PCN for double dipping without stopping

Coupon-mad

Chilts said:

Update - The parking company are still trying to get me to pay. They’ve replied to the MP. He is willing to reply to them once I’ve gathered my thoughts. 

They are claiming that their system is working fine and that my claim of double-dipping is a “common reason used by many motorists”. 

I’m sick to death of worrying about this. 

Tell the MP that they are not being truthful and that you want him to ask for sight of the ANPR log they mention.

Tell him how this whole thing is affecting your peace of mind and you are angry they are calling you a liar.

Tell him that an ANPR log looks like the one on this similar case which should help him to know what he is asking to be disclosed:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

Chilts

Thanks both for your advice. 

I too thought I’d need a “story” as to why I entered the car park twice, rather than “ I was using it to turn around on the high street”, much like your example that you quoted but either way, I did not park. 

It’s genuinely causing me anxiety issues, waiting for a letter to come through the door whenever the postie calls. 

Coupon-mad said:

Chilts said:

Update - The parking company are still trying to get me to pay. They’ve replied to the MP. He is willing to reply to them once I’ve gathered my thoughts. 

They are claiming that their system is working fine and that my claim of double-dipping is a “common reason used by many motorists”. 

I’m sick to death of worrying about this. 

Tell the MP that they are not being truthful and that you want him to ask for sight of the ANPR log they mention.

Tell him how this whole thing is affecting your peace of mind and you are angry they are calling you a liar.

Tell him that an ANPR log looks like the one on this similar case which should help him to know what he is asking to be disclosed:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

Chilts

How does this look for my reply to the MP?

EPS = the parking company

EPS - In reply to the matter raised by your constituent, Mr Chilton regarding PCN No. 522705. 58-76 Alcester Road is a site managed by ourselves using ANPR cameras, which are monitored by our CCTV team at the office. When a camera is not functioning correctly, it automatically sends an alert to the office, which is then temporarily turned off until it is rectified.”

Me - A previous email from EPS informed me that - “The below information is correct and this is how VRM is picked up by the ANPR camera.

This is not CCTV site.” 

See Email 11 attached.   

So how can there be a cctv team when the site “is not CCTV site”.

EPS - This is a pay and display site and payments can be made in a number of different ways. Mr Chilton in his appeal admits "as I realised that I didn't have any method of payment with me for the machine, so I continued home without leaving the vehicle or actually stopping it". He could have made payment when he reached home via Ringo or via the website, but chose not to. In the circumstances, the PCN was issued correctly. 

Me - Why would I make any kind of payment when the vehicle wasn’t parked at any point?  The witness statement attached clearly states that the vehicle wasn’t on the site when the parking company are claiming, it was in Solihull at 21:00. 

EPS - Mr Chilton claims he made 2 separate visits to the car park and that the camera missed him exiting after the first visit and did not pick his vehicle up when he entered a second time. This is a common reason used by many motorists and I attach a screen shot of our computer system showing that several other vehicles were picked up that day, some of which have paid the PCN and some where a successful appeal was and ticket made void. The cameras were working perfectly as we can see several motorists exiting and entering within the parking period allowed, and they were not issued a ticket.

Me - Does the screenshot show the actual ANPR log ?  The log should look like the one in this article :  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

Me - I am angry and frustrated at being called a liar by these people and it is most definitely causing me undue stress and anxiety as I keep waiting for a letter or email demanding money for something that I haven’t done. 

Chilts

I think that the person who the mp has contacted has no idea about the emails that I’ve sent beforehand and the multiple SAR that have been ignored, along with an out-of-office reply from the DPO. 

I’ve also complained to the ICO, again, I’m not entirely sure that they’ve even acknowledged my previous threat to do so. 

I don’t want to make it too easy for them so thinking of keeping all of this knowledge and evidence  if it goes to court.

 What do you think?

Fruitcake

Keep going. This is all part of the wearing you down business model of many PPCs who just want your money, and don't care about the motorist or the stress this causes them.
They keep spouting rubbish in the hope you will get so frightened, stressed, or frustrated until you pay.

Please don't let it cause you stress or anxiety. It isn't worth it, and I speak from experience.

You have an ace up your sleeve I believe, in that you can prove you (or at least your vehicle) was elsewhere at some point between the first entry and last exit images. 

The PPC is trying to convince the world that just because their ANPR scameras clocked other motorists leaving within the permitted parking period, you must be a liar and their system is not faulty. 

ANPR systems take a digital photo of a vehicle and number plate and add a time stamp. The VRM is then run through an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) programme to convert that digital image into alpha-numeric text. It is not an exact science, it is a computer generated interpretation.
It is no different from a human being trying to read bad handwriting and working out what it says. Some letters and numbers look similar and an incorrect answer could easily produced.
This is one of the problems with ANPR. The letter O and the number zero on a UK number plate are identical. The letter I and the number 1 are similar, as are other characters. Dirt, light and shadow, a rusty screw, a crack will all serve to confuse a human, let alone a computer programme.
The "KNITTER" bus lane incident is a perfect example of how bad the ANPR systems are.

Where ANPR is used for private car park monitoring, the system hangs on to the first image and the first "conversion" or guess to alpha-numeric characters and waits for a repeat event, at which point another image is captured, another OCR "guess" is made, a time stamp added, the time between calculated, compared with the maximum permitted parking time programmed into the machine, and a PCN spat out automatically if the parking time has been exceeded.

However, many ANPR systems are set to discard the first exit data if a subsequent entry is detected, which is also discarded by the programme when a second (or subsequent) exit is detected. 
No record is kept by the system of the first exit and second entry. Whether the programme keeps a record of those two entries being discarded would need a deep dive by a computer programmer, and even then there may be no sign of it. They would however be able to find the computer sub-routine that instructs the computer to discard the data.
No PPC will ever agree to it, and no PPC will ever admit that their system is deliberately set up to to discard, ignore, delete, or not record this data.

All it needs is a few lines of computer code to reduce the number of double dips from happening, although it won't eliminate them completely due to the number of VRM misreads ANPR produces, but PPCs aren't going to do that because it will reduce their revenue.

The UK Government prohibits the use of ANPR systems for car park monitoring of council or local authority land because it is not fit for purpose. This does not apply to PPCs or private land, but PPCs use it because the flaws in the system generate income for them.

When sending an SAR for a double dip case, motorists should always ask for all four images of their vehicle. When only two are provided, a complaint should be made to the ICO.

Complaints should always be made to the DVLA as well where a double dip occurs. This is one of the reasons why a firm of solicitors is currently preparing a test case against the DVLA for misuse of data.

The ICO has recently stated that the DVLA has been releasing (selling) keeper data to PPCs for the wrong reason. It should only be released (sold) in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPR 2018, which clearly states it must only be released (sold) if it is in the public interest.

Chilts

Thanks for this, it really does mean a lot. 

I need to think of it more as a game, rather than something to really worry about. 

I do have a witness statement stating where I was right in the middle of the supposed parking time. 

I also have multiple emails that I sent them asking for an SAR which they ignored and an out-office-reply from their DPO who is on maternity leave (who is doing that important job then?)

Coupon-mad

Send them a complaint about ignoring the SAR and then report them to the ICO (it's very easy to raise a data concern online)  if they still fail to respond.

Chilts

Coupon-mad said:

Send them a complaint about ignoring the SAR and then report them to the ICO (it's very easy to raise a data concern online)  if they still fail to respond.

Already done. Thanks. 

Chilts

Well…here we go again. The LBC has arrived. I genuinely thought that they’d given up. 

Coupon-mad

Just respond in the same robust style as on all the other LBC threads from this week.