Parking Eye caught out

Innes123

100% the registration number on the ticket is the same as on my car and as shown in the two ANPR photos. There are no Zeros or 'O's in the VRN. I have not made a mistake. I paid the correct amount (£ 2.20) valid for two hours and only stayed 34 minutes according to the Parking Charge Notice. I also have 14 other tickets from the visits I made every day either side of the one in question with identical VRN details. Only the date and time is different. But no PCN's for those visits. Clearly the ANPR system cannot be trusted 100%

Question: if Parking Eye say the car park is private does anyone have to display a licence plate on their car whilst on that property?

fil_cad

Go give PE some grief, not that it will do any good, so far they have the high and mighty on their side, they are all in it together :eek:

Coupon-mad

Innes123 wrote: »

100% the registration number on the ticket is the same as on my car and as shown in the two ANPR photos. There are no Zeros or 'O's in the VRN. I have not made a mistake. I paid the correct amount (£ 2.20) valid for two hours and only stayed 34 minutes according to the Parking Charge Notice. I also have 14 other tickets from the visits I made every day either side of the one in question with identical VRN details. Only the date and time is different. But no PCN's for those visits. Clearly the ANPR system cannot be trusted 100%

Agreed.

Maybe you should just sue them for obtaining your data without reasonable cause and claim a few hundred in compensation. Search the forum for 'DPA Vidal-Hall compensation' and read some already discussed and claims or counter-claims lodged. You appear to have a water-tight case to claim.

Firstly (alongside appealing if you want to bide your time and stop them suing you first) I would complain to the Information Commissioner to get a decision in your favour about data misuse, no right to apply to the DVLA. Then you can use that to evidence your claim against PE and the Hospital who remain liable for the conduct of this agent at all times (as was confirmed in an article I can't now find, someone might recall it).

Question: if Parking Eye say the car park is private does anyone have to display a licence plate on their car whilst on that property?

Yes but that doesn't stop a person accidentally letting a car blanket hang down from their boot as they drive out, or similar slip ups, or deliberately tailgating another vehicle as you drive in.

Fruitcake

Innes123 wrote: »

Question: if Parking Eye say the car park is private does anyone have to display a licence plate on their car whilst on that property?

There is no such requirement.

Barry Beavis now markets a flip down number plate for such situations for about £50 a pop.
On entering a private car park, the number plate is operated such that the genuine number plate flips down revealing a fake number plate underneath.

This reads FU ANPR. I have no idea of the significance of this VRN.
On leaving the private property the reverse operation reverts to the genuine VRN.

Fruitcake

Innes123 wrote: »

100% the registration number on the ticket is the same as on my car and as shown in the two ANPR photos. There are no Zeros or 'O's in the VRN. I have not made a mistake. I paid the correct amount (£ 2.20) valid for two hours and only stayed 34 minutes according to the Parking Charge Notice. I also have 14 other tickets from the visits I made every day either side of the one in question with identical VRN details. Only the date and time is different. But no PCN's for those visits. Clearly the ANPR system cannot be trusted 100%

Question: if Parking Eye say the car park is private does anyone have to display a licence plate on their car whilst on that property?

By using my O-Level in "dead hard sums" I make that about a 6.5% failure rate.

Innes123

Why is there any burden on the victim to prove innocence?

Half_way

ANPR equipment is known to be prone to errors.
If the agents of the hospital, parking eye are using error prone equipment then the hospital (as they are responsible fur the actions of parking eye) could be In breech of the Data protection act as you data would have been accessed without just cause.

Quentin

Innes123 wrote: »

Why is there any burden on the victim to prove innocence?

When faced with a claim from a supposed creditor which you dispute then you do need to explain why you dispute it.

The_Deep

The car park at Macclesfield General Hospital is ' managed' by Parking Eye who say the car park is private property.


But is it private property? Throughout my local hospital, Royal Berkshire, there are signs saying "This hospital belongs to you".

Timothea

You have a strong case for claiming compensation for distress from ParkingEye under the Data Protection Act. However, you need to collect evidence and follow the correct procedures so that a judge can see that you have acted reasonably. I recommend the following:

1. Make a subject access request to DVLA to find out when your personal keeper data were obtained. You can do this by emailing your name, address, vehicle registration number and date range to [EMAIL="SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
2. When you have this information, complain to DVLA that ParkingEye obtained your personal data without reasonable cause by writing to: Release of Information, Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1AJ and enclosing a copy of your ticket. Ask DVLA to confirm that PE obtained your personal data without reasonable cause and what they intend to do about this.
3. At around the same time, send PE a Section 10 Data Subject Notice along the lines in this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5585388

Please note that ICO recommends first contacting DVLA if you have a complaint about your vehicle keeper data being obtained without reasonable cause.

Also, this does not seem to be an ANPR system fault. Rather, the problem seems to be that correct ANPR reads were not matched to the VRN you entered correctly in PE's ticketing system. This indicates that PE's systems and quality checks are not fit for purpose.