £250-£600.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

#93
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #112 on: 26 February, 2017, 11:32:55 AM »
Pay-by-phone car park fiasco for driver in Derby

Click link below to see video:

<iframe src='http://players.brightcove.net/1275380505001/rJjlPOKH_default/index.html?videoId=5325614480001?wmode=transparent' allowfullscreen frameborder=0></iframe>

Another Derby resident has been left disgusted by a private car parking firm after he was fined when he took 11 minutes to try to pay by phone.

Matt Simper becomes the latest name in the city to have fallen victim to bizarre parking fines as reported in the Derby Telegraph in recent months.

Mr Simper, of Chaddesden, was left in disbelief after he got a fine notice two weeks after struggling to pay for just one hour's parking at Crompton Street car park.

Ahead of going on a quick dash around Derby city centre on Thursday, December 1, the 35-year-old opted to park his car in the small car park next to Green Lane.

Realising he had no change for the parking machine, Mr Simper was relieved to see signs saying he could pay on his phone, but after texting and calling a number as well as going online, he was unable to make a payment. He then left so he could find an alternative place to park.

Mr Simper then thought nothing more of his problems until two weeks later, just before Christmas, when he received a letter from Crompton Street car park owners Parking Eye which fined him £60 for not paying to park despite his struggles and the fact he was there for only 11 minutes.

Disgusted with the decision, Mr Simper then appealed through Parking Eye which then turned it down and increased his fine to £100.

However, father of-two Mr Simper, felt he was being punished for doing nothing wrong and appealed via the Parking on Private Land Appeals agency (POPLA).

To his delight, the appeal was successful meaning he did not have to pay the £100 fine.

Mr Simper claimed his appeal was successful because Parking Eye submitted no evidence during the process.

He thinks other victims of such unwarranted fines may be able to have their fines revoked if they fight.

He said: "I couldn't believe it when I first got the fine. I was only there for eleven minutes and did everything I could to pay.

"I appealed because I felt I did everything in my power to try and pay but was being punished for something I couldn't do.

"I saw articles in the Derby Telegraph which said other drivers had been treated in a similar way so I decided to appeal again.

"Even though I won the appeal at the second time of asking I was still a bit miffed because I've won because Parking Eye failed to submit any evidence. So I'm still unsure what they have done about the concerns I made to them about trying to pay on phone.

"My message is for people who have been treated in this way is to fight an appeal through. I can't help feeling that these fines are given out in the hope that those on the receiving end don't appeal a second time."

In response to Mr Simper's claims, Parking Eye said the reason for not submitting evidence was due to "very rare administration error." Not so rare according to this thread <Tosser>

In November the Derby Telegraph reported how Dave Shooter spent 11 minutes trying to find a spot in the packed Siddals Road car park in Derby before being fined.

And last month we ran stories from victims saying they had been fined in city car parks despite having paid.

This is not the first time the Crompton Street Car Park has been in the news for controversial reasons.

Back in 2009, drivers were complaining after falling victim to huge clamping release costs of up to £275 under the management of previous owners City Parks Management.


http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/man-gets-fined-despite-parking-for-just-eleven-minutes-because-he-could-not-pay/story-30142219-detail/story.html#YD6JazQ3JfpEt3eU.99

#94
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #113 on: 26 February, 2017, 11:48:35 AM »
I couldn't find a space in Derby car park but STILL got a ticket!

Click link below to see video:

http://bcove.me/pthp5xct

A motorist is furious after he was fined for just DRIVING in a city car park.

Dave Shooter spent 11 minutes trying to find a spot in the packed Siddals Road car park.   

Frustrated, he finally gave up and drove off to park elsewhere. But then he was stunned when he was sent a £60 fine.... for not buying a parking ticket at Siddals Road. He's now condemned car park operator Euro Car Parks for its "miserly" attitude.

Mr Shooter wanted to park in Siddals Road because his wife is suffering ill health and he did not want her to have to walk too far to Derby Theatre.

The retired head teacher said: "I didn't even park up in a space, so I thought I had good grounds to appeal so I did.

"But they threw that out and wrote back to me saying if I did not pay the fine in a set number of days they would start court proceedings against me to recover the money. I didn't want the hassle of going through all that so I have paid up. But what a miserly attitude they had and I suspect other motorists might receive the same type of letter."



Mr Shooter said that after spending time looking for a space in the car park they realised that parking there would mean having to use steps to get to Derby Theatre, which they were unable to do due to complications with Mrs Shooter's health.   

So they stopped briefly to check their sat nav for an alternative car park before leaving.

Days later, having "thoroughly enjoyed" the performance of This May Hurt, Mr Shooter was shocked to receive a letter from Euro Car Parks telling him he owed them £60.

Then 65-year-old said: "I was only in the car park for 11 minutes and now I have had to pay £60 for the privilege.

Mr Shooter, who used to be head teacher at Picknall First School, in Uttoxeter, said he and his wife, who is also 65, arrived in Siddals Road car park at 6.33pm on September 23.   

He said: "We drove around for a while looking for a space that wasn't in a pothole or a puddle.



"We were having no luck so I stopped the car briefly and noticed if we were to park there it would mean my wife would have to climb steps to get to the theatre which she was unable to do because of health complications at the time.

"I looked at my sat nav and found an alternative one under the Intu centre so we left.

"But it transpires the owners of Siddals Road car park have cameras that film cars coming in and leaving the car park.

"In our case we were there for 11 minutes looking for a space, didn't even park in one and still got hit for £60.

"The performance we went to see was thoroughly enjoyable but if I had known how much it was going to cost me I might have thought twice about coming to Derby to see it."



Mr Shooter, of Badgers Hollow, Checkley, Stoke, said when he received the cash demand from Euro Car Parks he spoke to other people who had been through a similar experience who told him he had grounds for appeal.

But that was thrown out by the firm.

No-one from Euro Car Parks responded to our request for a comment.

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/former-head-teacher-fined-60-for-looking-for-car-parking-space-in-derby-for-just-11-minutes/story-29933355-detail/story.html#iTBJGhoKFqvBFBWS.99

#95
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #114 on: 27 February, 2017, 10:23:03 AM »
Any system that lets a driver input a VRN that has not been captured on its ANPR cameras is not fit for purpose.

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


Dyslexic mum fined £320 for parking at health centre after typing in wrong car registration number and overstaying

Cassie Lawrence, 30, has been threatened with legal action by parking firm Parking Eye, which manages NHS car parks at GP surgeries and hospitals



A mother has been fined £320 for parking in a health centre car park while attending GP appointments.

Cassie Lawrence, 30, has been threatened with legal action by parking firm Parking Eye, which manages NHS car parks at GP surgeries and hospitals.

Parking Eye, owned by outsourcing giant Capita, uses camera technology to record the number plates of cars that enter and leave so they can be traced.

Cassie, who is dyslexic, got two separate £160 parking tickets while attending GP appointments at Montpellier health centre, Bristol, in May 2015.

Patients are entitled to park there for free for up to 90 minutes but Cassie tapped the wrong registration number into a car park terminal. On a second occasion she overstayed her time limit.

She is now being chased by Capita’s debt recovery company, Equita, and fears she may end up with a county court judgment against her.

She said: “I entered my registration number in the machine inside the doctor’s but as I am dyslexic I simply put the last two digits of my reg the wrong way round.

“I have been receiving threats left right and centre from Parking Eye and its sister company Equita. I’m adamant I’m not going to pay this fee as I’m struggling financially.

“I also feel the fine is so unfair seeing as how as I was parked in a doctor’s surgery and clearly it was a typing error on my part.”

Parking Eye manages more than 900 sites, with clients including supermarkets, retail parks and NHS trusts.

Latest accounts show the firm made profits of £5.9million in 2015 - up from £4.8million the previous year - while its turnover totalled £26.6million.

Call centre worker Cassie, of St Andrews, Bristol, has now been told one of the fines will be reduced to £100 as a “goodwill gesture” providing it is paid within 40 days.

But the mother of two, who receives disability allowance and no longer drives because of her condition, says she can’t afford to pay it.

She added: “They can take me to court if they want, I’m not paying it. I think it’s disgusting they are fining NHS patients in this way.”

Parking Eye says fines are set by NHS trusts and it was down to drivers to make sure they do not overstay their welcome.

A ParkingEye spokesman said: “We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are extenuating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.

"We did not receive an appeal against one of the charges and the other was unsuccessful because unfortunately we haven’t received any evidence to support the appeal.”

The Sunday Mirror, backed by Labour and Tory MPs, has campaigned against parking firms ripping off NHS patients and staff.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dyslexic-mum-fined-320-parking-9625774

#96
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #115 on: 14 April, 2017, 09:58:07 AM »
Council asks shoppers fined on Aldi's car park in Leek to get in touch


Have you been fined at Aldi in Leek?

Shoppers fined after using a supermarket car park are being urged to complain as an investigation gets underway.

Dozens of Aldi customers have fallen victim to a controversial parking system which sees them have to input their vehicle's registration plate at machines inside the Leek store.

Now Staffordshire Moorlands District Council is asking anyone who believes they have been wrongly received a £70 fine to get in touch so a dossier of evidence can be compiled.

The issue was discussed at a meeting of the planning committee this week.

Chairman Stephen Ellis said: "We now need evidence from people who have been fined and urge them to send it in to the council so we can take Aldi to task. This is an unacceptable situation.

"Everyone seems to have a story to tell which suggests the failure of the management of the car park. People have had threatening letters and some have been told they have not spent enough.

"You are a customer if you can't even find what you are looking for."

Aldi's rules state customers qualify for two hours of free parking at the Haywood Street shop providing they purchase goods and input their car details into terminals near the tills.

The German retailer, which employs ParkingEye to manage its car park, insists if shoppers use the machines and don't overstay the limit they will not be fined.

However, many people claim they have been sent tickets despite following the correct procedures.

Now councillors have suggested faulty equipment could be blame and have called for receipts to be dispensed.

Councillor Gail Lockett said: "I have lots of examples where people are using the store but are being fined. I've been today and the equipment isn't working.

"It took me three attempts to put the number in and then the machine doesn't give you a receipt. There is no proof. People are getting fines for faulty equipment.


"I've been told that if you refuse to pay the fines there is nothing they can do."

Councillor Robert Plant said when he visited the store just after Christmas he tried three times to register his number-plate.

He said: "I was only in 10 minutes and 10 days letter I received a fine. I then received three more threatening letters. I haven't paid up and the letters have stopped."


Councillor Sav Scalise said his daughter had been to the store and spent between £50 and £60 but was still fined.

He added: "She punched in the her details, but they still fine you. Something clearly needs to be done about this."

The council's operational manager Ben Haywood confirmed the authority would take up the complaints with Aldi.

He said: "If people have had fines and they are reported to us with the evidence, we will take it up with Aldi. Any breach of the Section 106 agreement will be taken up."

The Section 106 agreement states: "The car park will be controlled and managed to provide short-stay car parking for shoppers but will be managed in such a way as to allow customers to visit other shops, cafes, restaurants or public facilities located within Leek town centre. The maximum length of stay will be two hours."

An Aldi spokesman said: "The rules are clear and well-advertised therefore customers should not be in any doubt as to how the car park operates."

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/council-asks-shoppers-fined-on-aldi-s-car-park-in-leek-to-get-in-touch/story-30256208-detail/story.html

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #116 on: 25 April, 2017, 10:02:39 AM »
They knew the driver had paid but still demanded the money. Another example of the system allowing drivers to input wrong VRNs.

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


“ParkingEye spoilt what should have been an excellent day”

Review of Snowdon Mountain Railway

I had pre-booked 2 rail tickets several days ahead and was informed that I must pick up the tickets at least 30 minutes before train departure. We parked in designated car park and I paid for 4 hours to cover our trip. A week later I received a parking fine from ParkingEye for £100 which I contested. They wrote back to say that I had made an error on the registration number entry and as a 'goodwill gesture' reduced my fine to £20. But they knew that I had paid for the parking - it is easy to make an error when you are exposed to a new interface that you have never used before, under time pressure to pick up tickets and with a queue of people behind you. I urge the Snowdon Railway Company or owners of the land to get rid of ParkingEye just as many of the supermarkets have to avoid something like this leaving a bad taste.

Visited March 2017

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186448-d195638-r475846293-Snowdon_Mountain_Railway-Llanberis_Snowdonia_National_Park_North_Wales_Wales.html

#98
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #117 on: 11 May, 2017, 10:52:05 AM »
$cameras like these can only clock you in and out. This is yet more proof that they are not fit for purpose.

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


Shoppers who were trapped in their cars for hours in bank holiday gridlock at retail park are fined £100 for overstaying in the car park

  Ashford Retail Park in Kent installed cameras to check drivers stay times in April
  But the Easter bank holiday traffic meant some faced queues of two hours to get out of the shopping
  centre
  They were then hit with fines this week for 'overstaying' the three hour slots
  One man spent 20 minutes just getting out of his parking space in the car park
  Were you stuck in car park? Email paddy.dinham@mailonline.co.uk


Shoppers who queued for more than two hours to get out of a car park over the Easter bank holiday weekend have been slapped with £100 fines for overstaying their time slot.

Parking cameras went live at the Ashford Retail Park in Kent in April, with signs telling drivers the new maximum stay is three hours.

But motorists got caught in gridlock on Easter Monday, and were trapped in the car park for hours when they struggled to join traffic on adjoining roads.


Motorists were fined in this car park in Ashford, Kent after they got caught in heavy traffic


One shopper tweeted a picture of the gridlock on the Easter weekend and said she'd queued for 20 minutes to find a space

Peter Donald, from Kingsnorth, Kent, received a £100 fine three weeks after the chaos occurred and complained he was not parked but actually stuck trying to leave.

He said: 'We went about our normal business. We were probably there about an hour and a half. We came out of Costa and it was absolutely gridlocked.'

He said he took them 20 minutes to leave their parking space and more than two hours to get out of the car park.

He said: 'My family and I were stranded in a gridlocked car park when trying to leave.
'We were in our car in excess of about two hours. No one was letting anyone out.
'There were people parking up on the main road.'


Another shopper sat still in her car for more than an hour when traffic came to a halt on the bank holiday

Once they were finally out the car park, it only took about ten minutes to leave onto the dual carriageway.

But the family received a surprise letter at the beginning of this week.

Mr Donald, who is appealing the fine, said: 'On Monday we received a penalty charge notice from Highview Parking who enforce the three hour time limit on parking at this site.

'They must have had a flood of Penalty Charge Notices from this day.

'What troubles me is that there's no quality control. It was utter madness. It's just a money making exercise.

'I find it rather disappointing that these companies apply no common sense or quality control to their issuing of parking fines to innocent motorists who have over stayed due to no fault of their own.'

The notice indicated that the family were on the site for about four hours in total.

The £100 fine is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

Highview Parking has been contacted for comment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488560/Shoppers-trapped-car-park-100-fine-overstaying.html

#99
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #118 on: 02 June, 2017, 04:44:35 PM »
#100

How many more times do they need telling?!?!

YOU DON'T HAVE TO MITIGATE IF YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mitigate
VERB

lessen the gravity of (an offence or mistake):


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


Dad hit with 'shameful' charge for spending just minutes in Llandudno car park

Kenneth Jordan wrongly received an £85 charge notice from ParkingEye after dropping off his children at Mostyn Champneys retail park

A dad who spent just minutes in a Llandudno car park while he dropped off and picked up his children was shocked to be hit with a parking charge.

ParkingEye, which manages the car park at the Mostyn Champneys retail park, claimed Kenneth Jordan had parked there for hours, but issued an apology and a refund after he pointed out that he had in fact made two separate visits.

On April 20, the 60-year-old drove his wife’s Renault into the McDonald’s car park to drop off his two children, and says he spent no more than 10 minutes there.

Mr Jordan, from Bodedern, Anglesey, then took the car for a service in Llandudno Junction, before returning to McDonald’s to pick his children up at about 3.45pm, when he spent just a few minutes in the car park.

He later received a fine from ParkingEye.



“I believe the way ParkingEye operates is shameful,” said Mr Jordan, who is retired.

“The letter I received from them feels quite threatening and would scare a lot of elderly people to pay without asking any questions.

“Luckily, I’m not so easily scared, and I could prove with my receipts that I wasn’t at the car park during those times they are claiming.

“The proof they provided was two photographs of me driving into the car park earlier in the day, and of me leaving later in the afternoon.

“What I want to know is: why have they missed out on the photographs of me leaving the retail park in the morning, and of me driving back in again in the afternoon?"



He added: “I’ve fought this by sending them a letter with all my receipts showing I wasn’t there during that period, and I’ve yet to receive a reply.”

A ParkingEye spokesperson said: “Unfortunately, a parking charge was issued in error and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

“The charge has been cancelled and a letter of confirmation has been sent.

“We encourage people who have received a parking charge to appeal if they think there are mitigating circumstances, and instructions about how to do this are detailed on all communications and on our website.”

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/dad-hit-shameful-charge-spending-13075232#ICID
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4231
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #119 on: 05 June, 2017, 09:58:20 AM »
There's some good advice in here as well as yet more proof that ANPR systems allow you to enter registration numbers for vehicles it has no record of.

#101

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


Why throwing your pay & display ticket away after use could cost £100

It’s increasingly common for car parks to have CCTV cameras, and often you’ll find a parking charge arrives in the post instead of being slapped on your windscreen. So if you’ve paid and displayed, it’s crucial to ALWAYS keep hold of the evidence so you can prove it.

This blog post was prompted by one MoneySaver getting in touch after she was hit with a parking charge and found she was unable to prove she’d paid as she’d chucked away her ticket. (Just to avoid any confusion, for the purposes of this blog a parking TICKET is what you get when you pay to park, and a parking CHARGE is the demand for payment if a firm thinks you haven’t paid.)

Of course, if you get a parking charge notice on your windscreen there and then, you’ll know you need your ticket as evidence right away. But in some cases you won’t – instead, your (alleged) parking infringement will be picked up by cameras, and you’ll only be sent a parking charge notice by post much later. If you’ve binned your ticket by then, you may struggle to fight an unfair parking charge.

For full help, see our Private Parking Tickets and Council Parking Tickets guides.

‘I struggled to fight a £100 charge after throwing away my ticket’

A few days after using the Pleasureland car park in Morecambe, Lancashire, retail worker Gillian Bruce received an unexpected letter from parking firm ParkingEye asking her to fork out £100.

Gillian KNEW she had paid for three hours’ parking, but the parking charge notice wasn’t clear why she was being billed. She could see the cameras had snapped her entering the car park at 11:44:51 and leaving at 14:44:52. They weren’t charging her £100 for overstaying by one second, surely?

Well, actually, when we approached ParkingEye on Gillian’s behalf, it turned out no, they weren’t.

ParkingEye told us that it had issued the £100 car parking charge because it had no record of Gillian having paid to park in the first place. The pay and display machine at the car park in question requires drivers to enter their registration number – and no payment for Gillian’s registration number had been made that day.

Gillian was distraught. She hadn’t kept her pay and display ticket, as many drivers don’t – and now she had no way of proving she’d paid.

After we got involved ParkingEye looked at its records and found an almost identical vehicle registration to Gillian’s on its system. Gillian had made an error entering her registration number – and thankfully ParkingEye agreed to cancel the charge.

But Gillian’s story is a clear warning to others who pay in cash at pay and display car parks. OK, she made a mistake – but if MSE hadn’t intervened, Gillian could easily have ended up paying out £100 as a result.

Hang on to your pay and display tickets for AT LEAST two months

The question then is how long you need to keep your ticket for in case you’re caught on camera.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy exact answer, as parking rules can be hideously complicated. But we reckon AT LEAST two months is a good bet.

When we checked the different legal routes parking firms and councils can use to chase you if they think you’ve broken the rules, we found they should usually have contacted you within 15 to 45 days of when you parked. Adding a bit of time for contingency, weekends and so on, two months seems a sensible minimum.

In fact, it could be longer. One of the parking trade bodies, the International Parking Community, gives its members up to six months to apply to track down an owner’s details. And to be absolutely watertight, you’d have to keep tickets for six years, as that’s how long companies have to chase you under the statute of limitations, which sets out time limits within which a court action must take place.

At the end of the day, though, this is about weighing up the risk, and if you park every day, you may not want to be filing six years’ worth of tickets.

But there are ways you can make storing tickets easier – for example:

Keep an old envelope in your car to store your stash of old tickets. Then when it’s stuffed, empty it into a drawer, cupboard or anywhere you’ll be able to find ’em.
Before you finally get rid of your tickets, snap a photo of them. That way if you’re chased later you do have some proof.

What if I paid by phone or online?

The time lengths will be similar to those above, but the question of evidence is a little trickier. You won’t have a ticket from the machine of course, but with luck there’ll be some proof you paid. Often you’ll be sent a confirmation text or email – if so, make sure you don’t delete these.

If you aren’t sent confirmation – or you’ve lost it – it’s harder to prove you paid. But your credit card or bank statement, while not as specific as a receipt, may still help you argue your case.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2017/05/30/throwing-pay-display-ticket-away-use-cost-100/?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=30-May-17-33565524&utm_campaign=nt-oneliners-one&utm_content=6
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player