Parking Eye and Popla

tezb

So for 4 years i live in a area which has private and public car parking, i received a notice stating i parked for 2 hours 47 mins in a 30 min bay, there evidence was ANPR CCTV, i know 100% i did not make this offense, i have my own private parking space in which i park so have no reason to park in a 30 min slot, why would i ? anyway i appealed to Parking Eye and was turn down and told you did park there so pay up, i then made an appeal with POPLA who went on Parking Eyes side and upheld the charge stating ANPR is accurate.
Sorry i do not believe it is, i have statements from 4 other people who have got tickets from driving in one end and out the other end in less than 1 minute while going to work and then driving back through in the evening going back home, again another minute but the ANPR only records them coming in and not going out and then in the evening recording them going out only so makes it look like they have been parked for over 8 hours !, these people are also having a right time trying to fight theses tickets, there seems to be a flaw in the ANPR system but PE will not admit to any problem, there's clearly a issue.
At this point i just don't know what to do, i know i have done nothing wrong and don't feel i should pay a fine for something i have not done i am prepared to go to court over this but don't want to jeopardize my credit rating in any way if i do,all this is so stressful and i am ripping my hair out in worry, can someone please advise what to do ??? Thanks

Coupon-mad

1. Go to your MP and get them to support you proving to PE that you are allowed to access your own bay and show the MP this:

i have statements from 4 other people who have got tickets from driving in one end and out the other end in less than 1 minute while going to work and then driving back through in the evening going back home, again another minute but the ANPR only records them coming in and not going out

2. Presumably you have a POPLA code? What date was the rejection letter?

3. Take a video ready for POPLA, showing your route, and space.

Ralph-y

the OP stated that the POPLA appeal had failed ....

it may help us if you can post up your two appeals ....

Which are all so after people to write / email them re consumer problems .... perhaps you ....

https://whichcouk.bsd.net/page/s/which-taking-on-2018

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

i then made an appeal with POPLA who went on Parking Eyes side and upheld the charge stating ANPR is accurate.

Ooops, just spotted that thanks Ralph-y.

Point #1 still applies:

1. Go to your MP and get them to support you proving to PE that you are allowed to access your own bay and show the MP this:

i have statements from 4 other people who have got tickets from driving in one end and out the other end in less than 1 minute while going to work and then driving back through in the evening going back home, again another minute but the ANPR only records them coming in and not going out

tezb

This is POPLA reply :

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Alexandra Wilcock

Assessor summary of operator case
The appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that it is alleged that he parked in an area which had a maximum stay of 30 minutes, for two hours and 46 minutes. The appellant advised that he has lived on site for five years and is aware of the parking. He states that he has his own parking space on the site. The appellant says that the site is split into three areas. He advised that one site is for residents, one for three hours public parking, and the final one 30 minutes short stay. The appellant states that he did not park in the 30 minutes maximum stay area, as he has no reason to. He says that he believes that the cameras are not accurate. The appellant advised that he went in and out of the site on multiple of occasions, and he does not believe that the camera seen this. The appellant has provided an annotated site map showing where he allegedly parked, and where he states that he parked.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state “30 minutes max stay. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant remaining on site for longer than permitted. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras (ANPR), the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, AP13 FWM, entering the site at 09:45, exiting at 12:31; the period of stay was two hours and 46 minutes. The appellant states that it is alleged that he parked in an area which had a maximum stay of 30 minutes, for two hours and 46 minutes. The appellant advised that he has lived on site for five years and is aware of the parking. He states that he has his own parking space on the site. The appellant says that the site is split into three areas. He advised that one site is for residents, one for three hours public parking, and the final one 30 minutes short stay. The appellant states that he did not park in the 30 minutes maximum stay area, as he has no reason to. He says that he believes that the cameras are not accurate. The appellant advised that he went in and out of the site on multiple of occasions, and he does not believe that the camera seen this. The appellant has provided an annotated site map showing where he allegedly parked, and where he states that he parked. I note the appellant’s comments however, in terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The ANPR images provided by the operator show that the appellant entered the site which is for retail customers, and hotel residents only, and remained on site for three hours and 46 minutes, which is 46 minutes longer than permitted. Furthermore, having reviewed the evidence provided by both parties I am satisfied that the site only permits motorists to three hours maximum stay, no resident parking. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that the maximum stay on site. As the appellant remained on site for loner than permitted, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

beamerguy

i then made an appeal with POPLA who went on Parking Eyes side and upheld the charge stating ANPR is accurate.

Some of the POPLA assessors are proving to be complete
idiots ???
How can they state that ANPR is accurate when IT'S NOT
POPLA cannot know if this is the case
POPLA are making seriously grave errors of late to the point
that I wonder if some are on a payroll

At least you have evidence that others have suffered
where you park and they can be your witness to the
activity.

Judges are not taking too kindly with parking vermin
attacking residents.

Forget POPLA now, THEY are now coming out with the same
rubbish as their opposite number, the IPC

Wait to see what the Cowboys do and then come
back here

"the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate."

Ask the BPA when an audit was done at the site and the
results of that Audit .... that's if they have ???

tezb

Parking Eye response :



Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 28
October 2017 at 12:31, at Harlow Exchange – Short Stay car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This site is a maximum stay
car park, as per the terms and conditions as detailed on the signage. Your appeal has
been rejected on the basis that the maximum time allowed was exceeded.
Please be advised:
 There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists
who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved
Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed.
See also
 As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14
days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your
appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in
settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount. If you
have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to
the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.
 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution
service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting
or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye

Coupon-mad

Yes but that's a standard reply from PE, they've not looked at it. And no evidence was supplied to POPLA that proved there were residential spaces, so you made it impossible for POPLA to find in your favour. I can see she couldn't do much else because POPLA always assume ANPR cameras were working fine unless the person proves to the contrary.

Of course you don't pay! But you need to evidence this better and get your MP behind you, perhaps even contact the local press, why not? I recall a very similar site PE operated a few years ago that was exposed by the Parking Prankster.

Get those statements together to show your MP, and email PE a video from one of you (someone must SURELY have done this already, surely no idiot has actually paid them?) showing the route through the site. Also send your video evidence to the BPA in a formal complaint about PE operating on a site where residents are caught by cameras when simply going to their spaces.

It was up to you to supply the evidence, and now you must do so to avoid a court claim.

tezb

Thanks for the replys, i would just like to point out when i did the appeal to POPlA there was no option to send any photos or diagrams showing parking spaces, i did ring them to tell them i had this evidence but was told you can only appeal in writing, no pics or videos accepted so at a loss

Castle

tezb wrote: »

Thanks for the replys, i would just like to point out when i did the appeal to POPlA there was no option to send any photos or diagrams showing parking spaces, i did ring them to tell them i had this evidence but was told you can only appeal in writing, no pics or videos accepted so at a loss

Their Website says otherwise:-
https://popla.co.uk/faqs-and-advice

Ralph-y

how can an ANPR camera prove where you parked ?? :mad:


Ralph:cool: