Ridiculous and spurious Parking Eye PCN

Coupon-mad

These all too common double visit ANPR scam PCNs are well known by the BPA, who wrote an article about it, years ago, but don't bother to require PPCs to check to avoid these PCNs:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a)    Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

b)    Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked 

Funny then, that the BPA and ParkingEye have conveniently forgotten to tell the MHCLG and DFT Ministers that when they recently started lobbying hard, to try to get ANPR allowed again to be used by local authorities:

https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/bpa-calls-on-government-to-enable-technology-to-support-society

This stuff has been sent to all four Governments in the UK.  And no doubt Ministers have forgotten why it was banned in 2014/15.  Nice timing.

A publicly available podcast by ParkingEye, trying to convince people about the 'rich data benefits' and preaching to an avid audience that no doubt included Local Authorities who have been duped into thinking they need ANPR enforcement :

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1026337/4299989-picture-this-keeping-an-eye-on-anpr-cameras

...tells us that ParkingEye's marketing team are also backing this because they see the chance to sell their technology and 'expertise' no doubt planning to charge consultancy fees to LAs up and down the UK - kerchiiing. 

And the thing is, I can imagine the Government Departments possibly, actually falling for this utter rubbish reasoning:

''To support Society''

''calling for ANPR technology to be enabled to support the High Street and to respond to COVID-19.''

''remote monitoring technologies which will enable touch-free and fairer experiences for motorists.''

''The impact of Covid-19 has further shifted behavioural change and exposed the urgency to better manage journeys and destinations in a smarter and more holistic way. The UK government recognises this in its Gear Change programme too.''

BPA calls on government to enable technology to support society

The BPA welcomes the government’s commitment to start the remaining elements of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, permitting local authorities outside of London to use cameras to manage moving traffic contraventions.

Published as part of a new cycling and walking strategy, the government also announced it intends to increase combined authorities’ powers over their key route networks – similar to those that apply already in London – and enable integrated highways and transport authority status at combined authority level for these roads.

The impact of Covid-19 has further shifted behavioural change and exposed the urgency to better manage journeys and destinations in a smarter and more holistic way. The UK government recognises this in its Gear Change programme too.

The BPA is now calling on the government to enable the use of cameras and other remote-monitoring technologies to their fullest extent, to allow local authorities to innovate and meet the needs of their communities.

The BPA, Local Government Association and London Councils are calling for ANPR technology to be enabled to support the High Street and to respond to COVID-19.

Letters and a briefing note sent to both Secretaries of State for Transport and Communities call for the UK Government and the devolved nations to fully enable and encourage the use of cameras and remote monitoring technologies like ANPR which would unlock substantial benefits for communities across the UK, support high streets and help underpin a safer economic recovery from COVID-19.  

Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Corporate Affairs says, "COVID-19 has exposed the urgency to better manage people's journeys for everyone's benefit. The UK Government recognises this in its ‘Gear Change’ programme too. We are now urging all four national governments to allow local authorities to make full use of cameras and other remote monitoring technologies which will enable touch-free and fairer experiences for motorists as well as remote monitoring and management of selfish and unwanted parking. Our recent UK wide consumer research shows this has strong public support."

Then I found this article that looks like it's been circulated with LAs and used for the BPA to lobby the MHCLG and DFT about ANPR enforcement:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/ED%20Award%202020/ANPR_for_Local_Authority_Car_Parks_-_Present_and_Future_Benefits.pdf

'' we believe that more can still be done to provide greater levels of frictionless parking experiences, all of which will benefit customers, the local economy, the environment and our communities. A lot of the next steps will require ANPR usage, but we understand that Central Government may still need some convincing to provide Local Authorities in England and Wales with the same tools that are afforded to private parking operators.''

Noticeably, all the 'benefits' are operational ones. 

What about consumers who get over TWO MILLION PCNs from ParkingEye alone, including shedloads of double dip cases and even more where people were only dropping off and not parking.  What about the concerns of the Information Commissioner?  What about the very good consumer fairness and data protection reasons why the Government banned Local Authorities from using ANPR in car parks in 2015?  

Are they hoping that the DFTransport have forgotten and that the MHCLG might not know about the many flaws of cameras that are unsynchronised with each other, place waaaaay back several approach roads earlier, and operate an intrusive data-harvesting model 24/7 that is knowingly set up to fail motorists?


To the OP: you may as well also appeal to ParkingEye and tell them you have complained to the Hospital because this was a double visit of a relative dropping off an NHS staff member, then returning to pick them up many hours later.  Tell them you are aware this is known colloquially as a 'double dip' flaw of ANPR and ask why their much-vaunted '17 manual checks' failed to pick up the middle 'out' and return 'in' images?

Umkomaas

Tell them you are aware this is known colloquially as a 'double dip' flaw of ANPR and ask why their much-vaunted '17 manual checks' failed to pick up the middle 'out' and return 'in' images?

There's me thinking it was 19 manual checks. Have the BPA agreed a lessening of fastidiousness? 😊

Coupon-mad

Oh, was it supposedly nineteen?

Hilarious rubbish and all the double dip cases and near-match keying error PCNs prove it is untrue.  

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Oh, was it supposedly nineteen?

Hilarious rubbish and all the double dip cases and near-match keying error PCNs prove it is untrue.  

Five years ago .....

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/picture-of-week-parkingeye-19-point.html

Coupon-mad

You may have noticed how annoyed I am about the BPA and ParkingEye trying to hoodwink the Government into thinking ANPR ''supports society''.

Grrrr....

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

You may have noticed how annoyed I am about the BPA and ParkingEye trying to hoodwink the Government into thinking ANPR ''supports society''.

Grrrr....

Could hardly have missed it! 😄. 

I suspect both PE and the BPA are a bit uneasy!

Steve_63636363

Umkomaas said:

Steve_63636363 said:

Umkomaas said:

Steve_63636363 said:

Umkomaas said:

Depending on which way the cameras face, for your exit, fix a cover (piece of pre-cut card with a bit of gaffa tape or blutak for a quick temporary fix) over your rear or front number plate, then remove shortly after passing the camera and before you hit the public highway.  You are under no obligation to expose your VRM to a private companies spy cameras!

😄 good idea but that would be awkward to achieve in practise. 

Maybe not as awkward as having to face a court case with a potential £175 costs attached to losing against PE. 

That's not particularly helpful with regards to this charge though. 

It was a simple response to your reply about covering number plates. Rhetorical in some respects, but very practical, depending on how often you're being scammed!  But it could be a reality. A couple of years ago, PE were the most litigious PPC in the country, with over 110,000 court cases commenced against unsuspecting motorists in one single year. It was carnage on the forum!

How about the rest of that post which looks to be the potential showstopper for you?  Or were you looking to focus on a minor point you seem to dislike?

Have you checked out the status of your PCN on the PE website yet?

The parking manager at the hospital has managed to get PE to cancel the PCN and I have confirmed  the cancellation on  the PE website. Thanks again for you help and advice.

Umkomaas

That's a great result. Well done! 🥂

Le_Kirk

Excellent news, thanks for feeding back.

beamerguy

Well done.  If PE are not careful, they will be known as profiteering in a pandemic