Private parking: Government Consultation

trisontana

Another dodgy PPC practice has just been highlighted on PPP:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96190&st=0

This concerns clamping for an alleged past debt on railway land. Actually there was no debt as such because the OP paid by RINGO, but sometimes after they had parked. So no loss to the railway or to the PPC.

The OP removed the clamp and was then invited for an interview with the British Transport Police over the alleged "theft" of the clamp. Luckily the BTP saw sense:-
"It is heartening to see that the Police understood that I was within my rights to 'detain' the clamp and that they agree that clamping over an alleged debt has no place in UK law."

Ralph-y

bump





Ralph:cool:

Cornucopia

Can this be made a "sticky" until the consultation has finished?

I've just added my views. I thought the questions were okay, but they imply that they haven't really considered the underlying issues.

trisontana

Another example of PE not acting as they should:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/parkingeye-anpr-system-fatally-flawed.html

Their much vaunted ANPR system with its many checks can't seem to be able to detect two visits in a day. Good job the motorist had a tracker and a couple of witnesses, otherwise the full weight of PE's threatening letter chain would have been triggered.

peter_the_piper

What a pity it did not get to court, it would have made very good press, and not for PE.

Fergie76

trisontana wrote: »

Another example of PE not acting as they should:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/parkingeye-anpr-system-fatally-flawed.html

Their much vaunted ANPR system with its many checks can't seem to be able to detect two visits in a day. Good job the motorist had a tracker and a couple of witnesses, otherwise the full weight of PE's threatening letter chain would have been triggered.

The motorist should have told PE they had proof, but not shown it to them and let it go to court. Although the motorist should not have had to prove anything according to the BPA...

The BPA now acknowledge this is a problem - http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Automatic-Number-Plate-Recognition :

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

trisontana

"Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

PE did not check their transactions did they?

nigelbb

To register a double dip the much vaunted ANPR system must have missed both the first exit & the second entry otherwise an anomaly would be noted as there would be three records i.e. one entry & two exits or two entries & one exit.

Herzlos

trisontana wrote: »

"Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

PE did not check their transactions did they?

Why would they? They make too much money by getting it wrong, there's no incentive to use due diligence.

Cornucopia

The truth of it is probably that the technology has an inherent level of bad reads. A certain amount of data cleansing is possible, and having two separate cameras (one for entry only, one for exit only) would help. But if the technology is fallible, then errors will be made.