POPLA stage (EuroCarParks appeal) - do I have grounds?

BlackTalos1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The GRACE PERIODS (plural) are not ten minutes.

It is an UNSPECIFIED time at arrival to read signs, park, and pay or decide to stay. Then ANOTHER SEPARATE period of at least ten minutes on top, to leave after allowed parking time.

The BPA says so:

[snip]

But PLEASE do not complicate the ICO complaint. It is not about that, it's about the inaccurate ANPR timings, and possible fraud.

HTH

This is also where I would think that a certain amount of time should be counted to unpack a pushchair and install a child of under 7 months of age. Even if this counts as a couple of minutes, they seem to really be fishing for that "1 minute over contract+ min allowance"......

KeithP

BlackTalos1 wrote: »

This is also where I would think that a certain amount of time should be counted to unpack a pushchair and install a child of under 7 months of age. Even if this counts as a couple of minutes, they seem to really be fishing for that "1 minute over contract+ min allowance"......

I don't see why unloading people and their paraphernalia from a car needs a special allowance. You were parked for that time, were you not?

BlackTalos1

KeithP wrote: »

I don't see why unloading people and their paraphernalia from a car needs a special allowance. You were parked for that time, were you not?

Agreed, I will drop the mitigating circumstances as they would be cancelled out by not being a customer of the intended retailers for the car park anyway....

Any advice on the ICO Details? Submit as quoted above and post again if it goes anywhere?

Coupon-mad

What would you like the ICO to do to help?
eg ask the organisation to give you the information you asked for, ask the organisation to apologise, or give the organisation advice on how to improve

I have appealed to the trader but they have rejected my dispute, so I would like the ICO to [STRIKE]help ensure that the Data they hold is correct.[/STRIKE] investigate why this parking firm is using ANPR cameras where the entry and exit times are both provably wrong, and not just wrong, but skewed so that they can allege an 'overstay' of more than ten minutes, when this is a lie (there is no other word for this data abuse, surely).

I do intend to appeal to POPLA but they are bankrolled by the Trade Body and they follow biased advice from a 'sector expert' (parking industry) and routinely assume that ANPR works correctly. So they cannot assist me with this serious concern. It is high time the ICO exposed the fact that ANPR in the hands of private firms is misused, abused and is a tool to extort money from people, tantamount to fraud where the timers are demonstrably inaccurate.

Such ANPR use should be banned, and POPLA cannot assist with that and never would. I realise the ICO can.

I would also like the ICO to:

- look into the inaccurate ANPR time readings and possible fraud for victims who might not hold the same data that I can produce on this occasion.

- ask the trader for the number of victims caught by these inaccurately configured ANPR cameras and to order them to refund the people who have been scared into paying,

- and to pay me compensation for what appears to be demanding monies by deception

- and to cease using ANPR at this site (or at ALL sites where they use ANPR) until they can demonstrate to the ICO that the timings at the entry and exit cameras are actually correct, set to Greenwich Mean Time and are beyond reproach,

- and to carry out a wider investigation and/or alert Trading Standards to carry out covert tests of parking firms using ANPR, if possible by doing mystery shopper visits in/out within 9 minutes (timed by a dashcam or Google maps) and then wait and see how many PCNs arrive alleging an 11 - 15 minute overstay, as it is believed this is far from an isolated incident. It is only with the advent of Google location being commonly available that victims are starting to report this sort of fraudulent - or at best negligent- operation.

- and to audit/compare the operator's business model against the ICO's own Surveillance Camera Code of Practice that the BPA Code of Practice requires them to comply with, because clearly this data harvesting is not just excessive (24/7 cameras, despite the location not being open 24/7) but incriminating and a clear breach of the DPA and CPUTRs 2008.

- and to ask the operator to explain their discrepancy and not to pretend it's a one-off and hurriedly cancel my PCN. I think this is the tip of the iceberg and the ICO should be alarmed by the emerging evidence from people, now able to disprove the alleged timings that never used to be able to be disproved.

Additionally, I have a second concern about another data processing matter with this operator.

As can be read in my attached response, I specifically requested written responses, in the same or similar postal format as the Parking Charge Notice. I asked them NOT to reply by email (the reason being, there have been reported instances of POPLA codes/rejection letters being missed as they are received as spam, and thus poeple have missed the chance to appeal further). This was ignored by the organisation who responded by email with attachment that included the POPLA appeal code.


As above, if you've not submitted it yet.

x9J3Nb

Not this "set to Greenwich Mean Time"

Coupon-mad

What do you mean? Maybe something better could be suggested?

BlackTalos1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As above, if you've not submitted it yet.

Was awaiting response last night but ended up getting to sleep...


I have tweaked the "Greenwich Mean Time" as below and will send this today:

I have appealed to the trader but they have rejected my dispute, so I would like the ICO to investigate why this parking firm is using ANPR cameras where the entry and exit times are both provably wrong, and not just wrong, but skewed so that they can allege an 'overstay' of more than ten minutes, when this is a lie (there is no other word for this data abuse, surely).

I do intend to appeal to POPLA but they are bankrolled by the Trade Body and they follow biased advice from a 'sector expert' (parking industry) and routinely assume that ANPR works correctly. So they cannot assist me with this serious concern. It is high time the ICO exposed the fact that ANPR in the hands of private firms is misused, abused and is a tool to extort money from people, tantamount to fraud where the timers are demonstrably inaccurate.

Such ANPR use should be banned, and POPLA cannot assist with that and never would. I realise the ICO can.

I would also like the ICO to:

- look into the inaccurate ANPR time readings and possible fraud for victims who might not hold the same data that I can produce on this occasion.

- ask the trader for the number of victims caught by these inaccurately configured ANPR cameras and to order them to refund the people who have been scared into paying,

- and to pay me compensation for what appears to be demanding monies by deception

- and to cease using ANPR at this site (or at ALL sites where they use ANPR) until they can demonstrate to the ICO that the timings at the entry and exit cameras are actually correct, set to an identical time datum and are beyond reproach.

- and to carry out a wider investigation and/or alert Trading Standards to carry out covert tests of parking firms using ANPR, if possible by doing mystery shopper visits in/out within 9 minutes (timed by a dashcam or Google maps) and then wait and see how many PCNs arrive alleging an 11 - 15 minute overstay, as it is believed this is far from an isolated incident. It is only with the advent of Google location being commonly available that victims are starting to report this sort of fraudulent - or at best negligent- operation.

- and to audit/compare the operator's business model against the ICO's own Surveillance Camera Code of Practice that the BPA Code of Practice requires them to comply with, because clearly this data harvesting is not just excessive (24/7 cameras, despite the location not being open 24/7) but incriminating and a clear breach of the DPA and CPUTRs 2008.

- and to ask the operator to explain their discrepancy and not to pretend it is a one-off and hurriedly cancel my PCN. I think this is the tip of the iceberg and the ICO should be alarmed by the emerging evidence from people, now able to disprove the alleged timings that never used to be able to be disproved.

Additionally, I have a second concern about another data processing matter with this operator.

As can be read in my attached response, I specifically requested written responses, in the same or similar postal format as the Parking Charge Notice. I asked them NOT to reply by email (the reason being, there have been reported instances of POPLA codes/rejection letters being missed as they are received as spam, and thus people have missed the chance to appeal further). This was ignored by the organisation who responded by email with attachment that included the POPLA appeal code.

Coupon-mad

Go for it!

BlackTalos1

Hello All,

I am now reaching the end of my POPLA appeal period, with no response from the ICO on the case.

Following the Sticky Post #3, I am sending an appeal VERY similar to the one suggested:
https: dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0

It is identical from points 3. to 8. and I have removed point 9. as I do not have this information.
Point 2. has been shortened a lot to end with this text, after the Beavis section:

Here, the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read before the action of parking and leaving the car.
Euro Car Parks’ main car park signs on the Harefield Road Retail are inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Harefield Road Retail Park - main car park sign close-up

The image in Figure 2 shows a close up of the main car park sign where the charge amount and details of applicable stay times are illegible from the figure above.

Figure 2 clearly shows that Euro Car Parks’ signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The fees (see Figure 2) are confusing and ambiguous, for example, what length of stay applies at an entry time of [20:55:00]? [17:55:00] on a Sunday?

The section in red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2) that is apparently an “Important Notice” is in tiny text that is impossible to read without a step ladder. It cannot be ignored – the wording used clearly states it is important and therefore urges the reader to fully read and understand. Why is something so important so small and illegible? Furthermore, red text on a yellow background is difficult to read.

Indeed, in relation to design principles, it is widely known that colour contrast plays a key role in terms of accessibility as it “affects some people’s ability to perceive information (in other words to be able to receive the information visually).” (Government Digital Service, 17 June 2016). Whilst this web page discusses design principles in relation to web design, the same points are true of print-based materials which would include signage.

Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed clearly indicating non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3) which states:
“Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.”

Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

It cannot be reasonably assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the car park, nor parked near.
**End of point 2.**

Upload of the Sign in question, sent by ECP's in the rejected appeal:
https: ibb.co/jiUTvL

A couple of amendments to point 1. on the reasons for grace period:

Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
“Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
The recommendation reads:
“Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.”
(Source: *removed*)
This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account – certainly an allegation of eleven minutes (as is the case here) is perfectly reasonable.
As stated earlier in this section, whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (as a contract was never entered in to), it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the terms “reasonable period” and “reasonable grace period” stated in 13.1 and 13.2 respectively of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 71 minutes) does not include an unreasonable grace period, given:
a) The requirement to follow an extensive one-way system around the site.
[Attached Google maps imagery, @51.5496057,-0.4806178,153m]
b) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
c) The presence of a baby passenger in the vehicle, under 1 year of age, and associated gear.
d) The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2).

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:

Finally, I have added the important new point 9 :
Should this be moved up as "Point 1", or fitted in near point 7 ?

**Part of section 7:
Fraudulent ANPR data massaging is discussed further in section 9, pages 14-15 of this document.**

9. Fraudulent ANPR data massaging.
In part related to section 7, pages 11-12 of this document is evidence of further Data changes made to the time stamps obtained from the ANPR system.

The Notice to Keeper states:
“On [XXXX] the vehicle: XXXXXXX entered Harefield Retail Park – Uxbridge, at [XXXX] and departed at [XXXX] on [XXXX].”
The first aspect of this Data is that the time have clearly been amended from the original recordings and approximated to what can be ready as “time slots”:
- Arrival anytime between [Hour]:54:00 and [Hour]:59:59 is approximated by removing time as [Hour]:54:00.
- Departure anytime between [Hour]:00:01 and [Hour]:05:00 is approximated by adding time as [Hour]:05:00.

Euro Car Parks’ will need to submit sufficient evidence to prove that this is not the case, as the results of such “approximations” would have a significant effect on section , pages 1-3 of this document.

The clear indication of this assumption is due to the clear omission of the last 2 digits of the time stamps given representing the Seconds.
The second aspect of the Data claimed is figure 3 below, showing Apple® location based data as obtained from the iPhone of a passenger of the car:

Figure 3: iPhone Location-related information history
The data attached shows a clear tracking of the Vehicle, and occupants being in a completely different location time stamped as [Hour]:05 on the [DATE] thus disproving the claim by Euro Car Parks of an ANPR recording at [[Hour]:05:00].

Although the calibrated, maintained and synchronised timer of the ANPR system may be miss-matched to the cloud-based time tracking software of the device, this would only reinforce the entry time of [Hour]:01, again mismatched to the ANPR recording at [[Hour]:54:00].
Euro Car Parks’ will need to submit sufficient evidence to show against the Data supplied above, that the ANPR system in this location is not “approximated” to suit commercial needs.

[Relevant Disclosure]
A separate complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner's Office.
The grounds for the ICO are due to the belief that this is negligent or fraudulent ANPR data massaging, proving that the time on the IN and OUT cameras are both wrong.

Your help would again be much appreciated for a review before submission tomorrow, as the Deadline is 28 days from the 18th of October.
The location Pictures were kindly linked in an earlier post.

On a side Note, hoping that I soon have access to links, and does this forum accommodate the (Spoiler) type of tag to create drop-down menus and shorter posts?
Please enjoy your evening too. I feel like I am spending ages on this...No backing out now.

BlackTalos1

I am mainly wondering if i should include the statement about the ICO complaint, or just keep that information until the next step ?