POPLA rejection next step?

DilH

This should be the last update! Less than 2 days after I first contacted him, I had this reply from Steve Clark:
"As promised I have been in dialogue with Parking Eye and asked them to review their systems following your representations. They can find no records of any additional entries and exits by you - this is not to say that this did not happen, just that they could not find them. I accept the Parking Eye position in this regard.

However Parking Eye note that you have invested a lot of time in stating your case, including your note to me and have decided to cancel the PCN on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill.

I hope you agree that this is an appropriate resolution to this case and I have closed the file accordingly."


So, with many thanks to you and Steve Clark, I can now begin to relax following a very trying time.
Thanks again, without your help I don't know what I would have done to resolve this injustice.

Umkomaas

Good man Steve Clark. :T. Always rely on him to deal with things as near to impartially as his role in the BPA allows him. And a good result for you DilH, and thanks for taking the leap of faith and following the advice given.

As for PE - it's extremely worrying that they say they can find no trace of the double dip - it appears their ANPR camera/system is possibly even more flawed than we could ever imagine.

Have a nice glass of something and put this well behind you. Job done, way to go.

Coupon-mad

Well done Umkomaas for remembering that previous email by Steve Clark about POPLA's wording.

We must watch out for POPLA stating that again, or (even better in any double dip case) pre-empt it, by telling POPLA it's not true and quoting Steve Clark's email about this POPLA error and also the BPA article that tells the World that ANPR does indeed have a 'first in last out' default flaw:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

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.

IMHO, ANPR used by private firms should be outright banned by Government, IMHO, like clamps were. Take their toys away and the scumbag firms will not be able to do this to people.


This is interesting, BTW, the ICO issued an enforcement notice about excessive use of ANPR:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

'We hope that this enforcement notice sends a clear message to all police forces, that the use of ANPR cameras needs to be fully justified before they are installed. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the impact on the privacy of the road using public.'

Not seen that before?!

The BPA generally supports the use of CCTV and ANPR technology as a method of managing parking both on and off street. However, there are a number of considerations associated with the use of technology in this environment and it is important that protocols exist to identify enforcement activity which might be considered excessive or disproportionate.

If these technologies are used, the benefits should be explained clearly in human terms, not just in those reaping precision and efficiency benefits. It must be made clear to the public why a new system is being introduced, that it is intended to manage parking for the majority of users and not for revenue raising

Whichever BPA spin-doctor wrote that, pull the other one, it's got bells on. PATHETIC PROPAGANDA.

And see this very recent article about calls for ANPR to be regulated/have its own CoP:

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/news/2018/march/code-of-practice-demanded-for-number-plate-recognition

beamerguy

DilH wrote: »

I had this reply from Steve Clark:

"As promised I have been in dialogue with Parking Eye and asked them to review their systems following your representations. They can find no records of any additional entries and exits by you - this is not to say that this did not happen, just that they could not find them. I accept the Parking Eye position in this regard.

However Parking Eye note that you have invested a lot of time in stating your case, including your note to me and have decided to cancel the PCN on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill.

A result for you but ...... do PE have a problem with their
record keeping ???

PE don't give a toss about about how much time a motorist
spends .... that is rubbish

Your thanks are well deserved for the members on here
who pointed you in right direction
Maybe all PE ... ANPR problems should be sent to Mr Clark
to sort out including the scam setup, Smart Parking.

As the MP said, the BPA is as useless as a multi story
car park in the Gobi desert, they will be in the Sahara next

The_Deep

As a gesture of goodwill why not slap PE with an LBC

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rlm?msclkid=e72e37130ab218df7c0f6ddb90c08f4c&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BSN%20-%20Letter%20before%20action&utm_term=letter%20before%20action%20template%20uk&utm_content=Exact%20-%20Letter%20before%20action

they have wasted your time, so why not waste theirs, you do not have to go through with it, but they will have to spend money dealing with it in case you do. In any case, you have six years to decide.