IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Campaigning for change
0ldsalt2
Posts: 8 Forumite
Parking Eye is a notorious parking parasite company bought by Capita referred to in the satirical magazine as Crapita a Footsie 100 company for £50 million it makes a profit of 30% on turnover. It is by far and away the largest and most profitable company in the British Parking Association (BPA) a trade body the government relies on for self regulation.
Parking Eye uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition Camera and no staff on site to enforce parking regulations. An ANPR camera is a crippled CCTV camera it only records images when it recognises a number plate, it is still a CCTV camera as is one fitted with a motion detector which only records when it detects motion.
The system used by Parking Eye has two flaws, the APNR camera can only read a number pate when it is within 30 degrees of head on. When a car enters a car park twice in one day, Parking Eye are prone to issuing a £60 invoice for a stay they calculate as between the first entry and the second exit. The Equality Act states that disability is a protected characteristic and reasonable adjustments must be made. Drivers picking up disabled passengers have the same protection. No adjustment is not a reasonable adjustment, I have suggested that a reasonable adjustment is to have a speaker phone on the pay machine connected to a call centre who can adjust the payment machine as other Parking companies do. Parking Eye make no adjustment, I believe that this is intrinsically illegal and therefore a request for a drivers name and address from the DVLA breaches the Data Protection act that requires that the data is used legally and fairly. The DVLA claim that they are not responsible its a matter for the British Parking Association. That argument is flawed, if the law gives you a responsibility you cannot pass it on, it remains your responsibility.
The BPA rules:
16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.
16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.
16.3 Operators of off-street car parks do not have to recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act. Although a Blue Badge is not issued to all disabled people it is issued to those with mobility problems. So it is a good way for parking operators to identify people who need special parking provision.
16.4 You are at risk of a claim under the Equality Act if you do not discourage abuse of the 'disabled’ spaces. This means that you need to make sure the spaces are regularly checked to be sure they are not being used by people who do not have a disability.
16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.
This year rule 16.5 a perfectly fair and sensible rule, disappeared you could suspect that as Parking Eye could not comply they used their power and influence to have it removed.
In my particular case I was picking up my daughter from the Radisson Blu Hotel at Stansted Airport whose car park is managed by Parking Eye. She suffers from MS and is automatically classified as disabled from the moment of diagnosis. Parking Eye allow a 10 minute grace period with no adjustment for disability. The actuality is that I arrived early, she had missed her flight because she could not walk quickly enough from the check-in to the gate, about 30 metres a minuet is her speed. There is a public footpath from the hotel to the terminal signposted by the hotel as a 2 minute walk. It is 370 metres to the service desk so a bit misleading. I was aware of the Parking Restrictions I was under the impression I was being monitored by CCTV cameras. After 8 mins 30 seconds I put my car in a parking slot, found I only had £2.30 in change not £2.50 and decided to leave and come back. There is a ring road around the car park, I turned into it, realised that I was not outside the car park, possibly did not have time to go around so I reversed out in either an S shape or Z shape manoeuvrer to park outside on the wrong side of the road, just outside the entrance. It was a cul de sac with double yellow lines terminating in a fence and the airport. There is no chance that the APNR camera could have read my plate exiting or entering. After a brief wait I re-entered.
When I got an invoice from Parking Eye for being 14 minutes inside the car park, I made a data subject access request to the hotel for the CCTV footage of myself and my car. The only reply I have had is that the Hotel would ask Parking Eye to give it. I have followed the procedures 40 days grace, then 14 days final notice, nothing I have asked the Data Commissioner to find out why. If I received the film, I would make a complaint to the Police since I received three invoices claiming £60 or £100, to send debt collection Bailiffs to my house and ruin my credit rating, if they had film showing my car outside and new their claim was false then that is extortion. So I am not expecting to get that evidence, just for the Data Commissioner to find out why.
There is a loophole in the law, in that well the land owner must give the footage a contractor is only obliged to if it is in his contract with the land owner. The DVLA have copies of contracts between land owners and parking companies, I have suggested that the DVLA insist this clause is inserted in the contracts. The DVLA has never answered this point, instead they have asserted that I am trying to stop them giving drivers names and addresses to Parking companies. A remarkable lady first she suggested I appeal to Popla the appeals tribunal, I was complaining not asking for advice. My tactic was to ask the Judge to strike out a summons if I got one as an abuse of process until I got my film, whilst I could counter claim for only £30 court fee for a breach of the Data Protection Act section 13.2 which allows damages for alarm and distress as well as actual costs.
Next she told me the DVLA could not help me with my dispute with Parking Eye, well since they had written to cancel their invoice why would I want the DVLA to help. Finally they could not help me get my film, I never asked them to, but I had told them the matter was in the hands of the Data Commissioner.
Under the equality act it is still discrimination even if it only effects one person. I have written from my own experience that loading a 113 Kg paraplegic into a small car like mine and then dismantling the wheel chair and putting it in the boot cannot be done in under 10 minutes. I would think that it is self evident that a 10 minute grace period with no adjustment for the disabled is discrimination under the equality act. Well the DVLA tell me that their data protection has been vetted by the Data Commissioner and found to be sound.
Some minor points I raised the National None Domestic Rates database excludes car park companies for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I have suggested that the name of the company be included on the database with no disclosure of the amount, so we could at least check that it is rated as a commercial car park.
The Radisson blu hotel has an old entry in the Data Commissioners register of Commercial CCTV cameras. Its changed name and owners. There is no mention of CCTV being used for car park management. Surely that makes its use for that purpose illegal.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Parking Eye uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition Camera and no staff on site to enforce parking regulations. An ANPR camera is a crippled CCTV camera it only records images when it recognises a number plate, it is still a CCTV camera as is one fitted with a motion detector which only records when it detects motion.
The system used by Parking Eye has two flaws, the APNR camera can only read a number pate when it is within 30 degrees of head on. When a car enters a car park twice in one day, Parking Eye are prone to issuing a £60 invoice for a stay they calculate as between the first entry and the second exit. The Equality Act states that disability is a protected characteristic and reasonable adjustments must be made. Drivers picking up disabled passengers have the same protection. No adjustment is not a reasonable adjustment, I have suggested that a reasonable adjustment is to have a speaker phone on the pay machine connected to a call centre who can adjust the payment machine as other Parking companies do. Parking Eye make no adjustment, I believe that this is intrinsically illegal and therefore a request for a drivers name and address from the DVLA breaches the Data Protection act that requires that the data is used legally and fairly. The DVLA claim that they are not responsible its a matter for the British Parking Association. That argument is flawed, if the law gives you a responsibility you cannot pass it on, it remains your responsibility.
The BPA rules:
16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.
16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.
16.3 Operators of off-street car parks do not have to recognise the Blue Badge scheme. But many choose to do so to meet their obligations under the Equality Act. Although a Blue Badge is not issued to all disabled people it is issued to those with mobility problems. So it is a good way for parking operators to identify people who need special parking provision.
16.4 You are at risk of a claim under the Equality Act if you do not discourage abuse of the 'disabled’ spaces. This means that you need to make sure the spaces are regularly checked to be sure they are not being used by people who do not have a disability.
16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.
This year rule 16.5 a perfectly fair and sensible rule, disappeared you could suspect that as Parking Eye could not comply they used their power and influence to have it removed.
In my particular case I was picking up my daughter from the Radisson Blu Hotel at Stansted Airport whose car park is managed by Parking Eye. She suffers from MS and is automatically classified as disabled from the moment of diagnosis. Parking Eye allow a 10 minute grace period with no adjustment for disability. The actuality is that I arrived early, she had missed her flight because she could not walk quickly enough from the check-in to the gate, about 30 metres a minuet is her speed. There is a public footpath from the hotel to the terminal signposted by the hotel as a 2 minute walk. It is 370 metres to the service desk so a bit misleading. I was aware of the Parking Restrictions I was under the impression I was being monitored by CCTV cameras. After 8 mins 30 seconds I put my car in a parking slot, found I only had £2.30 in change not £2.50 and decided to leave and come back. There is a ring road around the car park, I turned into it, realised that I was not outside the car park, possibly did not have time to go around so I reversed out in either an S shape or Z shape manoeuvrer to park outside on the wrong side of the road, just outside the entrance. It was a cul de sac with double yellow lines terminating in a fence and the airport. There is no chance that the APNR camera could have read my plate exiting or entering. After a brief wait I re-entered.
When I got an invoice from Parking Eye for being 14 minutes inside the car park, I made a data subject access request to the hotel for the CCTV footage of myself and my car. The only reply I have had is that the Hotel would ask Parking Eye to give it. I have followed the procedures 40 days grace, then 14 days final notice, nothing I have asked the Data Commissioner to find out why. If I received the film, I would make a complaint to the Police since I received three invoices claiming £60 or £100, to send debt collection Bailiffs to my house and ruin my credit rating, if they had film showing my car outside and new their claim was false then that is extortion. So I am not expecting to get that evidence, just for the Data Commissioner to find out why.
There is a loophole in the law, in that well the land owner must give the footage a contractor is only obliged to if it is in his contract with the land owner. The DVLA have copies of contracts between land owners and parking companies, I have suggested that the DVLA insist this clause is inserted in the contracts. The DVLA has never answered this point, instead they have asserted that I am trying to stop them giving drivers names and addresses to Parking companies. A remarkable lady first she suggested I appeal to Popla the appeals tribunal, I was complaining not asking for advice. My tactic was to ask the Judge to strike out a summons if I got one as an abuse of process until I got my film, whilst I could counter claim for only £30 court fee for a breach of the Data Protection Act section 13.2 which allows damages for alarm and distress as well as actual costs.
Next she told me the DVLA could not help me with my dispute with Parking Eye, well since they had written to cancel their invoice why would I want the DVLA to help. Finally they could not help me get my film, I never asked them to, but I had told them the matter was in the hands of the Data Commissioner.
Under the equality act it is still discrimination even if it only effects one person. I have written from my own experience that loading a 113 Kg paraplegic into a small car like mine and then dismantling the wheel chair and putting it in the boot cannot be done in under 10 minutes. I would think that it is self evident that a 10 minute grace period with no adjustment for the disabled is discrimination under the equality act. Well the DVLA tell me that their data protection has been vetted by the Data Commissioner and found to be sound.
Some minor points I raised the National None Domestic Rates database excludes car park companies for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I have suggested that the name of the company be included on the database with no disclosure of the amount, so we could at least check that it is rated as a commercial car park.
The Radisson blu hotel has an old entry in the Data Commissioners register of Commercial CCTV cameras. Its changed name and owners. There is no mention of CCTV being used for car park management. Surely that makes its use for that purpose illegal.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
0
Comments
-
A few points to consider;
parking eye cameras do not film, they are not cctv
the BPA ltd is not a regulator, or a regulatory body, it is a private members trade association that exists to protect its members and further their aims.From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
I disagree with you. Technically an ANPR camera is a television camera that has software that stops it recording unless it recognises a number plate. Differentiate that from a CCTV camera that only records if it detects motion. The camera's are connected to two remote data centres so certainly closed circuit.
Pictures on the Internet of Parking Eye camera show three camera's presumably two apnr and one not crippled. The data request was to the hotel and their reply was:
I have forwarded your e-mail to ParkingEye, for investigation.
If they do not respond to you, within a reasonable period, please let us know.
Kind regards
The only response to two letters one email.0 -
Can you un-bold your post please, I can't bring myself to read it!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I cant bear to read so much stupid and inaccurate info .
[/SIZE][/FONT]Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
One difference between CCTV and ANPR, CCTV does not require planning permission.
Did you also know that the principal is jointly liable for the actions of his/her/its actions?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
See
From britishparking.co.uk Other-Advice#4
There are a number of methods by which this can be enforced, but the newest of these is ANPR. As with all methods of enforcement of unregulated private land, charges enforced by ANPR are subject to the law of Contract. They are also self regulated through the BPA Code of Practice for Parking on Private Land, and voluntary membership to the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme.
The principle is as follows:
a) CCTV style cameras are placed at the entrance and exit to a car park.
So your ritish Parking Association does not agree with your assertions0 -
Is that because you are an employee of Parking Eye?0
-
-
does anyone understand the point of this thread ???0
-
does anyone understand the point of this thread ???
Yep. Don't type in BOLD font! :cool:Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards