Parking charge for parking on land not owned by the company

minty777

The £60-rising-to-£100 penalties were issued by Parking Eye on behalf of Salford-based Welcome Estates.

But many of those hit with a fine say they were parked on the gravel area near the entrance to the car park - which Welcome Estates does not own.

It does own the Tarmacked area next to it. But the position of the camera was such that it captured people entering and leaving the car park - not where they had parked.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-being-hit-fines-parking-19090795

fisherjim

Just another example of why ANPR is unacceptable for lazy control of parking.

Parking Eye just fire out their invoices farming cash from victims that don't know how to fight back, and once again use debt collection as a final way of skimming as much dosh as possible, but knowing they are on a sticky wicket.

Another reason why the use of ANPR should be banned in private car parks!

zhonguonuren

Thank you for this.  

It needs a letter before claim from every victim to Parking Eye for the cost of the parking ticket and add on a breach of GDPR - so a claim for £300 to keep it within the lowest £25 court fee for issuing it via moneyclaim online.  

I sent the link to ICO copying in the Legal Team at DVLA asking how much the ICO will fine Parking Eye and what other sanctions will be placed on it (not holding my breath for a response).  

Coupon-mad

minty777 said:

The £60-rising-to-£100 penalties were issued by Parking Eye on behalf of Salford-based Welcome Estates.

But many of those hit with a fine say they were parked on the gravel area near the entrance to the car park - which Welcome Estates does not own.

It does own the Tarmacked area next to it. But the position of the camera was such that it captured people entering and leaving the car park - not where they had parked.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-being-hit-fines-parking-19090795

I have a positive update because I just raised this alarming situation with Steve Clark at the BPA to find out if he knew about it. 

I am pleased with the outcome although he is aware I have significant concerns about use of ANPR and other surveillance and its failures.  And I agree with the DPA breach stance of zhonguonuren which would make a lot of PPCs wake up and smell the coffee, if everyone tried her approach (where there are grounds).

I asked if I could copy his reply here and he said:
''Absolutely ‘YES’ - please let folk on the Forums know, especially anyone who got a PCN there.''

With regards to this case, I am aware of it and can report that on being alerted to this matter Parking Eye cancelled all issued PCNs, refunded anyone who has paid and switched their system off. As I understand it there is a dispute between the ‘landowner’ and the Local Authority - see statement from Parking Eye below;
 
“This small shopping precinct owners asked us to manage their car parks, to ensure there was fair access to parking for shop customers. We were not made aware that there was an ownership dispute around this small area of the rear car park. Now that we have been made aware, as a gesture of goodwill we have cancelled and are refunding all parking charges for this rear car park. We have also adjusted our system to ensure that no parking charges will be issued for this area at the rear car park while ownership remains in dispute.”
 
Case closed as far as I am concerned.
All the best
 
Steve Clark FBPA
Director of Operations and Business Development
British Parking Association

Thank goodness it wasn't an IPC firm...although I get the feeling both APAs are pretty jumpy right now!

Redx

Just goes to show that lazy anpr monitoring does not cover all situations and that boundaries should be clearly defined

The fact that the precinct want their spaces monitored is something PARKING Eye should have assessed and decided on the method at the time , they never have the right to exceed their boundaries , not do the landowners who sign the contracts

Reminds me of the hospital that had cameras getting vehicle details from the adjacent public road (in the northwest)

Well done Steve !!

It's good to see common sense at work

minty777

Coupon-mad said:

minty777 said:

The £60-rising-to-£100 penalties were issued by Parking Eye on behalf of Salford-based Welcome Estates.

But many of those hit with a fine say they were parked on the gravel area near the entrance to the car park - which Welcome Estates does not own.

It does own the Tarmacked area next to it. But the position of the camera was such that it captured people entering and leaving the car park - not where they had parked.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-being-hit-fines-parking-19090795

I have a positive update because I just raised this alarming situation with Steve Clark at the BPA to find out if he knew about it. 

I am pleased with the outcome although he is aware I have significant concerns about use of ANPR and other surveillance and its failures.  And I agree with the DPA breach stance of zhonguonuren which would make a lot of PPCs wake up and smell the coffee, if everyone tried her approach (where there are grounds).

I asked if I could copy his reply here and he said:
''Absolutely ‘YES’ - please let folk on the Forums know, especially anyone who got a PCN there.''

With regards to this case, I am aware of it and can report that on being alerted to this matter Parking Eye cancelled all issued PCNs, refunded anyone who has paid and switched their system off. As I understand it there is a dispute between the ‘landowner’ and the Local Authority - see statement from Parking Eye below;
 
“This small shopping precinct owners asked us to manage their car parks, to ensure there was fair access to parking for shop customers. We were not made aware that there was an ownership dispute around this small area of the rear car park. Now that we have been made aware, as a gesture of goodwill we have cancelled and are refunding all parking charges for this rear car park. We have also adjusted our system to ensure that no parking charges will be issued for this area at the rear car park while ownership remains in dispute.”
 
Case closed as far as I am concerned.
All the best
 
Steve Clark FBPA
Director of Operations and Business Development
British Parking Association

Thank goodness it wasn't an IPC firm...although I get the feeling both APAs are pretty jumpy right now!

Great stuff👍

minty777

I like how they say "a gesture of goodwill" like they don't have to if they didn't want to pay back what they took illegally. 

Le_Kirk

Well done @Coupon-mad (as usual) a good outcome.

Half_way

Coupon-mad said:

minty777 said:

The £60-rising-to-£100 penalties were issued by Parking Eye on behalf of Salford-based Welcome Estates.

But many of those hit with a fine say they were parked on the gravel area near the entrance to the car park - which Welcome Estates does not own.

It does own the Tarmacked area next to it. But the position of the camera was such that it captured people entering and leaving the car park - not where they had parked.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/people-being-hit-fines-parking-19090795

I have a positive update because I just raised this alarming situation with Steve Clark at the BPA to find out if he knew about it. 

I am pleased with the outcome although he is aware I have significant concerns about use of ANPR and other surveillance and its failures.  And I agree with the DPA breach stance of zhonguonuren which would make a lot of PPCs wake up and smell the coffee, if everyone tried her approach (where there are grounds).

I asked if I could copy his reply here and he said:
''Absolutely ‘YES’ - please let folk on the Forums know, especially anyone who got a PCN there.''

With regards to this case, I am aware of it and can report that on being alerted to this matter Parking Eye cancelled all issued PCNs, refunded anyone who has paid and switched their system off. As I understand it there is a dispute between the ‘landowner’ and the Local Authority - see statement from Parking Eye below;
 
“This small shopping precinct owners asked us to manage their car parks, to ensure there was fair access to parking for shop customers. We were not made aware that there was an ownership dispute around this small area of the rear car park. Now that we have been made aware, as a gesture of goodwill we have cancelled and are refunding all parking charges for this rear car park. We have also adjusted our system to ensure that no parking charges will be issued for this area at the rear car park while ownership remains in dispute.”
 
Case closed as far as I am concerned.
All the best
 
Steve Clark FBPA
Director of Operations and Business Development
British Parking Association

Thank goodness it wasn't an IPC firm...although I get the feeling both APAs are pretty jumpy right now!

The real target in most cases should be the companies/corporation/large bodys that allow Parking companies onto their land .

 If a few GDPR cases come through and start hitting the landowners hard then it may focus minds on if a traditional PPC model is the right way to do things

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

Well done @Coupon-mad (as usual) a good outcome.

To be fair, the BPA and ParkingEye had already done this so I am only the messenger and pleased to report a 'fair' outcome.

However, I hope the BPA and P/Eye realise this case doesn't actually help the argument for ANPR one jot.  This isn't the last of that matter but that's all I am prepared to say at the moment.

Umkomaas

Now that we have been made aware, as a gesture of goodwill we have cancelled and are refunding all parking charges for this rear car park.

"It is so reassuring that goodwill is still plentiful in the PPC network ........", said Jim Royle!