NCP Scamming Motorists Using Pole Mounted ANPR without Planning Permission

beamerguy

lazy wrote: »

Thank you. I will do that now..

Yes, the Beavis case was very specific in that it was about the fairness of the charge.

No point in using this but you still hit them with everything else.

Uneducated low life legals use the Beavis case as a "golden ticket" to scare people but if you are not claiming the charge was unfair, the Supreme court decision ends there

BEAVIS v PARKING EYE in the Supreme Court
Often, these powerless debt collectors and dodgy legals
make referenceto the Parking Eye/Supreme court case ?
They seem to think that this is the key for them to extort
money from you.
Barry Beavis took Parking Eye to court because he claimed
the charges were unfair. The court said they were ... and
that was it. So unless you are claiming that the charge
was unfair, the Supreme court decision has no bearing
on you

The problem with the Supreme court decision is that it opened the doors for these low life legals to then use the county courts as their own debt collection department ........ how stupid was that ????

lazy

Mine is so simple but has become very complicated. I enter car park. sapped by ANPR. Wait for space. 10-15 mins none becomes available. I exit. 7 months later receive a Claim Form. Its that simple.

beamerguy

lazy wrote: »

Mine is so simple but has become very complicated. I enter car park. sapped by ANPR. Wait for space. 10-15 mins none becomes available. I exit. 7 months later receive a Claim Form. Its that simple.

No complications, BWLegal has been well out of it's depth for a long time.and they are getting very boring with their cr*p claims
The courts must be finding them very boring and timewasters

They send "rent-a-legals" to court who don't have a clue

This is probably because they are scared stiff to attend court themselves ..... one of the worst legals in the UK

lazy

I see. ok... Just putting the finishing touches to my defence.

lazy

Defence has been acknowledged by email and snail mail. Waiting for further instructions.






Lazy

nosferatu1001

How do you mean "acknowledged"?
Do you mean yo uhave filed the defence with the court?

If YES, then you should be already reading post 2 of the newbies thread, having bookmarked it.

steviebuk

lazy wrote: »

Good morning.

Here is an interesting case we find ourselves in.

7 months ago (April 2018) we drove into a private car park managed by NCP. Since November/January 2017/2018 NCP have been using ANPR with the new ticket machines that are connected to these pole mounted ANPR's. You drive in and the ANPR records your vehicle registration. You drive out and the ANPR records your leaving time. So far so good... BUT here is our story.

About 1 week ago we received a Claim Form for an alleged parking infringement that happend 7 months ago. The date on the claim form was delivered to us 9 fricking days later which meant we had to act quick. We owe £ 242.40

We did NOT receive any warning letters, Notice to Keeper or any other documents. Absolutely nothing. So, we cant appeal, challenge through the normal process all we can do is Acknowledge the Service giving us 28 days on service of Claim Form letter.

HOWEVER, after some probing by myself it has now been confirmed by the planning authority a few weeks ago at the Council, NCP have never applied for planning permission to have these ANPR cameras, not just in this car park but in another and are in planning breach which has led them to apply for retrospective planning.

We have been able to trace this alleged parking infringement when we drove in and waited for a space. We were there waiting for no more than 15 mins however the ANPR i assume have us not paying. We have also established from the local authority the signs do not meet the signage regulation, the fencing withing the car park was also erected without planning.

Some of the signs in the car park state, "Have you Paid and Displayed" and the answer would be yes if we had parked. However the ANPR ticket machines on the request by NCP require you to put in your registration. If the registration does not match the one for your car or you make a mistake with a number or letter then you are almost certain, NCP will apply to the DVLA to obtain your details.

We believe whilst an accredited car parking organisation can apply, we dont think NCP was reasonable when doing so, especially as NCP did not have permission to have the ANPR in the car park and then use that information to apply for information from the DVLA. We cant find any legislation that it is a "Lawful Requirement" that you enter your exact registration. NCP are offering a service for you to park, pay and display. We would always pay have and displayed if we parked.

We feel that NCP have breached the data act by obtaining keeper details unlawfully because NCP do not have planning permission to have these ANPR cameras at the said location. We believe the ticket machines, even if the signage states you may receive a penalty if you dont input your correct vehicle details to be flawed because, again there is no legislation that we can find to say it is an offence not to input this data as long as you have paid but we understand if you dont follow NCP rules you will ultimately receive a fine.

So, this appears to be a scam from a accredited operator that appears not to act within the law? Our concern is, when we have paid and displayed I have never used my registration, I have always used 0000000 and then displayed. The keypad on the ticket is very hard to see and even with my reading glasses on it is very difficult for me, so hence why i use the above. I have also been able to establish the land owner was not aware, they did not have planning etc.

Your help, questions, would be most appreciated please before I submit my defense online:)?

Lazy

Before you enter these car parks, put a sign across your numberplate with a SQL injection code on it. In the hope their system doesn't check and inserts it into the database. Better yet, use the one that drops all the tables (essentially deleting the database).




I joss of course but I believe this does work but would be technically illegal.


Anyway, the other options for this systems now is everyone start applying Right To Be forgotten notices to the companies the moment you leave the car park. So they're forced to remove your number plate from their database under GDPR.

Coupon-mad

steviebuk wrote: »

Anyway, the other options for this systems now is everyone start applying Right To Be forgotten notices to the companies the moment you leave the car park. So they're forced to remove your number plate from their database under GDPR.

Nice idea, that's worth mentioning to people.

steviebuk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nice idea, that's worth mentioning to people.

Just done one to Britannia. They claimed as I wasn't getting a fine, there's no need to worry but they'll keep the plate for 3 months in accordance with a section of their policy. This policy you don't see before you enter the car park. I also pointed out that part of their policy states "For the prevention of crime". Yet on their sign in the car park they essentially state "your stuff gets nicked, we don't care". So against the policy of "prevention of crime". I also pointed out ANPR systems, I'm pretty sure, should NOT to be used as a form of CCTV which that part of their policy is now claiming they are using it as.



They prompty have now removed my plate image. I've also asked them to remove from their backups. Also to place a consent button on their website for cookies as they are breaking GDPR on their site, regarding cookies.


I don't know how this is going to be workable as you could essentially request this every time you enter and leave the carpark as at least with them, they are keeping plates on record WAY longer than they need to.

Castle

steviebuk wrote: »

Just done one to Britannia. They claimed as I wasn't getting a fine, there's no need to worry but they'll keep the plate for 3 months in accordance with a section of their policy. This policy you don't see before you enter the car park.

If they are failing to comply with Article 13 of the GDPR then a complaint needs to be made to the ICO. Retention periods must be stated on the privacy notice.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-be-informed/