Incorrect Registration

green_oli

c) Inadequate ANPR technology

The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate. Under paragraph 14: Equipment, Technology and Systems of the IPC Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained to a reasonable standard and is fit for purpose. Furthermore, why was the payee able to buy and pay for parking for a vehicle that was not in their ANPR car park? If they have ANPR technology then surely the same system could have done a database check on-site or provide an error alert notification or reject an unknown registration at key-in? This would have prevented this situation.

I require SIP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charges are founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle supposedly entering and leaving the car park, it is vital that SJP produces evidence in response to these points and strongly suggest that the vehicle registration typing error is considered de minimis from a legal perspective.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require SIP to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle activating the system, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. SIP appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. 

Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As this whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put SIP to strict proof to the contrary. 

green_oli

d) Failure to comply with the data protection

SJP Parking Limited has committed a serious IPC Code of Practice breach. SJP Parking Limited have failed to adhere to the 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR as no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement and no evaluation has been provided to validate that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate.

The IPC’s Code of Practice (25. Legal and Additional Obligations) states that operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance for example:

·         Consumer Protection Law

·         Contract Law

·         The Data Protection Act / General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679

·         Equalities Act 2010

·         Parking Code of Practice act 2018

·         Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including schedule 4.

Operators must also be registered with the ICO Information Commissioner’s Office and give regard to the Surveillance Camera Code of practice when using cameras. The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office can be found at: https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).” 

“The private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.” 
“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals.”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.” 

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.” 

“Note: ... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.” 

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.” 
The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if SIP Parking Limited wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that SIP Parking Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require SIP Parking Limited to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”. 

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state: 
“5.3 Staying in Control: Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should: tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;” 

“7.6 Privacy Notices: It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear. One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.” 
SIP Parking Limited has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keeper’s right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, SIP Parking Limited has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keeper’s right to a SAR on any paperwork such as Notice to Keeper, Appeal Acknowledgement, Rejection Letter, Appeal Clarification nor Payment Overdue Letter. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the IPC’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of my data unlawful. As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the IPC’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, IAS will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given. 

Coupon-mad

Don't use ANY template, for an IAS appeal.  This is why one is not provided in the NEWBIES thread. 

IAS is about evidence and photos and being robust and really pushing home your points every time the IAS ask if you have concluded your comments.  Nope,. add more, then more until the PPC gives up.

green_oli

e) No planning permission and consent from the Local Council

SIP Parking Limited do not have Planning Permission for pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage. Upon searching the xxx Council’s planning database, there are no applications recorded. SIP Parking Limited are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made. 
 
I request SIP Parking Limited to provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (20/12/2020).

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by SIP is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from SIP Ltd.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

 Does the above all sound okay?

Coupon-mad

Forget all that and write it in your own words, forget planning permission and forget templates.  Think about your evidence you will be uploading to the IAS.

green_oli

In my own words, I would probably only manage 100 words i.e a ticket was purchased but incorrect reg entered. Evidence would have been the purchased parking ticket and photos of the car park's signage. 

Coupon-mad

Indeed, that is far better for IAS.  I am not joking. 

You can add whatever you can find that Will Hurley has said about their 'Get Your Reg Right' campaign, in terms of 'encouraging parking firms to take into account that people do make mistakes' and quote from the new draft Government/BSI Code of Practice which was open for public comments back in October and has an Annex dealing with keying errors.  Obviously it's not law and only a draft but it shows the will of Parliament and the way the industry should be moving already. 

You can Google and read the Annex.  Don't ask for links...my pet hate on this forum.

green_oli

Dear IAS

I received a letter dated xx/xx/2020 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – SIP Car Parking Limited – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/2020 and rejected via an email dated xx/xx/2020. I now wish to appeal against their decision.

The Vehicle (new reg xxx) entered the xxx Car Park on xx/xx/2020 at xx as evidenced by SIP photographs, albeit with an incorrect registration of my former vehicle (reg xxx), a detail not noticed until the Parking Charge Notice was received on xx/xx/2020

The attached evidence proves the correct amount of time was purchased for my previous vehicle however the location and times tally up. SIP has not offered any evidence of xxx (old reg) entering or exiting xxx Car Park on the accused date.

As you can see on the images provided by SIP’s, they have recorded the vehicle times entering the Car Park at xx and leaving at xx which also correlates with the purchased car park ticket. This proves the correct amount of money (plus extra £ due to not having correct change) was paid and no loss has been made to SIP.

Please also take into account it was raining heavily both at the time of entry and exit. The signs were unreadable and unlit therefore at no point did I accept a contract to pay anything except the tariff. It was simply human error that I inputted my previous vehicle’s registration number. The operator could have easily taken the basic step of checking whether my previously owned vehicle was in the car park which obviously was not.

A correctly calibrated ANPR system and associated software used to pay for parking should be able to identify if a vehicle registration keyed in by the customer has in fact entered the car park. In this case, a payment was made for a registration incorrectly typed in (and therefore never existed on the ANPR system) however a payment for the correct amount covering the period stayed was still accepted. In these circumstances, when a number plate entered does not match up with the ANPR system, a warning should at least be generated by the system. A simple character recognition software or even a human being could then attempt to match or check the number plate recorded by the ANPR. To ensure accuracy of this simple yet effective measure, the time the customer entered the car park could be correlated with the time the payment was made.

I would also like to draw your attention on The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Enforcing the Private parking Code of Practice PAS 232 – Privately managed parking – Operation and management – Specification) who recently consulted and drafted on new measures to improve the regulation of the private parking industry, in particular keying errors:

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Reducing parking charges to between £0 and £20, depending on the nature of the issue:

a. Keying Error - Minor - £0 (no charge incurred by the motorist).

i. For example: 0 instead of o; I instead of L;1 instead of I; One letter wrong or removed; One number wrong or removed; Two characters swapped

b. Keying Error - Major – Parking Charge reduced to between £0 and £20

i. For example: Motorist entered their partner’s car registration; Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration; Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly; Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits.

c. Significant evidence of mitigation - £0 (no charge incurred by the motorist) and Parking Charge cancelled.

e. Non-evidenced mitigation if accepted between £0 and £20 dependent upon the circumstances.

h. Failure to display P&D ticket (copy of ticket supplied) - Parking Charge reduced to between £0 and £20.

SIP failed to cancel or offer the reduced charge after I highlighted in my appeal that a wrong vehicle registration number was inputted. This is required by section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Why has SIP, an International Parking Community (IPC) member, not followed suit by taking the pragmatic and fair approach over trivial typing errors? Not only is it encouraged by IPC and BPA but it is also mentioned in the Appeals Charter, backed by industry contributors as part of the new statutory Code of Practice. It is therefore disingenuous of SIP not to even offer a settlement of £0-20 whilst being fully aware that this is the will of the Parliament and IPC.

I was also not subjected to the service or treatment as mentioned on www.getyourregright.info. The getyourregright website states their aim is to encourage: ‘private parking operators to be more sympathetic when motorists make trivial … errors’ and ‘to encourage parking technology manufacturers and service providers to devise more user-friendly technology.’

I would also like to highlight what Will Hurley said about their ‘Get Your Reg Right’ campaign in terms of not being aimed solely at motorists alone but also, ‘encouraging parking firms to take into account that people do make mistakes'; ‘parking operators should never employ predatory tactics to entice or lure a motorist into incurring a parking ticket. This includes technology that is not user-friendly’. Will Hurley stated that schemes are in place to incentivise operators to cancel charges when a genuine error has been made. He also promised charges will be dealt with much more leniently. Will Hurley also added that independent adjudicators were appointed to look into each appeal and parking firms were charged £15 for appeals they won and £25 for appeals that found in favour of motorists. He said: “This is because we don’t want anyone looking at this thinking that there is any incentive in finding in favour of the parking operator, the higher charge is like a punitive element for the operator because they should have never issued the PCN.”

In summary, the claim by SIP is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence would be required from SIP Ltd.

I request you to please cancel this charge and look forward to your response.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

KeithP

The Vehicle (new reg xxx) entered the xxx Car Park on xx/xx/2020 at xx as evidenced by SIP photographs, albeit with an incorrect registration of my former vehicle (reg xxx), a detail not noticed until the Parking Charge Notice was received on xx/xx/2020

That sentence appears to be saying that vehicle xxx entered the car park with an incorrect registration...

Clarity is needed.

green_oli

Thanks @KeithP. I have amended it to: My Vehicle (new reg) entered the xx Car Park on xx/xx/2020 at xx as evidenced by SIP photographs. I did not notice I had keyed in my previous car’s registration by mistake until the Parking Charge Notice was received on xx/xx/2020.