PCN for double dipping without stopping

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't expect a reply to that. OK so you can respond again next week.  Keep 'em busy!

You aren't looking for the Arkell case...it's not the case that is relevant, it's the sentiment (Google it!).

And you can easily use that keyword to search this forum and find my robust reply a couple of months ago, to a LBC where I ended it with cease and desist,  Arkell v Pressdram.  Copy that pushy style.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't expect a reply to that. OK so you can respond again next week.  Keep 'em busy!

You aren't looking for the Arkell case...it's not the case that is relevant, it's the sentiment (Google it!).

And you can easily use that keyword to search this forum and find my robust reply a couple of months ago, to a LBC where I ended it with cease and desist,  Arkell v Pressdram.  Copy that pushy style.

I’ve seen the case now! Brilliant! 

I can’t tell you how helpful it is having someone like you to help and support us innocent people who the ppcs are trying to scam money out of, thank you, it’s genuinely appreciated. 

Chilts

My MP has informed me that he has now written to the PPC again for me on my behalf. 

I sent the “debt advice” email on the 14th February so I have until the 16th March to send my dispute, is that correct?

B789

Chilts said:

I sent the “debt advice” email on the 14th February so I have until the 16th March to send my dispute, is that correct?

I think it just means that they cannot serve a claim on you before that date.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't expect a reply to that. OK so you can respond again next week.  Keep 'em busy!

You aren't looking for the Arkell case...it's not the case that is relevant, it's the sentiment (Google it!).

And you can easily use that keyword to search this forum and find my robust reply a couple of months ago, to a LBC where I ended it with cease and desist,  Arkell v Pressdram.  Copy that pushy style.

How this?

Slightly more concise than my first version, I removed the paragraph about the PPC confusing themselves about the use of CCTV or not and the paragraph about failing to provide an SAR on multiple occasions - they could still be helpful in a court hearing though I imagine?

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Re: PCN ref XXXXXX 

The above parking charge is disputed.  The car was never parked at this site, it entered and left almost immediately afterwards, however, this happened twice in 24 hours and as such has fallen foul of “double-dipping” (whereby the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera captures the first entry and second exit of the vehicle), due to the use of ANPR.  I have a witness statement that illustrates that the vehicle was elsewhere during the time that Euro Parking Services are claiming it was parked on their managed property. 

The Government’s; Private Parking Code of Practice (07.02.22) stipulates that “images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp and the risk of keying errors”.  It then goes on further to add, “The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant.” 

The British Parking Association also recognises issues with the use of ANPR and states; “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period 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.” 

The International Parking Community states that; “Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.  Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check”. 

I did appeal initially to Euro Parking Services but this was declined, it was futile and we all know that that would happen. I have done nothing wrong, I have breached no contracts, I have merely fallen foul to a system that is open to abuse by PPCs. 

I believe that my data has been obtained from the DVLA without good cause, as Euro Parking Services have failed to demonstrate that they have complied with any of the afore mentioned guidelines stated above and as such I am investigating a counter-claim for data abuse under the DPA 2018 along with a breach of GDPR for failing to provide an SAR on multiple requests. 

I have been caused undue stress and many sleepless nights due to this “parking charge”, cancel this meritless charge immediately. 

Yours faithfully, 

Coupon-mad

Much better except you haven't made it time-bound at the end - a clear message of what you want them to do, and by when (14 days?).

And change your two uses of 'fallen foul' to 'fallen victim'.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Much better except you haven't made it time-bound at the end - a clear message of what you want them to do, and by when (14 days?).

And change your two uses of 'fallen foul' to 'fallen victim'.

Thank you for checking it over again. 

What do I want? I want it cancelled immediately and written notice of such within 14 days. How does that sound?

Umkomaas

The British Parking Association also recognises issues with the use of ANPR and states; “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period 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.” 

The International Parking Community states that; “Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.  Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check”. 

Why are you quoting both ATAs?  EPS are IPC AOS members, so whatever the BPA say about anything, it doesn't apply to EPS, or their actions. 

Chilts

Umkomaas said:

The British Parking Association also recognises issues with the use of ANPR and states; “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period 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.” 

The International Parking Community states that; “Where CCTV and/or ANPR technology is used appropriate checks must be carried out to ensure Parking Charges are only issued where there is Reasonable Cause to believe a Parking Charge is due before issuing a Postal Notification.  Operators must keep a record identifying the individual who completed the quality check”. 

Why are you quoting both ATAs?  EPS are IPC AOS members, so whatever the BPA say about anything, it doesn't apply to EPS, or their actions. 

Because they (EPS) have the BPA as one of their “accreditations”. 

Fruitcake

Whilst they may have a BPA accreditation they are not ATA members and therefore not bound by the BPA's CoP. Personally I would leve it out.