Parking Eye and ANPR timing

Volvo_Parker

Thank you for that more detailed explanation, genuinely helpful.


I'm understanding more the principle of the parallel data streams from the ANPR and the PDT machine needing to be linked, something which they clearly are not complying with.


I also think they are weak with regard to their on-site signage, it includes a logo to show that they have an ANPR system but there is no text to explain how and why the images are collected. I would also be surprised if they could produce a 'Privacy Impact Assessment' for the site.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

This is the first time this case has come up. Doesn't this effectively confirm that they can not use the 'entry time' to define the start of the parking session in a car park where customers are expected to pay for their parking. Parking the DPA element for one moment, doesn't this Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd case render their PCN unenforceable?

Coupon-mad

No because:

- they'll say Thornton v Shoe Lane is different because the PDT machine there was at the entrance at a barrier (true, but it's still case law that defines specifically the start time of a parking contract!)

- they will throw ParkingEye v Beavis at it (no comparison, free car park, but it's their go-to)

- they will roll on and sue you anyway, because they know people panic & pay!

- they will say in their claim, that you overstayed by 11 minutes after paid-for time.

And the BPA CoP says ten minutes (despite the BPA agreeing in 2015 to change it to 11 minutes at the end of paid parking...never happened).

None of this will stop PE starting a court claim - but an ICO investigation WILL.

Volvo_Parker

Coupon-mad wrote: »

........And the BPA CoP says ten minutes (despite the BPA agreeing in 2015 to change it to 11 minutes at the end of paid parking...never happened).

None of this will stop PE starting a court claim - but an ICO investigation WILL.

The BPA CoP says 'minimum 10 minutes' which gives them the option to extend although they haven't in my case.


For the ICO complaint, should I follow the ICO guidance and make a complaint with ParkingEye initially and then go to ICO if they don't respond, or go straight to a complaint direct with the ICO?

Coupon-mad

The BPA CoP says 'minimum 10 minutes' which gives them the option to extend although they haven't in my case.

Yes I agree, it is a baseless claim and you'd be likely to win it, but you did say you would not go to court over £100 so (if you aren't prepared to defend a winnable claim) the ICO route is better.

For the ICO complaint, should I follow the ICO guidance and make a complaint with ParkingEye initially and then go to ICO if they don't respond, or go straight to a complaint direct with the ICO?

I would do the PE complaint by email urgently, first, to play the game properly, and tell PE if they do not provide a satisfactory response within 7 days, you will proceed with the ICO complaint:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Mention the things we mentioned above. The ICO rules for ANPR, the two data streams, the lack of justification in using it against a paying customer, Thornton v Shoe Lane, and the fact the PDT machine MUST be not synchronised (can't be).

They will say it is - let them prove that to the ICO then! They will reply and will throw some platitudes at you. Do not accept their response, then move to the ICO.

Ralph-y

"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."


the above is a clear sign that you have yet to realise the sort of organisations you are dealing with ... 'John Wayne' and a company that is' as much use as a car park in the Gobi dessert ' (Hansard)



Oh and that meant ParkingLie and the BPA


Why would they help you ? why would then answer your questions ?



read / watch for more understanding





https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.




This is why many of us here fight such



keep up the good fight


and


good luck


Ralph:cool:

Loadsofchildren123

PE will sue you, regardless of the strength of your defence.


The ICO complaint is your best chance of seeing it off if you don't want litigation.


Also complain to the BPA. The code requires meticulous record keeping by the members. If the record keeping requirements don't specifically mention calibration/synchronisation of the cameras with the ticket machines, look for wording that would imply it does. Ask PE for details of when they were last calibrated/synchronised, how often this is done, how often in this particular car park has calibration/synchronisation found that there are disparities in the time shown on each system? Keep asking questions. Complain to the BPA that they are refusing to provide you with any information, information which they must have if they comply with the code and keep records. The BPA will fob you off, so will PE, but you will identify yourself as a trouble maker and this MAY help you later.


If they issue a claim, they will go to court. There is a very small possibility they will back out at the very last minute, but they may not. What happens is the PPCs use a roboclaim solicitor who charges a very small sum and then does very little work (because otherwise they would run at a loss). They use template claims and template witness statements. I do not believe they even read what comes in - letters, your defence, your WS. Then very shortly before the hearing they get the papers together for their rep and sometimes someone sees that it's a loser, or that you will raise a point in court which might potentially create difficulties for them in other cases, and they will try and do a deal with you literally days before the hearing. But this is rare.


Once proceedings are issued, you then have the original £100 plus £50 solicitors costs, £25 issue fee, interest and undetermined add-ons (admin charges) which are vaguely referred to in the signage, and so the claim will end up being for roughly £200-250.


Contracts require 3 elements:
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration (payment or some kind of benefit)
If one of these is absent, there cannot be a contract.


There is no clear answer to your question when does parking start. On one interpretation, parking under the normal definition starts as soon as you park your car in a space. However, at that stage there is no contract because you have parked up so that you can go and read the signs and pay.


"Parking" under the terms of the contract cannot possibly start when you drive into the sort of car park you are talking about, because how can you enter into a contract by accepting terms offered when those terms have not been communicated to you? In these sorts of car parks, the BPA code requires an entrance signage which tells you there are parking controls, and which refers to t&cs displayed inside. So you are alerted to them by the entrance sign, then you enter and you look for and read them.


You "park" under the terms of the contract when you have done that and the act of parking is your acceptance of the offer made in the t&cs.


This is the reasoning behind the pre-parking grace period. In the Shoe Lane case, it's a bit different because there was a barrier where payment had to be made upon entry, and so the contract had to be entered into upon payment and entry, the terms having been communicated on entry. This is not the case in most other car parks.


There was one case on here where the judge disagreed with this assessment of when the contract/parking commenced, and ruled that the contract was accepted on entry. That reasoning was clearly flawed, both under contract law and under the BPA code. If the motorist had appealed I think they would have won - but at the end of the day this is a claim for circa £200 and the reality is that nobody will devote that much time and effort to it. I think most judges would agree with my contractual assessment, not this other judge. This is the inherent risk everyone takes when they go to court.


Your chances of success are also influenced by your local court - eg Manchester and Skipton judges are pro-motorist and anti-PPCs. Swansea is very pro-PPCs.


Your defence will be that you complied with the T&Cs and left several minutes prior to the time recorded on the cameras, the clear disparity in time recording being proven by the times of entry indicated on the cameras vs the ticket. If you do defend, go to the car park and time yourself from entry to displaying a ticket.


Unfortunately, defending means taking a day off to go to court. You can claim £95 in lost earnings. Rarely you can win punitive costs, but this is rare. You can ask for the court to deal with it on the papers, but this is risky, and PE may not agree. You could also not attend the hearing and ask the court to just consider your paper evidence/defence, but if PE go along you have no control over what they are saying and no right of reply so that is also inadvisable.


I understand the principle vs the money point. The effort it takes to defend is just out of all proportion to the £100 charge. Only you can make that decision, but if you decide to stand on your principles then you will get lots of help here.


Decisions, decisions.

Loadsofchildren123

PS. If they refuse to answer your questions about calibration, you rely on that to argue that there is no such calibration, which adds weight to your argument that they are out of synch.

Volvo_Parker

Just as an update on this one...


I have written to PE asking questions about my concerns that they have misused my personal data in breach of the ICO CoP, along with further questions about the timing. I have not yet submitted the formal ICO complaint as they won't process any complaint until the other party has been given one month to respond to my initial request.


PE's 'Privacy Team' have written back yesterday outlining that the parking contract is formed by the ANPR camera data on entry, and that the 'grace period' is intended to allow me sufficient time to review the T&C's and leave the car park if I do not accept those terms. There is no mention of how that 'contract' is formed before any payment is made.


They have also failed to make any comment on the ICO CoP questions.


My next step is to respond to their latest letter outlining that they have failed to provide any response to my concerns over their breach of the ICO CoP. Whilst I will also confirm my disagreement with their interpretation of when the parking contract started (based on the comments above), I will confirm that I have raised a formal complaint against them through the ICO.


I'll issue the formal complaint to the ICO and keep you updated on any response.


Cheers

Castle

Volvo_Parker wrote: »

Just as an update on this one...
PE's 'Privacy Team' have written back yesterday outlining that the parking contract is formed by the ANPR camera data on entry, and that the 'grace period' is intended to allow me sufficient time to review the T&C's and leave the car park if I do not accept those terms. There is no mention of how that 'contract' is formed before any payment is made.

If that was true, then Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) would apply and the driver wouldn't be subject to any T&C's. (Unless the driver could read them before passing the cameras).

The_Deep

I'll not go to a court hearing for £100.

It is likely to be almost double that.

I would go to court for one penny if I though it would damage a PPC. If you have the time, please watch the video below and learn about the game you have now been co-opted into. You seem the sort of person who could cost them a lot of money if you were so inclined, especially if you felt able to counter sue for harassment, read these:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parking-eye-takes-on-top-barrister-85-fine

These two barristers thought it was worth while fighting a very small claim, LoC, another lawyer, has spent a considerable time writing to you, this is not just an irritant, these companies can drive people to despair, to suicide, see what Parliament thinks about, watch the video below

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.