POPLA - ANPR - Parking Eye

JohnnyInamoto

Hello,

I appealed to POPLA about what I now know to be "double dipping" and Parking Eye have provided their evidence and now I need to respond.

I unfortunately didn't do my homework until now. I found a document on Parking Cowboy website which shows that the ANPR system is flawed. I wanted to use this as evidence but POPLA have not allowed me to provide any more evidence.

I've written up a reply. I just wondered if someone could look it over and let me know if it's ok? I have a feeling it won't be accepted which is disappointing because I really don't want to fund Parking Eye as I've found them to be particularly disingenuous.

MY REPLY:

---

Our defence in this matter is that we entered and exited the car park on two separate occasions. We did not dispute that we entered and exited at the exact times that Parking Eye claim, just that we did not stay the whole time.

As evidence to prove us wrong, Parking Eye have only provided photographs that show the first time we entered and last time we exited. As I said, we don’t dispute this.

When appealing to Parking Eye, as you can see in their evidence, we asked that “the CCTV data is kept for evidential purposes”. We are disappointed not see the CCTV footage in their evidence as this would prove beyond doubt that we are telling the truth.

I would like to appologise that we were not as organised as Parking Eye when providing evidence, as this was our first time using POPLA, but we have recently been made aware of a document and would appreciate you take a look at it. The document in question makes a strong argument that the ANPR system is not 100% accurate.

One problem with the camera is it does not possess x-ray capabilities. “If a pedestrian crosses the road or a vehicle drives close to the one in front then the camera will never see the numberplate at all.”

Another problem stated in the document is “drop-out”. “If any one part of the whole system stops working for any period of time, then some images might not be recorded. A car could drive in and out of the car park and not be recorded.” Or in our case, drive out and then back in.

A further problem is related to timestamps. “If more than one camera is used, the clocks may be out of synchronisation. There has been at least one reported occasion where one camera was recording at GMT, while the other camera was using summer time, thus adding an hour to each visit.”

One last problem is related to configuration. “In a misconfiguration situation, the operator has their software configured to record the duration of stay as the first entry and last exit, and to ignore entries and exits which occur in between. This should also be easy to detect on investigation.“

“If the operator merely states they have checked for a double visit and does not provide any other information, they either do not understand their own technology or are trying to misdirect away from the actual problem.“

This is a link to the document:
drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pbj9XVQg0GdWlNbWRKVTZEUkU/view?usp=sharing

To add to this, our research has showed that in May 2014, POPLA upheld an appeal against Parking Eye on the basis that the ANPR cameras used by Parking Eye are flawed.

Northlakes

Just an initial thought but have you any proof at being somewhere else at some of the time?
Cash machine receipt? Restaurant bill? E-mail from a specific IP address?

Look up some other double dip threads.

JohnnyInamoto

Thanks for the reply, Northflakes. I've got nothing concrete unfortunately. The time between not being there and being there was only about 15 minutes. I was looking at car park prices in all the local car parks, then came back because, ironically, it was the cheapest. That's why I'm trying this line of defence.

Parking Eye's proof is a log file with my first entrance and last exit times with this line of text: "This report confirms the appellant only entered and exited the site once, the record is the appellant’s entrance and exit times which are highlighted below".

I felt sick when I read that line. Feels like it's my word against this huge company's word, and they've got evidence that clears me and they've decided to bury it.

Redx

your reply is flawed because PE do not use CCTV

CCTV cannot and will not figure in your reply because its irrelevant and not being used

ANPR cameras are being used, so check what the BPA CoP says about them and look at parking pranksters blogs about ANPR cameras and use all the ammunition you can find that halps you with your popla case

like http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

no they wont allow new arguments, but you need to refute any and all arguments they raise in their evidence pack

the standard arguments are

no locus standii (no landowner contract)
poor signage
anpr issues
POFA2012 issues
NTK flaws or issues
Grace periods

etc

these should have been placed in your original popla appeal, so if any are in there or if PE have named them in their evidence pack, rebut them and insist on proof by them of any such argument

and take the word CCTV out of your head and bin it

if you lose at popla, its not binding upon you so you can use all of the legal arguments in your court defence later

Northlakes

JohnnyInamoto wrote: »

Parking Eye's proof is a log file with my first entrance and last exit times with this line of text: "This report confirms the appellant only entered and exited the site once, the record is the appellant’s entrance and exit times which are highlighted below".

I felt sick when I read that line. Feels like it's my word against this huge company's word, and they've got evidence that clears me and they've decided to bury it.

You don't look for the cheapest car park, you look for the safest and that's usually a council run car park where there is an above board appeals procedure if you accidently fall foul of the rules.
ANPR is very accurate but not fool proof and PE would not want to help you to find a missing entry in the log as they just want your money.

Unfortunately private car parks are bandit country and you have to protect yourself.


Always retain parking tickets for months.
Fit a dash cam and press the save file button on leaving a car park. (particularly useful for bus lanes and box junctions)
Have tracker app on your mobile.

Then follow Redx's advice which is always spot on.

Herzlos

Can you provide a witness statement from someone else to the effect that you left and returned?

Even if you lose at POPLA, then don't worry, you still don't need to pay, they'd need to take you to court where they'd need to convince an impartial judge and you can introduce all the new points you need.

nigelbb

Northlakes wrote: »

ANPR is very accurate but not fool proof

I have seen typical figures of 90% depending on siting of cameras. That's not very accurate at all.

The_Deep

As Herzlos says, judges are not fools, and, in view of the many well published cases of proven "double dipping" PE are unlikely imo to risk this getting to court.

You do not need to prove anything, it is up to PE to prove on the balance of probabilities that you remained parked as they claim

On the balance of probabilities I would venture that it is their ANPR camera which is at fault.

If they take you to court, warn them that you will seek recompense for your time should the judge find in your favour.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

As Herzlos says, judges are not fools, and, in view of the many well published cases of proven "double dipping" PE are unlikely imo to risk this getting to court.

You do not need to prove anything, it is up to PE to prove on the balance of probabilities that you remained parked as they claim

On the balance of probabilities I would venture that it is their ANPR camera which is at fault.

If they take you to court, warn them that you will seek recompense for your time should the judge find in your favour.

PE will maybe not take this OP to court as he now has the knowledge of double dipping but .... millions do not have this knowledge and without advice will just pay up.

The_Deep

PE will maybe not take this OP to court as he now has the knowledge of double dipping but .... millions do not have this knowledge and without advice will just pay up.

Indeed Beamish, but those people also shop at Brighthouse, take PayDay loans at 4,000%, pay through the nose for their trainers, and buy their travel insurance from travel agents. You cannot save everyone fronm their own stupidity.

JohnnyInamoto

Thanks for all the advice. My brain's getting overloaded now. So I cannot add any new arguments to my defence, but I can refute any evidence the parking operator has submitted?

Ok, so I'm scanning their evidence pack with a fine tooth comb and I found this line piece of text:

ParkingEye’s ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) images are time-stamped and use NTP server technology to ensure that the accuracy of our systems is checked regularly. In essence, NTP technology assures accurate synchronization to the millisecond of computer clock times in a network of computers. Institutions that use NTP technology include; NASDAQ, Buckingham Palace, GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Bank and the Bank of England. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images, taken at the second of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park, are accurate.

Furthermore ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are fully compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. We ensure that the cameras are checked regularly to ensure that they are in good working order, and that they are producing accurate data. We have passed both our British Parking Association and DVLA audits.

To date the Appellant has produced no valid evidence to substantiate his assertion.

They've provided no back up for this. Would it be plausible for me to dispute this and possibly ask POPLA to ask Parking Eye for evidence to back this up, and ask that I can come up with evidence to show the opposite? This would give me the opportunity to submit the pdf that I linked to in the original forum post...?