Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 64294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4246
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #135 on: 21 September, 2017, 10:08:30 AM »

ANPR cameras cannot perceive of problems with paying for parking. They only facilitate the issue of parking tickets to those who make every effort to pay.


Bath woman prepared to go to court over 'grossly unfair' parking fine from hospital car park

Brenda Richards is "absolutely furious" about being charged £80 by the private company that runs the car park at the Royal United Hospital

[There is a video on the website but I do not know how to put a link to it on here. Go here to view]

A Bath woman is “absolutely furious” after she was fined £80 for parking at the Royal United Hospital having tried several times to pay at two machines.

Brenda Richards had been visiting a very ill friend when she found she was unable to pay at two machines operated by Parking Eye.

The 77-year-old said that she and her husband tried to pay three times at one machine and once at another before giving up and leaving with four receipts marked “card void”.

A week later, the Fairfield Park couple received an “invoice” from Parking Eye telling them they owed £80 because they had not paid for the 66 minutes their white Kia Sportage spent in the hospital car park on July 25.

Brenda Richards is "absolutely furious" about the £80 'invoice' from Parking Eye (Image: Artur Lesniak)

Mrs Richards said she appealed the fine, but was “very quickly” turned town by the company.

A second appeal with independent adjudicator POPLA – Parking On Private Land Appeals – is under way.

Mrs Richards said that she is prepared to go to court over the fine, which she deems “grossly unfair”.

“I am just so incensed,” she said.

Parking Eye runs the car parks at the RUH (Image: Parking Eye)

She said she and husband Graham Godman visited their friend in hospital more than a dozen times in the past three months, paying £2 to stay for an hour each time.

She had taken to leaving her handbag at home to reduce the spread of norovirus – a risk on the ward where their friend was staying – and so had no cash on her on the day in question.

“All I had was a few cards on me,” she said.

After receiving four “card void” receipts, and with two minutes to spare before their planned hour was up, Mrs Richards and Mr Godman left the car park unsure whether they had paid for parking.

The four receipts showing "card void" from Mrs Richards' four attempts to pay £2 on July 25

When no charge appeared on their credit card statement, the couple wondered whether to send a cheque for £2 to Parking Eye.

But Mrs Richards said she was assured twice by parking officials at the hospital that she would not be fined because none of the machines had been accepting card payments that day.

She said she was unaware it was possible to pay for parking by phone.

After receiving notice of the £80 fine from Parking Eye, Mrs Richards wrote to the parking operator explaining what had happened.

Mrs Richards with the 'invoice' from Parking Eye telling her she has 28 days to pay £80 or 14 days to pay £40 (Image: Artur Lesniak)

In a letter rejecting her appeal, Parking Eye wrote: “Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question.”

Signs at the hospital advise that parking tariffs can be paid by coin, card or ‘paybyphone’.

The company advised Mrs Richards she could appeal via POPLA and that, “as a gesture of goodwill”, it would give her an extra two weeks to pay a discounted fine of £40.

“I’m absolutely furious,” Mrs Richards said.

Mrs Richards and her husband had parked their white Kia Sportage in the hospital car park (Image: Artur Lesniak)

She kept all her receipts showing she tried to pay four times on the day in question and paid for parking at the RUH on ten occasions before that day and five afterwards.

Appealing to POPLA, she wrote: “My contention is that it shows an absolute willingness to pay for parking and no intention to avoid such payment.

“I made four attempts to pay on the day in question and the reason I could not pay was that a fault in Parking Eye’s machines meant that none of them could accept payment by card.

“An employee of PE assured me that the company knew of the fault and would not impose a fine in those circumstances.

“To be fined by PE is, therefore, grossly unfair and I am prepared to go to court for a judge to decide the matter.”

One of the receipts showing "card void"

A spokesman from Parking Eye said the company was not aware of any problems with parking machines at the hospital that day.

He said: “People attending Royal United Hospitals Bath can pay for parking via the ‘PayByPhone’ service or at one of the ten payment machines provided across the site.

“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.

“If a driver disagrees with our decision, they have the option to appeal to the independent appeals service (POPLA).”

POPLA is an independent parking appeals service set up by the British Parking Association. It is administered by The Ombudsman Service, which then charges the BPA for all the cases it handles, regardless of outcome.

The Bath Chronicle has contacted the RUH for comment.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #136 on: 06 October, 2017, 04:46:09 PM »
#112 and 113

Any ANPR system that allows you to input a VRM that it has not detected is not fit for purpose and would never get type approval from government, so why do government let them get away with it?


O NO Dad-of-two dragged to court after refusing to pay parking fine for putting zero rather than an O on ticket

James Lewis was shopping at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre car park, in South East London, when slapped with a £60 fine

A DAD-of-two is being dragged to court after accidentally pressing zero rather than the letter O as he entered his registration number to park for FREE.

James Lewis, 31, was shopping at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre car park, in South East London, when jobsworths grabbed the opportunity to slap him with a £60 fine.

James Lewis faces going to court over an unpaid parking fine - because he used the number zero rather than O

The outraged motorist, who was parked for less than an hour, has since refused to pay the parking charge - but now faces a day in court.

He told The Sun Online: "I got a letter in the post about the fine, but I thought there must have just been a mistake. I lodged an appeal and sent off a picture of my ticket.

"But because I typed zero rather than the letter O into the machine there, the parking firm came back and said it was my fault.

"Since then I have been threatened with legal action and contacted around five times in the post.

James has been battling with Smart Parking Limited for more than four months

"The fine is probably ten times more now.

"It's annoying because I've never had anything like this before and when you see that brown envelope come through the door you just think, 'oh no what's this?'

"I was only parking for free for around an hour and then suddenly was being told to pay £60."

The 31-year-old HGV driver was out Sunday shopping when he accidentally typed YB09VA0 instead of YB09VAO when entering his registration plate for free parking.

Smart Parking denied James' appeal after he sent off a copy of his ticket

James had no idea he had been slapped with a fine until a £60 charge landed on his doormat a few days later.

Smart Parking Limited, the firm which manages the car park, refused to back down over the error - and later upped the fine to £160.

That's despite claiming to apply a "common sense approach" when it comes to reviewing appeals.

Now defiant James has chosen to go to court instead of settling the debt.

The dispute has been ongoing since May 21, 2017.

Now James says he wants to prove a point to the "money-grabbing" company.

He added: "I am ignoring it now because it is just not worth my time.

"If it comes to it I will go to court. I won't just stand by while they whack me with a £60 fine because of something like this.

James, from South East London, says he will go to court over the parking dispute

"They need to have some common sense.

"It's been very frustrating for me, and I can imagine distressing for anyone else forced to pay for one tiny mistake.

"I am worried about the court action and the fine because I have a family to support, but let's see what the court has to say."

If the ruling does not go in James' favour, the dad-of-two will likely to be forced to pay the fine - on top of hefty court costs.

His fight comes after grandmother Sylvia Bradford was slapped with a £60 fine for legally leaving her car in the same free car park.

Sylvia Bradford, 70, made the same mistake at Erith Riverside Shopping Centre and was also told to hand over £60 to Smart Parking

The 70-year-old made the same error as James when she pressed the letter O rather than a zero on the machine with pale yellow letters on a silver background.

But after lodging a complaint, Smart Parking Limited said that it is sticking by its decision to issue the fine.

Sylvia plans to take her appeal to the ombudsman, meaning she will face paying out £100 if it is again refused.

She said: “My husband blew his fuse. This really does take the biscuit. It seems ridiculous. It’s common sense."

Smart Parking claims to use a 'common sense' approach when it comes to an appeal

The Sun Online has attempted to contact Smart Parking Limited for comment.

On its website, the firm says: "Smart Parking has gained a vast amount of experience over many years of handling parking related appeals.

"It goes without saying that each appeal is individually assessed by a trained appeals assessor, who will review not only the site rules, but will apply a common sense approach.

"If your appeal is refused, in order to avoid any further action you should pay the full PCN within 14 days."

A spokesman from the British Parking Association, of which Smart Parking is a member, said: "We would strongly advice motorists to follow the independent appeals process rather than choosing to ignore parking fines.

"There is no cost to go to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) to help with your case.

"Taking it to court is much more likely to occur costs."

Offline DBC

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #137 on: 18 October, 2017, 07:50:11 PM »

Landlord's woe as car park fine scheme backlash nearly calls time on his pub

Offline 2b1ask1

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #138 on: 19 October, 2017, 09:40:48 AM »
I have no sympathy for the landlord, even a brief search online would have shown the scheme as unsuitable and as for getting into bed with the cowboys.... Numpty!
Willing to do my bit...

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4246
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #139 on: 19 October, 2017, 10:10:15 AM »
I have no sympathy for the landlord, even a brief search online would have shown the scheme as unsuitable and as for getting into bed with the cowboys.... Numpty!



Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player