Author Topic: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work  (Read 281254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #270 on: 13 February, 2022, 06:07:11 AM »
#232



TICKED OFF I’m being taken to court over a B&M Bargains parking fine – but I knew nothing about it

Alice Fuller
9:13, 27 Jan 2022Updated: 9:39, 27 Jan 2022


A DRIVER could be hauled to court over a parking fine he knew nothing about.

Craig Mell claims the ticket machine at his local B&M was out of order when he went to buy one six months ago - but debt collectors have just sent him a letter out of the blue demanding £160.


Craig snapped a photo of the 'out of order' machine outside B&M at Cavendish Retail Park in Keighley, West Yorkshire

He said he took a photo of the sign claiming "parking machine out of order, no parking charges apply today" on July 17, 2021, in case he ever needed to dispute any fines.

But months went by and Craig believed he was in the clear.

That was until earlier this month when a baffling letter arrived threatening legal action.

It said he had two weeks to pay the £160 penalty or the matter will be taken to court.

Craig said he has tried calling parking company G24 Ltd, which operates the lot at Cavendish Retail Park in Keighley, West Yorkshire, numerous times but has failed to get through to anyone.

Craig told YorkshireLive: "I haven't lived in Keighley for very long but I had seen people always getting parking tickets from that car park.

"All of them have the same problem as me. The machine is not working, then six months down the line, getting a bloody letter from a debt collector.

"I always take a picture of the machine when it's out of order to make sure I can prove that it isn't working, just in case.

"If I had received a letter from the car park, I would have sorted it out straight away.

"It's even worse that when I got this letter, they are trying to say that I can't dispute it anymore."

The Sun has contacted G24 Ltd for comment.


Craig was threatened with court action if he doesn't cough up fort he £160 fine

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17455327/parking-fine-court-unaware/

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #271 on: 13 February, 2022, 06:15:20 AM »
#233

Excel Parking: Fury as Sheffield ambulance service fined for not paying parking fee during 999 emergency

A Sheffield ambulance service is outraged after being penalised for not paying a parking fee while responding to a 999 emergency call – and having their appeals rejected.

By Rahmah Ghazali
Friday, 4th February 2022


Echo Fire and Medical, an independent provider of emergency services, was asked by the NHS to attend a 999 call in Stockport, Greater Manchester, on September 4 last year, and as a result entered a car park for no longer than 15 minutes to attend the incident.

Parking management company Excel Parking, which is also headquartered in Sheffield, then served the ambulance service a parking fine of £100 through a notice dated September 17 for its failure to pay the car park fee.

The parking penalty notice included photographic evidence of the ambulance parked between 6.03pm and 6.18pm.



Echo Fire and Medical’s Director of Emergency Response, Joe Leary, said the parking fine is in contravention of guidance by the Department for Transport that says ‘ambulances used for emergency purposes are exempt from any parking fine’.

He said he attempted to call Excel Parking 14 times and on each occasion the system cut him off, preventing him from speaking to anybody personally about the parking fine.

“We also replied to their email, which didn’t allow email replies. We used the required parking portal to submit appeal information advising the vehicle was attending a 999 call,” he said.

Echo Fire and Medical stated that shortly after they were notified that their appeal had been received on October 11, they then received an email from Excel rejecting their appeal, which has been seen by The Star.

Excel Parking advised the organisation to provide more photographic evidence, including details pertaining to the 999 call itself, to prove they were responding to an emergency call.

The firm said it was willing to offer a discounted fine £60 if payment was received before October 27.

But it warned that failure to comply would result in the amount due reverting to £100, and may result in debt recovery action being taken and further costs being incurred.

Final Demand notice served
Mr Leary said he refused to comply with the company's request for further information relating to the emergency call, citing confidentiality.

He said: “As an emergency services provider and in line with GDPR, we do not take pictures of patients nor will we ever share patient report forms or other patient identifiable information which is deemed highly confidential.”

Despite repeated requests to appeal the fine, the parking management company served a 'Final Demand' notice dated December 22 and a subsequent 'letter before action' court letter. At this point, the final amount payable had become £170.

Mr Leary said that as the situation escalated, his attempts to get in touch with the parking services company fell flat, claiming the company accepted no inbound calls or allowed any further appeals to be made.

Mr Leary added: “Our crews have worked tirelessly over the last couple of years during very testing times to ensure we support our NHS colleagues to the best of their abilities and respond as quickly and safely as possible to patients calls for help.

“Being penalised for not paying a public parking charge whilst in attendance of a 999 call only adds further pressures for our crews and unnecessarily increases the workload upon our administration team to attempt to close this unexpected parking fine.

“This is not acceptable, its in contravene of the Department for Transport's own national guidance. Our crews are trained to drive under a range of emergency conditions and further to park (where possible) safely and without obstruction to the public whilst being as close to a patient or incident as is possible.

“Expectations from this parking organisation that our crews are to refer to signage and pay to park within one of their managed car parks upon entry, whilst in attendance of a 999 call is not acceptable.”

Excel Parking: ‘We are satisfied the PCN was issued correctly’
In response, Excel Parking explained that the car park which the ambulance entered is a 24 hour pay to park facility and is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras.

A representative said: “Naturally, the cameras cannot determine a vehicle’s reason for visiting the car park, only if the vehicle was compliant with the advertised Terms and Conditions.

“An appeals procedure is in place and full details were set out in the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued to the company who is the registered keeper of the commercial ambulance vehicle.

“The company did engage with our appeals process, albeit three days after the specified deadline, and explained that the vehicle was under contract to a local NHS Trust and claimed it was on-site attending a medical emergency, stating that they could provide supporting evidence.

“We would highlight that our appeals process did request that all relevant supporting evidence should be submitted at the time of the appeal.

“In light of the alleged circumstances, we made a reasonable request for the evidence to be supplied in order that we could review and cancel the PCN.

“Disappointingly, and contrary to what had been stated in their appeal, the company categorically refused to provide any evidence, making reference to maintaining confidentiality.

“We can understand their obligations under Data Protection Legislation but that doesn't prevent appropriately redacted evidence being provided as other emergency services regularly do so.

“As a consequence of the company's lack of cooperation we had no alternative but to formally decline their appeal.

“However, in doing so we provided the company with details of how they could appeal, for free, to the Independent Appeals Service.

“The company did not act on our correspondence and as such matters have progressed further and the cost of the PCN has escalated.

“In summary, we are satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and that the company did not fully engage with our appeals process despite our leniency in processing the late appeal.”

Mr Leary insists Echo Fire and Medical fully cooperated with the parking management company and responded within the timescale given. He said the matter is to be pursued further.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/excel-parking-fury-as-sheffield-ambulance-service-fined-for-not-paying-parking-fee-during-999-emergency-3554713

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #272 on: 13 February, 2022, 06:30:29 AM »
#234

Belvoir Castle: Visitors complain about parking fines on Tripadvisor

By Alex Regan & Liam Barnes
BBC News

Published 6 August 2021



More than 60 people have complained about new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras, after some visitors received £100 parking charge notices

A popular tourist attraction has received more than 60 complaints on Tripadvisor by visitors who claim they have been given unfair parking fines.

Leicestershire's Belvoir Castle put in new car parking ticket machines and number plate cameras last year.

But one visitor said the machines were misleading people to underpay, leading to a £100 parking charge notice (PCN).

Belvoir Castle said it was in "discussions with the operator to ensure the parking charges are clear".

Jane Handsley, from Grantham, said she regularly visits the grounds and Engine Yard retail village on the Belvoir estate.

Latest news and stories from the East Midlands
She said she went to the castle with her husband and daughter on 26 July and tried to pay for parking as they left the grounds.

"We went to the parking machines when we were finished, we put in our number plate and it brings up a screen to say the date and time, and you accept the end time, and move on to payment.

"The date and time that comes on to that screen isn't actually calculating how much your parking charge will be.

"The machine is set up to default to one hour's parking, which is the cheapest payment," she said.

Ms Handsley said this meant she unwittingly underpaid for the parking and received a £100 PCN from third party operator Initial Parking four days later.


Visitor Jane Handsley says the machines are misleading, and led her to underpay for her visit

Visitors are expected to adjust the end time for their visit and pay the certain number of hours they expect to stay.

Ms Handsley said: "You could say it's me misunderstanding machines, but I'm not the only one.

"So many people are getting it, so many don't know what to press, obviously so many people are being tripped up by it.

"We are quite prepared to go to court and fight it, because it's really unclear what should be happening."

'Discussions with operator'

One Tripadvisor reviewer, who was also fined, wrote: "There are signs saying pay as you leave.

"Wish I had paid up front and limited my time instead."

The effect of the parking fines has led some visitors to say they will not return to the castle, the home of the Duke and Duchess of Rutland.

A spokesperson for the estate said: "We are aware of a number of people who have been issued with parking fines by the third party operator we have contracted to run our car parks at Belvoir Castle and the Engine Yard village.

"We are in discussions with the operator to ensure the car parking charges are clear and easy to understand for all visitors so that they do not overstay their booking.

"Since the operation of paid car parking was implemented, we have welcomed nearly 82,500 cars in 12 months.

"The number of PCN's issued has been 1% of all vehicles, 99% of patrons using that car park either stay free or comply with the payment system and do not receive a parking charge notice."

Initial Parking has been approached for comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58104759

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #273 on: 21 February, 2022, 07:57:37 AM »
#235


Browns Golf Course parking fiasco

19 February 2022



The leaseholders of Brown’s Family Golf and Cafe are being threatened with court action for switching off their own electricity to a car parking firm’s cameras which were giving out wrongful tickets.

Smart Parking Ltd were asked by Geoff and Kate Scandrett to help with problems last summer with people parking on their Sandown premises. However, far from helping their business as promised, the firm started issuing hundreds of wrongful tickets to its customers, causing untold misery and upset.

The couple took on an 18-month lease last year to reopen the much-loved Sandown venue and have transformed the business, which now hosts party nights and live music. However, Geoff realised people were using the venue as free parking and then spending the day on the beach.

He said: “Last July, I signed a contract with Smart Parking Ltd who were made aware of some people over summer using our car park, but were not our customers, and offered a solution by way of cameras, and iPads in our building for the customers to enter their details.

“Myself, staff and suppliers would be exempt by way of a ‘white list’ (including also other tenants on-site).

“I also gained permission from my landlord, the IW Council, who have been completely supportive. The council understood the need to look after my customers. It was also reiterated by the council at the time that the 22-acre site could be used by dog walkers when we were closed and they could not be affected.

“After two weeks from going live, the phone started ringing from customers who had come to Brown’s for golf or tea and cake and were ticketed, although they had entered their details.

“We aren’t that big so we quickly started realising that genuine customers were being ticketed even though staff or themselves were entering their details into the iPad. At first, I thought people were putting them in wrong, but after all the staff, many customers and then myself experiencing the same thing it became clear that this was not the case.

“I emailed my concerns thinking we had a teething problem or a fault. They emailed back in agreement and said they would deal with it. I had also emailed the staff plates and mine and updated this as required.

“Unfortunately, it spiralled out of control during August, September and October where they have managed to ticket hundreds of genuine customers during this time. Not twenty or thirty – but hundreds of my customers. They have also ticketed all my staff, suppliers, and even myself a few times. The majority of my customers are seniors who have been coming to Brown’s from all over England for many years.

“Eventually, I turned off my own electricity which supplies the power for the cameras so the tickets would stop. But I am now being taken to court for their loss of earnings!

“They have caused so much pain to hundreds of vulnerable elderly people and I can prove this. They won’t answer my emails and calls and people who don’t pay the fines are also being threatened with court action.

“I am prepared to go bankrupt over this issue to support the people who have been wrongly ticketed. I would also like to point out that we, at Brown’s, have not made a penny from this. It was just set up to protect our business.”

An Isle of Wight Council spokesman said: “This is a contract agreed between our tenant and the parking company, and therefore outside our responsibility and control.

“We are doing what we can to support our tenant so that these issues can be resolved as swiftly as possible. The council has contacted the company concerned on behalf of the tenant. The company advised that there had been some operational issues which they were going to address with our tenant.”

A British Parking Association spokesman confirmed yesterday that an investigation had been launched but was unable to comment as it was ongoing. She said: “In the meantime, if a motorist has received a parking ticket that they believe was issued in error they should appeal to the operator in the first instance.

“The more tangible evidence supplied, the more persuasive the motorist’s case. If it is rejected the operator will provide details of the independent appeals service, POPLA, which provides independent redress for motorists, and is free to use. We also have an advice website www.knowyourparkingrights.org where you can find more information about the appeals process and what to expect.”

The IW Observer has contacted Smart Parking Ltd for comment.

https://iwobserver.co.uk/browns-golf-course-parking-fiasco/

Offline 2b1ask1

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 217
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #274 on: 21 February, 2022, 04:42:16 PM »
Devil's been busy in your back yard.... Oh dear what have you done?
Willing to do my bit...

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #275 on: 06 March, 2022, 05:16:32 AM »
#236

PARKING MAD I was fined £100 after a car park attendant LOCKED me in – I’m fuming

Lottie Tiplady-Bishop
12:34, 24 Feb 2022Updated: 12:57, 24 Feb 2022


A DRIVER was furious after being slapped with a £100 parking fine when an attendant locked her in a car park.

Georgie Lamburt said it is "absolutely outrageous" that the firm who operate the lot, Parkingeye, ordered her to pay for their mistake.


Georgie was trapped inside the car park when the gates were shut and locked



Georgie had parked up at the Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre adjacent car park in Waltham Forest, East London, to walk her dog, Colin, in October last year.

She paid £3.20 for one hour of parking around 8.30am, returning 55 minutes later.

But when she tried to drive her van out of the lot, she claimed all the gates were locked.

She told The Sun: "I paid for the full hour, but got back to my van about five minutes before the hour was up.

"I know what Parkingeye are like, so I didn't overstay.

"But when I went to drive out, both of the gates were shut up and locked."

And by this time, the dog walker was unable to pick up a group of dogs for her next walk - seeing her lose out on £150.

She said: "I was panicking because I knew a lot of people were relying on me to take their dogs for a walk.

"I was in quite a lot of distress because I needed to get to work."

After more than an hour of scrambling around messaging other local dog walkers for help, she eventually managed to get hold of a parking attendant with a key.

CCTV shows Georgie was still trapped inside the car park at 10.14am.

She said: "I told the attendant 'thanks so much for coming to help me', and asked him what time the car park actually opens - because there's no signage anywhere stating the times.

"He said it wasn't his branch that he opens up and he wasn't quite sure himself what time it opened.

"He said it was by no fault of my own that I was trapped in there. You would just assume open gates, open car park.

"I was pretty p***ed off at this point, I was just thankful that he came and got me out."

PARKING MAD

But a month late later, Georgie was slapped with a £100 fine, reduced for fast payment, from Parkingeye in the post.

She said: "To be honest, I didn't think anything of it. I didn't expect to get a fine at all.

"There were around five cameras inside that showed I was stuck, it was completely out of my control."

The company claimed that as she had entered into an agreement to use the lot for one hour when buying her ticket, the extra hour she remained trapped inside was a "breach of contract".

The 28-year-old slammed the fine as "unfair and outrageous," adding: "At the end of the day it's 60 quid - it's not the be all and end all, but out of principle I was just like 'no, I'm not paying'.

"I think it is absolutely outrageous that they are making me pay a fine to be trapped inside."

She also slammed the suggestion that she should have bought more tickets to cover the time she spent trapped inside.

Georgie said she initially complained to Parkingeye, who turned her appeal down.

And after appealing the charge through Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) her bid to dodge the fine was REJECTED, she said.

But since being contacted by The Sun, Parkingeye said that Georgie's Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) will be cancelled.

A spokesperson for Parkingeye told The Sun: "The car park at Lee Valley Hockey & Tennis Centre is monitored by ANPR camera systems and has prominent and highly-visible signage that gives motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly.

“During October, the centre’s operating hours was 12 midday to 10pm and the motorist received a Parking Charge Notice for parking outwith these hours. However following a review of the case we have cancelled the PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice. If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing to Parkingeye.”


Parkingeye has now agreed to cancel the PCN

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/17731260/fined-100-car-park-trapped-in/

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #276 on: 06 March, 2022, 05:25:54 AM »
#237

Parking firm cancels fine for woman stranded in broken down car

Published: 9:05 AM February 16, 2022


Shirley Barber has received a letter apologising for her parking charge notice at Norwich's Riverside Retail Park

A woman slapped with a fine after being stranded in a city car park has seen the notice scrapped by the company.

Shirley Barber, 76, of Stalham, had parked at the Riverside Retail Park on November 16 only to realise her car had packed in as she tried to leave.

She had to wait four hours for the RAC to fix her Mercedes C Class and was subsequently smacked with a parking charge notice for exceeding the two hour limit.

But the £70 parking charge notice - which was increased to £140 in early February - has since been rescinded after the Evening News flagged up the issue with car park owner Highview Parking.


The letter confirming the parking charge notice had been cancelled

A letter was sent to Mrs Barber's address by the London-based company dated February 8 and has been seen by the Evening News.

It says: "With reference to the above stated parking charge, this charge has been cancelled in full and no further action will be taken.

"We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused in this matter and can confirm this case has been closed."

Mrs Barber had previously contacted Citizens Advice as part of her appeal but was met with difficulties accessing a verification code as part of the process.

Her parking charge notice letter had said her £70 parking charge would be reduced to £42 if paid within 14 days.



Following the cancellation, Mrs Barber said: "I received the letter on Saturday. Thank you to the Evening News for all your help.

"I think they send the bailiff letters out to frighten you especially older people.

"I have sisters aged 93 and 91. I guess they would have just paid it. If they sent 1,000 out and only 25pc pay up they are earning."

A spokesman for Highview Parking said: "Having reviewed the incident and given the circumstances regarding Mrs Barber’s flat battery we have agreed to cancel the parking charge notice."

Direct Collection Bailiffs has been contacted for comment.

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/shirley-barber-riverside-parking-charge-cancelled-8692948

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #277 on: 27 March, 2022, 09:59:56 AM »
#238



Paul Murphy claims he parked near Tesco in Leeds and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket

Man reacts furiously to £70 Tesco car parking fine he received for 'no reason'

Paul Murphy claims he parked near Tesco in Leeds and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket - but he managed to successfully appeal the fine from Horizon Parking

An ex-policeman claims he parked near Tesco in Beeston and was fined, despite 'never going in' to the supermarket

ByLucy Marshall Charlie Duffield
09:48, 18 Mar 2022
UPDATED09:49, 18 Mar 2022

An ex-police officer has reacted furiously after he received a parking fine for "no reason".

On February 17, Paul Murphy was travelling into Leeds, West Yorkshire, for a business meeting, and parked on a "public" side road, close by to the Tesco supermarket.

Speaking to Leeds Live , he claims he "never went in" to the supermarket, or parked in the car park.

He added that he thinks there is a camera in the entrance way, designed to catch people as they go inside.

Paul said there were no signs along the road, but one sight said taxis would receive priority at 7pm.

He said: "It was unusual that there were no visible signs as there is usually something".


Paul was given a £70 fine, delivered in his postbox from Horizon Parking, stating he had 'overstayed his welcome'

For three hours, he had his car parked in the spot, whilst he went about his day.

Later, he was given a £70 fine, delivered in his postbox from Horizon Parking, stating he had "overstayed his welcome".

Horizon runs several supermarket car parks across the UK, including Asda, Co Op and Tesco.

Paul said: "I think there must be a camera there and it pinged mine.

"Seems there is an ANPR parking fault at the back of Beeston Tesco. Horizon Parking tried to fine me for overstay in the shop car park.


Paul appealed the fine, and two weeks later was told it had been overridden

"The problem is that most people would say 'I'm going to get done if I don't pay it' but it's not OK. It's a lot of money to fork out. I did an appeal and it didn't take me long to do."

He appealed the fine, and two weeks later was told it had been overridden.

The appeal said: "Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge Notice.

"Having fully reviewed the case, I can confirm the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled and no further action will be taken."

Paul's advice for others hit by parking fines, is to fully check they are legitimate, and not just "pay it out of laziness".

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-reacts-furiously-70-tesco-26497951
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #278 on: 04 April, 2022, 03:10:47 PM »
#239

Elderly couple furious at 'unreasonable' £100 parking fine after being in car park for only six minutes

The couple were slapped with a £100 parking fine after being in the car park for only six minutes


Martin Plummer with the parking fine he received after only being in the Dovecot Street Car Park for six minutes

An elderly couple have been left outraged as they were charged £100 after being in a Stockton car park for only six minutes.

Martin Plummer and his wife Maureen were charged after visiting the Dovecot Street car park, near Stockton ARC and high street shops. The couple left the car park after only six minutes due to bad lighting meaning they couldn't read the parking meter properly.

Outraged, Martin spoke to Teesside Live about the hefty fine he was given, so other motorists can be made aware. But Martin and his wife aren't the first - Terry, 87, and Anne Bonnett, 85, were also handed a £100 fine in the same car park in August after driving away as the meter did not accept cash.

Mr Plummer, 70, recounted the events leading up to the parking fine he was slapped with. He said: "On the evening of February 24, my wife and I parked at Dovecot Street car park at around 8pm. This was the first time we'd used the car park so we were unaware of the costs and methods of payment.

"We managed to pool some change together but due to the bad weather it was quite difficult to read the instructions, it was clear I had to type in my registration plate but the 'P' was completely worn on the machine. I tried the other machine and it was no use - so after being very cold and very frustrated we got back in the car and drove away."



According to the British Parking Association, their code of practice states that a minimum grace period of five minutes should be allowed for the driver to leave the car park should they not decide to park there, Martin driving out of the car park exactly six minutes after arriving.

Martin believes that the £100 fine, reduced to £60 upon prompt payment is 'grossly unfair'. He contacted the parking company which operates in the Stockton car park, Parkingeye, where his appeal of the fine was rejected after two weeks of trying.

He added: "We contacted Parkingeye three times upon our appeal and instead of gambling on another appeal, we decided to pay the £60 so it wouldn't escalate. I feel that to impose a parking charge of £60 for the sake of six minutes is both unreasonable and grossly unfair given the circumstances."

A Parkingeye spokesperson said: “The Dovecot Street car park in Stockton on Tees is monitored by ANPR camera systems and has signage throughout that gives motorists clear guidance on how to use the car park responsibly. Motorists have the option to pay at the machine on site or by phone.

“The motorist parked in the car park on February 24 without paying and therefore received a Parking Charge Notice. However, following a review of the case we have cancelled the PCN as a gesture of goodwill.

“Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge Notice. If anyone has mitigating circumstances, we would encourage them to highlight this by appealing to Parkingeye.”

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/elderly-couple-furious-unreasonable-100-23547538

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #279 on: 04 April, 2022, 03:19:38 PM »
#240

Angry Ann takes on parking firm over £60 fine - and wins
Ann Blower called in StokeonTrentLive after being slapped with the 'ridiculous' Wolstanton Retail Park fine



A parking company has apologised to a motorist - and quashed her £60 fine.

Ann Blower turned to StokeonTrentLive after landing the £60 penalty during two visits to Wolstanton Retail Park within the space of 24 hours last month.

UK Parking Control (UKPC) - which operates the car park - claimed the 51-year-old had parked there for a whopping 21 hours and 41 minutes.

But Ann has managed to prove that the cameras did not catch her leaving the site on February 6 and then returning there the following day.

The retail worker, from Hanford, had filled up at the Asda petrol station on Sunday, February 6. The following afternoon she went to Asda Wolstanton and parked between Asda and B&M.

Ann said: “I was completely shocked to get the fine and it did knock me a bit. Then I thought how ridiculous it was, how can you spend over 21 hours in a car park from a Sunday evening when the shops are shut. It made me feel sick."


Ann Blower is annoyed after being fined £60 for parking in the car park at Wolstanton Retail park.

Now UKPC has written to Ann to quash the fine. The retail park is also home to Matalan, Dunelm, M&S and Starbucks.

In a letter, UKPC's appeals department states: "We appreciate the inconvenience this has caused you. It is not our intention to cause undue worry and frustration when enforcing our clients' parking regulations.

"We have investigated the appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that, in this instance, the parking charge has been cancelled.

"We strive to deliver a high-quality service that enhances the existing quality standards insisted upon by our client and ensure our wardens are stringently trained to meet these expected standards.

"On behalf of ourselves, and our client, we apologise for any inconvenience."

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/angry-ann-takes-parking-firm-6754985

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #280 on: 20 April, 2022, 01:49:49 PM »
#241

‘No way I’m paying’ Driver who queued for 17 minutes to pay for parking gets fined £270

A DRIVER has been left furious after he queued to pay for parking for 17 minutes but was still hit with a huge fine.

By TIM BRADLEY
06:30, Thu, Apr 7, 2022 | UPDATED: 16:51, Thu, Apr 7, 2022


The frustrated motorist now has a fine of £270 to contend with after he left his car at a car park in Wales that has something of a notorious reputation after several complaints from drivers who have been fined after parking cars there.

The car park is on the seafront in the tiny village of Llangrannog and has a camera placed high above the entrance, automatically scanning the number plates of cars as they pull in.

The camera was installed in 2019 by One Parking Solution Ltd, a company based in West Sussex which manages the car park.

Almost three years ago the car park hit national news after the app needed for parking was unable to be downloaded by hundreds of drivers due to the remoteness of its location and lack of mobile signal.

That led to fines being issued of more than £100 and to local businesses putting signs up letting people know they had no affiliation with the car park.


The car park is festooned with signs making the regulations even harder to work out

And now the man in question, who does not want to be named due to the ongoing dispute, is just the latest to fall foul of the regulations.

One Parking Solution Ltd makes it clear that visitors have a 10-minute grace period upon entering the car park, during which time they must pay for parking, leave the site or automatically be hit with a fine thanks to the number plate recognition system in place.

However, it took the man 17 minutes to pay after queuing and helping out an elderly couple.

That sent him seven minutes over the allotted time and signalled the start of the problems.

The man explained: “I went down there for a weekend with my partner. We drove into the car park and I got out and went straight to pay for parking, but there were a few people in a queue in front of me including an elderly couple and some were having difficulty using the machine.

“So there was a bit of a wait and I moved to the front to help people use the machine and to pay for parking.”

The man then paid for parking himself, more than covering his and his partner’s stay in the village, which was, he said, no more than an hour long.

However, some days later he received an initial fine in the post of £60, which he said he wasn’t too concerned about as he felt sure it would be rescinded.


The car park in question has some notoriety after hitting national news due to fines levied in 2019

He said: “I sent the fine back to them with proof that I had paid for my parking by card, but they sent it back saying I had to pay the fine.

“I then appealed to POPLA (an independent appeals service for parking charge notices).

“They got back to me and said I should have made other arrangements and made sure I paid within the 10 minutes.

“I was helping people in front of me, and I paid. There’s nothing I could have done to pay sooner apart from jumping the queue.”

The first fine would have been reduced to £30 had it been paid within 14 days.

However, due to the man’s appeal, that window closed and the fine increased to £180.

As the man refused to pay it then increased again to a whopping £270.

He added: “There’s no way I’m going to pay this. It was seven minutes and there was nothing else I could do.

“It’s a shame because Llangrannog is such a nice place and all the little businesses down there are great, but this issue will put people off going there. I would not be happy to go back there knowing what’s happened to me.”

Express.co.uk has reached out to One Parking Solution Ltd for comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #281 on: 27 April, 2022, 04:09:50 PM »
#242

These cowboys would be laughed out of court if they pursued this. And it shows just how independent PoPLOL isn't when they back a claim that wouldn't stand a chance if it was put before a judge.

Makes my piss boil, it really does.  <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <Swearyrant>

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



Car park firm fined mum £100 after her vehicle got stuck at a charging point

Sue Connerty overstayed the car park's two-hour time limit because she had to wait for the AA to detach a charging cord which had become stuck in her electric vehicle


Sue Connerty, 51, from Maghull, with her son Alex

A mum has told of her anger after she received a car parking fine when her electric vehicle got stuck at a charging point.

Sue Connerty, from Merseyside, was fined £100 for staying in a two-hour maximum stay car park for an additional 38 minutes. She decided to charge her MG electric car while taking her disabled son, Alex, for a coffee.

The Echo reports that the mum-of-three went over the two-hour limit at the Central Square car park in Maghull because she was unable to detach the charging cord, which had got stuck in the car. She was forced to wait for the AA to help her free the vehicle. A week later, Sue received the fine from Euro Car Parks. She wrote to the firm to explain the unfortunate circumstances and appeal the penalty but was disgusted when she was told she still had to pay it.

Euro Car Parks responded by saying: "Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal. "The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay. Your vehicle was parked longer than 120 minutes/hours, therefore the notice was issued correctly and remains payable."

Sue told the ECHO: "There was nothing I could do to move. Other than literally trying to drive away and break my car, I had to stay there." She also contested the fine with POPLA - an independent appeals service for parking charge notices issued on private land. However, this appeal was rejected as well.

Sue continued: "The stress of having a disabled child in this situation and then to have this fine hanging over me which I can't afford to pay in the first place.

"They have reduced the fine to £60 but I still have to pay it. I'm furious over it, I really am, I just don't understand the mentality behind it. I've given a totally valid reason for why I went over the time limit."

A spokesperson for POPLA said: "In this case, as the vehicle was on site for 38 minutes longer than permitted, we found that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly. While the reasons for breaching the parking conditions were outside of the driver’s control, the Parking Operator isn’t obliged to cancel a PCN due to mitigating circumstances, and we have no influence over their decision." The Echo approached Euro Cark Parks for a comment but the firm had not responded by the time the paper published the story.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/car-park-firm-fined-mum-23740718
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #282 on: 08 May, 2022, 09:04:06 AM »
#243


Pensioner fined £100 after parking for just 85 seconds to pop into One Stop

Josh Layton
Wednesday 13 Apr 2022 5:43 pm


Michael Elliott is contesting a fixed penalty notice issued for a parking infringement outside a row of shops

A pensioner was fined £100 after being filmed on CCTV parked for 85 seconds as he dashed into a shop to make a purchase.

Michael Elliott, 70, was caught by Automatic Number Plate Recognition in a small, off-road lot outside the One Stop in Newhaven, East Sussex.

He left his car with its bonnet facing the kerb outside the row of shops in the car park, which mainly consists of private bays.

The retired motor mechanic then received a fixed penalty notice from a private firm in the post, which he has appealed unsuccessfully but still plans to fight. The notice, which he has not paid, says he parked without permission from 9:55:44 to 9:57:09 on March 8 this year.

Mr Elliott said: ‘I feel as sick as a parrot to have been fined for 85 seconds. It’s money-grabbing and it’s a large part of my monthly pension.

‘I was debating whether to pay it or not, they threaten you with all kinds of action and make you feel like you have to pay.

‘The letter is basically an invoice, it’s vicious.

‘Although the car park belongs to a row of shops I was not in one of the bays, I was on the road, which means it’s not in the jurisdiction of the parking company, it’s a police matter.

‘The appeal was rejected but they hold all the trump cards, making you apply within seven days and then making you wait up to 35 days for a reply.

‘For the sake of 85 seconds, I absolutely will see this company in court.’


Darren Cool (sic) has paid his parking fine but intends to contest it further after an appeal was rejected

The motorist, from Newhaven, had pulled up with his car facing the store in the car park, which has around 20 bays, off the West Quay road.

Signs state that it is private land and parking restrictions apply with CCTV in operation, through which the management company provided photographic evidence of Mr Elliott’s visit.

However, he claims that technically the access road through the car park to the shops cannot be categorised as private land.

Mr Elliott said: ‘They said I didn’t have a parking permit but I didn’t need one as I was on a public road in a public car park, not in a bay.

‘The parking bays may well be private, but the actual driveway can never be private because it provides access to the shops.


The row of shops in Newhaven where Michael Elliott was fined for parking outside a One Stop without permission

‘A police officer I know has said it makes no difference.

‘If you drove in there, blocked another car in and went and did your shopping, it would then become a criminal offence.

‘Also, if you look at their instructions you must park in a visitor parking bay, but there were no markings near where I was parked showing where the visitor parking bays are. I did block in a parked car but it was in my sight at all times, I was only inside the shop for about 20 seconds.

‘I can’t appeal any further to the company so I have to go to the ombudsman, who I am already in touch with.

‘I will keep going with the ombudsman but if not I will go to court, because I cannot see any judge upholding this fine.’


Michael Elliott is contesting a parking fine which he says he is ready to take to court if necessary

On Monday, Metro.co.uk told how Ahsan Haji is appealing a £100 fine which he said he incurred due to a long wait at a petrol station.

The 33-year-old claims he queued for 45 minutes at his local garage in east London. He is contesting the fine, which he has not paid.

Rejecting Mr Elliott’s appeal, One Parking Solution said: ‘Your vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and you have not provided sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

‘At the time of event, the vehicle was parked in direct contravention of the displayed terms as no parking is permitted at anytime.

‘It is the motorist’s responsibility to review the terms and conditions displayed on site prior to making use of the facilities.

‘The terms and conditions are clear, no parking is permitted in the area that you have parked. You have also acknowledged that by parking there, you have caused an obstruction on site.’

Metro.co.uk has approached the company for further comment.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/13/pensioner-fined-100-after-parking-for-85-seconds-outside-a-one-stop-16461594/

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #283 on: 08 May, 2022, 09:11:56 AM »
#244


‘No way I’m paying’ Driver who queued for 17 minutes to pay for parking gets fined £270

A DRIVER has been left furious after he queued to pay for parking for 17 minutes but was still hit with a huge fine.

By TIM BRADLEY
06:30, Thu, Apr 7, 2022 | UPDATED: 16:51, Thu, Apr 7, 2022

The frustrated motorist now has a fine of £270 to contend with after he left his car at a car park in Wales that has something of a notorious reputation after several complaints from drivers who have been fined after parking cars there.

The car park is on the seafront in the tiny village of Llangrannog and has a camera placed high above the entrance, automatically scanning the number plates of cars as they pull in.

The camera was installed in 2019 by One Parking Solution Ltd, a company based in West Sussex which manages the car park.

Almost three years ago the car park hit national news after the app needed for parking was unable to be downloaded by hundreds of drivers due to the remoteness of its location and lack of mobile signal.

That led to fines being issued of more than £100 and to local businesses putting signs up letting people know they had no affiliation with the car park.


The car park is festooned with signs making the regulations even harder to work out

And now the man in question, who does not want to be named due to the ongoing dispute, is just the latest to fall foul of the regulations.

One Parking Solution Ltd makes it clear that visitors have a 10-minute grace period upon entering the car park, during which time they must pay for parking, leave the site or automatically be hit with a fine thanks to the number plate recognition system in place.

However, it took the man 17 minutes to pay after queuing and helping out an elderly couple.

That sent him seven minutes over the allotted time and signalled the start of the problems.

The man explained: “I went down there for a weekend with my partner. We drove into the car park and I got out and went straight to pay for parking, but there were a few people in a queue in front of me including an elderly couple and some were having difficulty using the machine.

“So there was a bit of a wait and I moved to the front to help people use the machine and to pay for parking.”

The man then paid for parking himself, more than covering his and his partner’s stay in the village, which was, he said, no more than an hour long.

However, some days later he received an initial fine in the post of £60, which he said he wasn’t too concerned about as he felt sure it would be rescinded.


The car park in question has some notoriety after hitting national news due to fines levied in 2019

He said: “I sent the fine back to them with proof that I had paid for my parking by card, but they sent it back saying I had to pay the fine.

“I then appealed to POPLA (an independent appeals service for parking charge notices).

“They got back to me and said I should have made other arrangements and made sure I paid within the 10 minutes.

“I was helping people in front of me, and I paid. There’s nothing I could have done to pay sooner apart from jumping the queue.”



The first fine would have been reduced to £30 had it been paid within 14 days.

However, due to the man’s appeal, that window closed and the fine increased to £180.

As the man refused to pay it then increased again to a whopping £270.

He added: “There’s no way I’m going to pay this. It was seven minutes and there was nothing else I could do.

“It’s a shame because Llangrannog is such a nice place and all the little businesses down there are great, but this issue will put people off going there. I would not be happy to go back there knowing what’s happened to me.”

Express.co.uk has reached out to One Parking Solution Ltd for comment.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1592245/Parking-fine-driver-queued-wales-car-park

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Reply #284 on: 01 June, 2022, 11:49:08 AM »
#245

Edinburgh driver fumes as he is hit with £85 fine after shopping at retail park

The 55-year-old posted on the social media platform for neighbourhoods, Nextdoor after getting a letter from GroupNexus, an organisation that manages parking services for Craigleith Retail Park.

ByIuliia Vlasova
17:03, 10 MAY 2022UPDATED08:08, 11 MAY 2022



Derek McKinley took to social media to warn others after he received a letter in the post claiming he stayed at Craigleith Retail Park for over four hours.

An Edinburgh driver has hit out after he was charged £85 to park at a local shopping centre.

Derek McKinley took to social media to warn others after he received a letter in the post claiming he stayed at Craigleith Retail Park for over four hours.

The 55-year-old posted on the social media platform Nextdoor after getting a letter from GroupNexus, an organisation that manages parking services for Craigleith Retail Park, informing him of the huge fine.

The parking fee, issued on April 6, referred to the trip Derek made to the shops on March 25, claiming his vehicle remained at their parking area from 9.50am to 14.23pm that day.

Craigleith Retail Park offers shoppers three hours of parking free of charge, and the letter claiming that Derek was using the parking for four hours and 32 minutes ordered him to pay £85.

However, Derek believes that the parking charges he received are unfair, and says he has photographic proof to back up his point.

On the day when he was charged at the car park, the shopper says he made two separate trips to Craigleith Retail Park, both lasting less than half an hour.

Derek said: "I knew I would never spend that long there, so I checked my Ring video of the driveway, and it shows me coming back 15 minutes after I first went in and then leaving for a second trip that afternoon lasting less than 30 minutes.

"I tried to upload the video as evidence, but their system can't handle it, and despite explaining all this and giving a photo of my car in my driveway that morning, they rejected the appeal."

The post, in which Derek shared his experience, quickly got many comments from people relating to the situation. Recalling a similar experience she had, one woman said: "They tried to say I'd spent the night in the car park. I'd been up at Sainsbury's just before it shut and had nipped in quickly the next morning for something else."

Reflecting on the number of comments he got under the post, Derek said: "Several other people have been wrongly charged in the same way, so the company are clearly at it.

"I could accept them perhaps missing one entry/exit but not two, so I think this is deliberate on their part."

GroupNexus were contacted for comment.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-driver-fumes-hit-85-23919730

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player