Parking Eye and ANPR timing

KeithP

Volvo_Parker wrote: »

I'm out.

Me too.

What a waste of time that was.

Volvo_Parker

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

The ICO is the body which deals with data protection breaches
A 2 min google will tell you that.

I'm so pleased I found this helpful site..... an abbreviation not listed in the list of abbreviations directing to an organisation who looks after data protection as the way to fight a parking ticket. How monumentally stupid of me for not knowing that!

Volvo_Parker

KeithP wrote: »

Me too.

What a waste of time that was.

Being honest, there has been nothing posted in reply to my original post which wasn't identified in the posts at the head of the thread. What I was after is some guidance on the specific issue over the 2 different start times.


As nobody has been able to give any helpful guidance on that mater, it's been quite a waste of everybody's time.

Coupon-mad

Wow. We are helping you.

What I was after is some guidance on the specific issue over the 2 different start times

I gave you an answer, told you what to do about it in order to meaningfully complain.

When I put ICO into Google, I get:

https://ico.org.uk/

Information Commissioner.

I'm not a solicitor and certainly won't be employing one to structure a response to some other body to defend a £100 ticket when there is no test-case to say such a defence would be effective.

Nor are we solicitors, but you do not need any test case to complain about a breach of the data protection principles.

Nor would it take hours to write it (we have threads about it) and it's easily submitted online.

This is very topical; if you put ICO into this forum search, you get DOZENS of recent results. I've written several posts in April/May about the conflict between two data 'sets' (two conflicting times, where the PPC uses the time that most disadvantages the consumer) and how this breaches the ICO rules for ANPR cameras, you could have read some within minutes.

Searching the forum is quicker than it would take to type a reply here.

You may well see the fake PCN cancelled when the ICO start sniffing around it.

Volvo_Parker

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow. We are helping you.
I gave you an answer, told you what to do about it in order to meaningfully complain.
.......


.

I have just popped back to this site to see if there was anything helpful posted, thank you again for posting but yet again you haven't provided anything that a novice complainer can use.


Can you explain in simple terms, what particular breach of Data Protection I am to complain about. What error, what have they done wrong that need to be highlighted, what haven't they done correctly which means they will drop this PCN, what am I to complain about?


Can you explain what I am to search for on this site regarding Data Protection which relates to my specific PCN? A simple search throws up issues relating to obtaining registered keeper information which isn't relevant here (or is it)!


Can you understand why 'complain to Data Protection' isn't as helpful to a novice as it may be to a serial complainer?

Loadsofchildren123

Volvo, you may not be a solicitor but you sound fairly intelligent. You've identified some interesting and sound arguments via your own research.


No point criticising anyone on here for an omission on the acronyms or abbreviations. Yes it can be confusing, and the site is not perfect and yes advice is fragmented between many different threads. The site is entirely run by volunteers because we want to help people and find this area of the law interesting, and we are all fed up of these private parking companies ripping people off. We all do as best we can and we see some great successes.


I think Coupon Mad and others encouraged you about the ICO complaint because from your posts you seemed together enough to give it a stab.


What you are complaining about is the disparity between the times on the cameras and on the machines, they are clearly not synchronised. This can clearly be seen by the ticket which claims you had driven in, parked, paid and displayed your ticket in 53 seconds.


In proceedings, in your defence you will again rely on this, you will say that there was a disparity of several minutes, and this is clearly demonstrated by the time on the ticket itself. Ie you could not have entered, parked, found the signs, fished out some change, found the machine, walked from and to your car, and placed the ticket in the window, in 53 seconds. This indicates that the ANPR timings are out by 2, 3, 4 or 5 minutes, maybe more if it's a big car park or if you are a particularly slow person (eg you may be elderly or have a bad leg or back, I don't know, just something to think about).


If you were like me, you'd go back to the car park, park up and do it all again, and time yourself, taking photographs on your phone as evidence (if you have a smart phone this will show the exact times). This would make your defence even stronger (this is the sort of thing that would go in your Witness Statement in detail, but it would be helpful for the defence to know roughly how long you claim it would normally take).


In your defence you would also rely specifically on the BPA code (compliance with which is compulsory) to argue that any time you were in the car park over the period paid for is covered by the code's grace periods. I have a vague memory that there was a specific thing from the BPA recently saying it should be 11 minutes. If you do an advanced search on this forum for grace periods you'll find lots of interesting and useful information. There is sadly no clear definition of whether these apply at either end of parking and what they are meant to cover. One might argue that they are meant to cover, amongst other things, the possibility of a lack of synchronisation between the clocks on the machines vs the cameras, as well as being meant to give you time on entry to find a sign and read it before deciding whether to park, to then find a space and park in it, walk to and from the machine etc, as well as the same in reverse when you leave (sometimes it can take a few minutes to get out of your space because other people are manoevering close by, and sometimes there is a bit of a queue to get out of a car park).


As for your question when does parking start, is it on entry, there is I am afraid no clear answer. I've seen cases here where it has been successfully argued either way. Some judges are more sensible than others, some are in a bad mood on the day, some are pro-PPCs others are very against them. This is what we call litigation risk, and others call District Judge Bingo. I would of course agree with you that the provision of grace periods clearly indicates that parking is just that - the OED definition. Parking begins not when you enter because you have to have a chance to read the signs and pay (and when the claim is based on a contract, you clearly have to be given the opportunity to see what contractual terms are being offered and decide whether or not to accept them), it begins when you park and buy your ticket. The same applies to when parking ends: you cannot say that it ends when you drive out. sometimes it can take 5-10 minutes to exit, sometimes more if there is a queue. That is precisely what the mention of grace periods is for. But I have seen judges go against litigants on this point, as well as judges agreeing with it.


Now if you want help here, you will get it. Frankly, you couldn't be anywhere better for on the point advice. If you want it, take a deep breath, put on your big boy pants and accept the advice you're being given and please don't criticise us for not working hard enough to make this site easier to use. We all devote an enormous amount of time to it as it is, unpaid, between working (I, for example am a single working mother of 4, hence my user name, I tend to access this site in the evenings and sometimes at work when I'm having a quiet day or am between two jobs and have 5 minutes to spare). I've often seen people similar to you come on the site, find it frustrating that the answer isn't immediately apparent, and then get a bit cross at the regulars. Some then disappear. Others have the balls to say sorry, bad start, please forgive me and can you help me.


Just saying.

Guys_Dad

Volvo Parker

Good advice above. Loadsofchildren123 is a solicitor and knows what she is talking (or writing) about. Coupon-mad is probably the biggest and most helpful contributor on here too.

Both are trying to fight back against PPC scamming and ask for help in return by reporting the PPC failures to the appropriate authority.

Your help would be appreciated too,

Volvo_Parker

Thank you for that refreshingly clear and very helpful response Loadsofchildren123.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

....... I think Coupon Mad and others encouraged you about the ICO complaint because from your posts you seemed together enough to give it a stab.

What you are complaining about is the disparity between the times on the cameras and on the machines, they are clearly not synchronised. This can clearly be seen by the ticket which claims you had driven in, parked, paid and displayed your ticket in 53 seconds.

In proceedings, in your defence you will again rely on this, you will say that there was a disparity of several minutes, and this is clearly demonstrated by the time on the ticket itself. Ie you could not have entered, parked, found the signs, fished out some change, found the machine, walked from and to your car, and placed the ticket in the window, in 53 seconds. This indicates that the ANPR timings are out by 2, 3, 4 or 5 minutes, maybe more if it's a big car park or if you are a particularly slow person (eg you may be elderly or have a bad leg or back, I don't know, just something to think about).

I'm still not sure how any 'error' between the ANPR camera and the ticket machine can be addressed via an ICO complaint. Isn't that simply evidence to show their timing is insufficiently reliable to justify the PCN, rather than anything to do with data protection? I have already raised this matter with POPLA and with ParkingEye who have both ignored the question and failed to respond with a reason why there could be two conflicting times for the start of the parking session.

My POPLA and ParkingEye correspondence has also failed to gain a response why the signage does not confirm that your parking session (from an enforcement perspective) starts on entry to the car park, rather than anything related to the time shown on the ticket issued from the machine. Again neither have commented other than agreeing that the signage is compliant, something which I have again claimed is simply not the case.

I have also again asked them for evidence of any calibration between the ANPR and car park ticket machine, however they are stating that there is no such requirement. Would I be correct in thinking this demonstrates that they don't have any such records of the ANPR being synchronised with the ticket machine? As there is nothing in the BPA code to say they need to be synchronised, is this point irrelevant as a matter of mitigation?

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

.... In your defence you would also rely specifically on the BPA code (compliance with which is compulsory) to argue that any time you were in the car park over the period paid for is covered by the code's grace periods. I have a vague memory that there was a specific thing from the BPA recently saying it should be 11 minutes. If you do an advanced search on this forum for grace periods you'll find lots of interesting and useful information. There is sadly no clear definition of whether these apply at either end of parking and what they are meant to cover. One might argue that they are meant to cover, amongst other things, the possibility of a lack of synchronisation between the clocks on the machines vs the cameras, as well as being meant to give you time on entry to find a sign and read it before deciding whether to park, to then find a space and park in it, walk to and from the machine etc, as well as the same in reverse when you leave (sometimes it can take a few minutes to get out of your space because other people are manoevering close by, and sometimes there is a bit of a queue to get out of a car park). ......

I have also raised the issue of the BPA grace period, and whilst I can not see anything in the BPA guidance to suggest there is a grace period applied to the start and finish of the session, the grace period is identified as a 'minimum 10 minutes' in the current code of practice. My argument to POPLA and ParkingEye that they have applied a 'maximum 10 minute' grace period in error was also disappointingly dismissed without any real explanation.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

...., put on your big boy pants and accept the advice you're being given and please don't criticise us for not working hard enough to make this site easier to use. .....

Please take my comments as feedback rather than criticism, and I'll take the 'bog boy pants' comment in the same way. :beer:

Fighting a PCN for a novice has to be based upon a balance between appetite for victory and chances of success. The money is less important than the principle at this stage.

My base-line is that I'll not go to a court hearing for £100. Given your knowledge of these cases, are ParkingEye likely to drop this claim to avoid a case coming through challenging their ANPR timing, do they always proceed to court regardless of any points raised in correspondence, or will they simply pass the 'debt' on to a collection company who will peruse me mercilessly....?

Guys_Dad

Volvo_Parker wrote: »

My base-line is that I'll not go to a court hearing for £100. Given your knowledge of these cases, are ParkingEye likely to drop this claim to avoid a case coming through challenging their ANPR timing, do they always proceed to court regardless of any points raised in correspondence, or will they simply pass the 'debt' on to a collection company who will peruse me mercilessly....?

Parking Eye do court frequently. The most litigious of all parking companies. Debt Collectors tend not to peruse people, mercilessly or otherwise. Many of their employees can barely skim read.

Coupon-mad

Volvo_Parker wrote: »

I'm still not sure how any 'error' between the ANPR camera and the ticket machine can be addressed via an ICO complaint. Isn't that simply evidence to show their timing is insufficiently reliable to justify the PCN, rather than anything to do with data protection?

No, if you read this (which I did, and like LOC123 I am also a working Mother of 4 - a busy person):

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

This code of practice covers a wider area than the POFA code. This is because the DPA is applicable to all organisations that process personal data across the whole of the UK and has the same effect across all sectors.

One of the key differences is that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.

In one section which talks about audio and ANPR images (in your case the to conflicting streams are ANPR and the PDT machines) it says:

... two types of data processing should be considered as separate data streams and consideration should therefore be given to controlling them separately to ensure that irrelevant or excessive data is not obtained and held.

The way they operate ANPR as one 'data stream', alongside PDT machines as a separate 'data stream', can be argued to be a breach of principle one of the DPA in terms of people like you.

Using ANPR 'arrival time' images to the detriment of genuine PAYING visitors (whose perfectly reasonable 'parking contract start time' was in the hands of the parking firm anyway!) is disproportionate and not justified. This is true in terms of people like you who did not (at the end of expiry time) overstay the grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I would say that the timings you have there, tell us that the PDT machine clock is NOT POSSIBLE to be matched and synchronised to the ANPR clock, because as LOC123 says, you cannot possibly have done all that is required from entrance to standing there with 'ticket-in-hand' in under one minute flat.

Your case is ripe for complaint, the timers MUST be mismatched.

I would say that very clearly, and your complaint can add:

This ANPR operator has the true contract start time available to them - as defined in case law (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2, a leading English contract law case) the parking contract in a PDT machine car park starts when the money goes into the machine - but chooses instead to make unjustified automated decisions, that produce a PCN from the ANPR 'arrival' data instead. And in not using the timing that actually defines the start of the parking contract a reasonable man would rely on, they are also failing the mandatory requirement to ''regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate'' to continue using ANPR.

Whilst ANPR may have a place in a FREE car park, as there is no other information to go on, in a PDT car park, the two data streams must not be abused to manipulate what looks like an 'overstay' of a paying patron.

Whilst it may have proportionate use against a NON-PAYING visitor (or, say, someone who takes an hour to pay/and underpays) in such a car park, ANPR 'arrival time' image use cannot be justified, and is both excessive and the timings mismatched, when run alongside the data stream from the (separate timer) PDT machine of people who pay and rely on the receipt ticket timings and cannot possibly know that the ANPR timer is not synchronised.

In your case, just a minute out will have created your £100 charge. And it MUST be a minute out at least, as proved by the impossible 'arrival' versus 'ticket purchase' timings.

P.S. you do not 'have to' go to court. You could pay at any time. But the sooner you get a strong ICO complaint lodged, the sooner PE will be tied up by that complaint and unable to proceed further. If the ICO complaint is upheld, we will ALL applaud your stance and it will certainly help others and yourself, because the PCN will have to be cancelled.

If you do nothing now - yes, PE are likely to shape up for the usual court claim shortly.

So (forget the POPLA complaint) - either pay, or do the ICO complaint and we encourage the latter. Someone needs to do a well-informed one, and it must be a genuine victim like you.

We can assist with the wording, which must talk about the ICO Surveillance Camera rules and the ''two data streams'' being unfairly mismatched, such that ANPR is unjustified for use against paying patrons where the PDT data stream shows when the contract actually started. It could only be justified for non-payers and very slow payers and ONLY as long as the ANPR is synchronised in its timing with the PDT machine (which in your case, there is no way it can have been). Talk about the fact one minute out has caused £100 charge because the two conflicting/unsynchronised data streams have been 'manipulated' to invent an 11 minute overstay at the end that simply did not happen because the ANPR timer was demonstrably 'out'.

I suggested the ICO complaint rather than you paying, or defending a court claim.

Do not reply if you get a random pm offering to 'help' you with this off forum. Dodgy, ignore.