Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 1:51 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    Campaigning for change
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 17, 1:51 PM
    Campaigning for change 15th Mar 17 at 1:51 PM
    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]
Page 1
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 15th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    • 3,686 Posts
    • 5,223 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    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"
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 2:26 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:26 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:26 PM
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 2:29 PM
    • 48,847 Posts
    • 62,341 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:29 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:29 PM
    Can you un-bold your post please, I can't bring myself to read it!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 15th Mar 17, 2:32 PM
    • 7,227 Posts
    • 7,374 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #5
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:32 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:32 PM
    I cant bear to read so much stupid and inaccurate info .


    [/SIZE][/FONT]
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 15th Mar 17, 2:38 PM
    • 3,686 Posts
    • 5,223 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #6
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:38 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Mar 17, 2:38 PM
    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"
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 3:25 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    • #7
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:25 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:25 PM
    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 assertions
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 3:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    • #8
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:30 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:30 PM
    Is that because you are an employee of Parking Eye?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 15th Mar 17, 3:35 PM
    • 7,227 Posts
    • 7,374 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #9
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:35 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:35 PM
    Is that because you are an employee of Parking Eye?
    Originally posted by 0ldsalt2


    write to the times !

    there is not a lot regarding "laws" that has not been discussed for the last 8 yrs + that you can teach this forum
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Mar 17, 4:20 PM
    • 5,633 Posts
    • 7,273 Thanks
    beamerguy
    does anyone understand the point of this thread ???
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 4:24 PM
    • 13,989 Posts
    • 21,966 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    does anyone understand the point of this thread ???
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Yep. Don't type in BOLD font!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 4:28 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    The main point is that a request for owner's name and address to the DVLA is illegal because it breaches the Equality Act if there is no reasonable adjustment for a disabled people.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Mar 17, 4:39 PM
    • 5,633 Posts
    • 7,273 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The main point is that a request for owner's name and address to the DVLA is illegal because it breaches the Equality Act if there is no reasonable adjustment for a disabled people.
    Originally posted by 0ldsalt2
    Something you should take up with Mrs May, she takes no notice and nor did Cameron before her
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 4:55 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    I have exhausted the DVLA complaints got stonewalled, now it's with the Data Commissioner who I have been told will take forever and then the Ombudsman. After that try for some publicity before involving politicians. I have learned from posting on this forum to write more succinctly and check for spelling mistakes before publishing
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Mar 17, 5:22 PM
    • 40,171 Posts
    • 80,256 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The main point is that a request for owner's name and address to the DVLA is illegal because it breaches the Equality Act if there is no reasonable adjustment for a disabled people.
    Originally posted by 0ldsalt2
    That is not necessarily true. If the PPC doesn't know that an occupant of the car has a disability or special characteristic as defined by the EA 2010, it would be perfectly lawful to obtain keeper details. Once the PPC knows an occupant of a vehicle is covered by the EA 2012, then that is different.

    ANPR cameras can't detect a disability, and is not fit for purpose in my opinion for this and many other reasons, so shouldn't be used for car park management. Unfortunately the law allows this type of system to be used so no EA 2010 offence has been committed if the PPC obtains keeper details from the DVLA.

    It's what happened after the PPC have got keeper details that is the issue here. Breach of BPA CoP for not allowing grace periods, use of unfit ANPR technology, not making reasonable adjustments for a disabled occupant amongst others are all down to the nefarious deeds of parking lie, not the DVLA.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 15-03-2017 at 5:27 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 15th Mar 17, 5:34 PM
    • 3,686 Posts
    • 5,223 Thanks
    Half_way
    In addition to the previous.
    Writing everything in Bold makes it hard to read.
    You post could possibly identify the driver, as you have used the term "I parked"as well as the single letter word "I" far too many times.

    Your post also reads as a rant, you dont appear to know just what the BPA limited is, or the worth of its code of practice.
    You need to direct your anger in the correct direction.

    While i admire your spirit, please focus it and you may be able to get somewhere.

    For the record: Pakring eye will not have kept any video footage at all showing what you were doing, or not doing in the car park, all those cameras do is take a snapshot of vehicles number plates, this is then read by a computer system that ( attempts) to read the number plate. any video footage from the cameras is discarded/deleted/destroyed, you are in effect asking for a subject access request under the DPA for something that does not exist.

    I am going to attempt to re-type your opening post, possibly with a few un intentional typos, but not all in bold
    =================
    I am the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a parking charge notice from Parking eye following on from an event where the vehicle visited the Radison Blu hotel at Stansted airport.
    The Driver was picking up someone who suffers from MS, a long term debilitating condition, who had missed their flight.
    The vehicle was only parked in the the car park for 8 minutes, after that it left, navigated a perimeter road for a short while, then left the site.

    So getting rid of the wall of irrelevant text and to sum up:

    Driver entered car park to pick someone up, who suffered from a long term condition, person didn't turn up, vehicle left the car park area after 8 minutes, navigated an external road and left, then re-entered after an un specified amount of time.

    People here are willing to help, however the replys you get back may appear to be blunt, and possibly rude, however no one here gets paid to post and with a high load of cases those people who are un prepared to work with the forum may get pushed to the back of the qeu/ignored
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Mar 17, 6:26 PM
    • 5,633 Posts
    • 7,273 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I have exhausted the DVLA complaints got stonewalled, now it's with the Data Commissioner who I have been told will take forever and then the Ombudsman. After that try for some publicity before involving politicians. I have learned from posting on this forum to write more succinctly and check for spelling mistakes before publishing
    Originally posted by 0ldsalt2
    The DVLA will fob you off ..... they are happy taking £millions of dirty money from the scammers.

    The ICO will do as they are told when it comes to a government dept

    Many MP's have given THE FALSE IMPRESSION that they will do something about this ..... that is the last you hear.

    Whilst the lady May is busy not co**ing up Brexit she is now the latest version OF Queen Elizabeth 1 in battle with the new Mary, Queen of Scots (Sturgeon)

    If you want to win against these scammers, this forum is one of the best to help
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • 0ldsalt2
    • By 0ldsalt2 15th Mar 17, 6:28 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    0ldsalt2
    Secondary points
    I received two more invoices for £100 and then reduced to £60 as an act of "Goodwill" after I told them the person I was picking up had MS and offered to provide proof.

    I wrote a reminder to Radisson Blu it ended.

    If you have no data or cannot find it reply with that in writing. My main interest is in CCTV covering the exterior of the hotel I never entered the foyer.

    I received no reply from them.

    There is a sign behind the Parking Meter saying these premises are covered by CCTV. Whilst I was stationary outside the front of the Hotel I looked for a CCTV camera and did not spot one,

    When you are picking someone up you check your watch frequently. My watch was one minute fast, Parking Eye camera 2 minutes slow.

    I am told the Radisson Blu is a good hotel, but the car park operator would deter me using it, unless I went by taxi,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 6:38 PM
    • 13,989 Posts
    • 21,966 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I am told the Radisson Blu is a good hotel, but the car park operator would deter me using it, unless I went by taxi,
    Tell that to Radisson Blue.

    No one will spend hours searching back and to through grainy CCTV footage (especially if it was in the hours of darkness) unless it was a murder (or worse!) looking for some evidence relating to a sixty quid parking ticket.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 15th Mar 17, 6:51 PM
    • 10,059 Posts
    • 9,141 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    You refer to your daughter missing her flight and I can't quite see how that ties in with the Radiddon unless you were simply availing yourself of their car park.

    I have stayed at this hotel and the car park is actuall part of a much larger park and they have a facility, well signed, that tells their customers to log in their Registration numbers at reception.

    Very confused and unreadable opening post.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

973Posts Today

7,112Users online

Martin's Twitter