Parking eye fine for Charnock Richard services

Coupon-mad

this route has been used illigally for some 40 yrs 

Creating an easement by prescription, then, due to long use as a right of way:

https://www.mplaw.co.uk/news-events/our-news/detail/2017/08/04/acquisition-of-prescriptive-easements#:~:text=A%20prescriptive%20easement%20is%20one,of%20lost%20modern%20grant%3B%20or

Half_way

To parking eye, ref parking charge notice ### the vehicle concerned reg number xxxxx was not in the car park the the time you allege, you appear to be relying solely on data captured by inaccurate  automated camera systems with no reasonable checks (such as foot patrols) to verify the data collected and held by yourselves is accurate.
Data accuracy is a key component of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) And under such, you have 30 days to rectify your data and cease processing my data with regards to pursuing this parking charge notice.
Further more I would also require from yourselves evidence to show that you will take reasonable steps to ensure that this dues not happen again at any sites you operate from, such as including manual checks (ie foot patrols ) of your sites to search for vehicles that have been flagged as over staying

D_P_Dance

Whatever the legality or not of OP's actions, the fact remains that no breach of contract occurred.

1505grandad

Per post by Half-way  -  "Anpr on is own its not fit for purpose. If the vehicle was not on site I would ask parking eye what systems (ie foot patrols) they have in place to check that the data they gather is accurate and in compliance with GDPR"

As mentioned before when C-m posted the following on  thread of retropeck  -  is it possible that the failings of anpr are subject to this:-

"Just to add, I've been looking into the consumer law and next time, re a broken PDT machine case where the PPC fined the person due to their own failings and knew the machine was broken, I think we should mention Reg 3(3) of the CPUTRs, which creates an offence:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/3/made

Prohibition of unfair commercial practices

3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.

(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.

(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.*

(4) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;

(b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6;

(c) it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or

(d) it is listed in Schedule 1.

An explanation I found elsewhere:

General duty not to trade unfairly

Regulation 3 is called "Prohibition of unfair commercial practices", which effectively means failing to act in accordance with reasonable expectations of acceptable trading practice.  

The regulation prohibits practices that:

contravene the requirements of professional diligence (defined as the standard of special skill and care that a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers, which is commensurate with either honest market practice in the trader's field of activity or the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of activity)

materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer (or are likely to) with regard to the product * - that is, appreciably to impair the average consumer's ability to make an informed decision, thereby causing them to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise

* in the CPUTRs, ''product'' has a wide definition, so for 'product' read 'service'."

D_P_Dance

I love it when OPs understand the law.

Djyamo

twhitehousescat said:

yes this case was NOT double dipping , nor where there problems with PE signage in this case ,

Half_way , the service dtation have gone to great lenghs to install phisical barriers etc , in fact on one side of the services rhis system is in place , but ironicly despite backing from police etc , the local counsil have refused permission fpr a gate or structure to be installed on the other exit road 

I understand you have concerns about the rear access road being used, but this is hardly the thread to vent your frsutrations.  Nor is it helpful to post untruths and photo's that you have found in an outdated Lancashire evening post story about the barriers.  There are NO barriers on either side (Trust me I know, I use the rear access road at least 3 times a week)  I also understand that, as a local resident you are concerned about the traffic problems, however, I know friends who live in Coppull, Charnock Richard, Eccleston, who all use the access road, not only as as an easy convenient route on and off the Motorway, but also to use the Services many facilities (Takeaways, shops, Petrol station).  Vehicles using this rear access also prvents major traffic build up at both J28 and J27 of the M6.  

Anyway guys, thanks fpr your help.

twhitehousescat

as you and your colegues use this road 3 times per week , how come we do mot see 500 cases per week or month from this site 

Djyamo

Half_way said:

To parking eye, ref parking charge notice ### the vehicle concerned reg number xxxxx was not in the car park the the time you allege, you appear to be relying solely on data captured by inaccurate  automated camera systems with no reasonable checks (such as foot patrols) to verify the data collected and held by yourselves is accurate.
Data accuracy is a key component of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) And under such, you have 30 days to rectify your data and cease processing my data with regards to pursuing this parking charge notice.
Further more I would also require from yourselves evidence to show that you will take reasonable steps to ensure that this dues not happen again at any sites you operate from, such as including manual checks (ie foot patrols ) of your sites to search for vehicles that have been flagged as over staying

Hi Half_way.  Just to clarify, in the first instance, am I better using the letter you've quoted above, or the one that is listed in the newbies thread?  This one..

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."

Thanks fpr your help

Coupon-mad

Don't use the template appeal in your case. 

Use the one by Half_way, point out to ParkingEye where the car went, and prove it with phone data if you can.  Tell them that the car went offsite and why don't they have an exclusion camera there at the access road exits, to exempt all the locals who use the access road as an easy convenient route on and off the Motorway and to use the Services' many facilities (Takeaways, shops, Petrol station).

Djyamo

twhitehousescat said:

as you and your colegues use this road 3 times per week , how come we do mot see 500 cases per week or month from this site 

I'm confused as to why you're stirring up trouble on this thread that is blatantly about a PE fine that was incorrectly issued, yet you seem to be implying that I am not telling the truth.  However, against my better nature, I will humour you.
I can't speak for my colleagues, friends or anyone else who uses the access road but these are my observations
1) The fines are only issued when the ANPR is triggered.  I assume the cameras are located on the exit from the M6 and the Entrance back on the M6.  If someone simply nips onto the services through the access road and then exits via the access road, the camera is not triggered, therefore no fine is issued.
2) Ordiarily, when I use the access road, I will travel southbound, exit the motorway (Triggering the Southbound ANPR camera) and then later in the day, after I've finished work/fishing/catching up with friends. I rejoin the services using the North boundaccess road, (Triggering the Northbound ANPR camera)  It's my assumption that the north bound and south bound camera aren't connected.  On the day in question, I exited the motorway at the services heading North, used the acces road and 7 hours later, I rejoined the motorway, using the access road.  So the cameras where triggered in the same direction

3) Parking is permitted there for 3 hours.  So if someone was off the motorway and back on again within the permitted 3 hours, no fine would be issued.

Thanks for helping.  I apologise for the overuse of the word "Triggered", however I felt this was a good description of yourself, so threw it in a few more times than I normally would.