Identification of driver with CCTV/ANPR camera footage allowed?

cyru

Hi all.

I received a (Parking Charge) Notice To Keeper that doesn't comply with POFA 2012 as it was sent too late so they cannot hold me liable as the registered keeper. 

Of course they have camera photo ANPR showing the vehicle entering and exiting but I can't make out if my face behind the windscreen is visible without requesting all their photographic/video evidence but I'd assume it probably will be. 

However I have read on some websites that they CANNOT use CCTV to identify the driver. See para 4. under this link here:
thedebtadviceservice(DOT)co(DOT)uk/parking-fine-loopholes/

"The private car parking management company won’t know who was driving if you don’t reveal who the driver was at the time, which means they can’t issue you with a ticket. They also cannot use CCTV to prove this, as it’s only intended for monitoring vehicles entering and leaving the car park."

I read a comment elsewhere on a forum with someone saying they must only use camera footage for VRM purposes and not for personal identification. 

Can someone clarify if this is true and what legislation or case law stipulates this?

I have to reply within 4 days for the appeal deadline and I don't want to disclose more than I otherwise need to.

LDast

Even they had a hi-res image of your face, how do they know it is you? If you take a photo of some random person in the street, how would you identify that person?

They are not the police with powers to forensically identify someone. There is no magic unicorn database where they can shove a photo of someone in and out will come their details.

Stop worrying about that. They are only allowed to use the images to get the VRM.

Gr1pr

If they took my picture, or a picture of my vehicle with a person inside it, there is no way they could identify the person seen in that picture or in any picture 

Its not shown with my V5c details ( nor anyone else's. )

Its not on my pink driving licence. ( But they don't have access to the driving licence database anyway. )

They don't have access to the passport office database, never mind cannot search it for a matching picture 

They don't have access to bus pass databases either 

As Ldast said above, not possible, not for private parking companies anyway 

Use POFA and get it cancelled, don't overthink it 

Umkomaas

cyru said:

Hi all.

I received a (Parking Charge) Notice To Keeper that doesn't comply with POFA 2012 as it was sent too late so they cannot hold me liable as the registered keeper. 

Of course they have camera photo ANPR showing the vehicle entering and exiting but I can't make out if my face behind the windscreen is visible without requesting all their photographic/video evidence but I'd assume it probably will be. 

However I have read on some websites that they CANNOT use CCTV to identify the driver. See para 4. under this link here:
thedebtadviceservice(DOT)co(DOT)uk/parking-fine-loopholes/

"The private car parking management company won’t know who was driving if you don’t reveal who the driver was at the time, which means they can’t issue you with a ticket. They also cannot use CCTV to prove this, as it’s only intended for monitoring vehicles entering and leaving the car park."

I read a comment elsewhere on a forum with someone saying they must only use camera footage for VRM purposes and not for personal identification. 

Can someone clarify if this is true and what legislation or case law stipulates this?

I have to reply within 4 days for the appeal deadline and I don't want to disclose more than I otherwise need to.

You won't be asked to appear in any Identity Parade!

cyru

Thanks for your replies! You're all correct and I am overthinking it. But with a clear photo of the driver to hand, they could test the waters by bringing a court case against me anyway as the driver but always ready to drop the proceedings if I can prove it's not me in their vehicle photo.... which I then (and likely most others in my boat) cannot do!

LDast said:

Stop worrying about that. They are only allowed to use the images to get the VRM.

But do you have a source for this? Which legislation, case law, authority, etc actually prohibits this? That's all I really want to know! I think it was actually Umkomaas above who also said the same thing in another post on MSE somewhere! 

LDast

Really? It's not a case of which legislation prohibits this but rather which legislation allows this.

A private parking company (PPC) cannot legally use an image from CCTV or ANPR to forensically identify a person in that image without clear and specific legal grounds. Here’s why:

1. Data Protection Regulations:

   • Under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) and UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), processing personal data, including images, must be lawful, fair, and transparent. Forensic analysis to identify a person from an image would constitute processing personal data in a manner that likely goes beyond the original purpose of vehicle monitoring and parking enforcement.
   • Any additional use of these images, such as forensic analysis to identify individuals, would require lawful justification. Without consent or a clear legal basis, this would be a breach of data protection principles.

2. Purpose Limitation:

   • The principle of purpose limitation means data collected for one purpose (e.g., monitoring parking compliance) cannot be used for another purpose (e.g., identifying an individual) unless the new purpose is compatible with the original one, consent is obtained, or there is a compelling legal justification.
   • Using CCTV or ANPR images to identify individuals personally would not align with the typical purpose of monitoring vehicles for parking management and would therefore breach this principle.

3. Lack of Legal Authority:

   • A PPC does not have the same investigative or legal powers as law enforcement or other authorised entities. Forensic identification, such as facial recognition or enhancing images to identify people, requires statutory authority or consent. PPCs are not considered competent authorities under laws like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 or other surveillance-focused legislation, which restricts their capabilities in this regard.

4. Guidance from the ICO:

   • The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which oversees data protection compliance, has clear guidelines stating that data controllers (such as PPCs) must process data fairly and within the scope for which it was collected. Any invasive or enhanced processing, such as forensic identification, would likely be viewed as disproportionate and could lead to enforcement actions against the PPC.

So, while PPCs can use CCTV and ANPR images to identify vehicles and request registered keeper information from the DVLA for legitimate parking enforcement purposes, they cannot legally conduct forensic identification to determine a person’s identity in those images without a specific legal basis. Doing so violates data protection laws and the rights of individuals.

If you're looking for a specific legal basis for a PPC to use CCTV or ANPR images for forensic identification of a person, it would need to fall under one of the lawful bases for processing personal data outlined in the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Here are some examples of what these legal bases might include:

1. Consent:

   • The PPC could process images to identify a person if they have explicit and informed consent from the individual involved. Unlikely unless the individual is dangerously stupid.

2. Legal Obligation:

   • Only if there is a specific law that requires or permits a PPC to use images for identifying an individual (such as a statute mandating more detailed investigations for fraud or criminal conduct), could this provide a legal basis. However, PPCs do not have statutory powers to conduct such forensic investigations as they are not law enforcement bodies.

3. Legitimate Interests:

   • While PPCs often rely on "legitimate interests" as a basis for processing data (e.g., using ANPR for enforcing parking contracts), this basis must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of the individual. Forensic identification of a person from CCTV or ANPR images would be deemed too intrusive and not proportionate to the PPC’s legitimate interests in enforcing parking rules.

4. Public Task:

   • This basis applies when the processing is necessary to perform a task carried out in the public interest or under official authority. Since PPCs operate under private contract law and not public authority, they cannot rely on this basis.

5. Vital Interests:

   • This basis would only apply in extreme cases where the processing is necessary to protect someone’s life. It would not be relevant to parking enforcement.

6. Compliance with a Court Order:

   • If a court or legal authority issues an order requiring the PPC to provide evidence, including enhanced images for a legal proceeding (e.g., if identity is relevant in a criminal case), this could provide a specific legal basis for processing.

7. Preventing or Detecting Unlawful Acts:

   • In rare cases, processing may be justified if it is necessary for the prevention or detection of a crime. However, PPCs do not have any authority to invoke this basis without cooperating with law enforcement agencies, which would take the lead in any forensic investigation.

So, for a PPC to legally use CCTV or ANPR images for forensic identification, it would need to fall under a lawful basis such as explicit consent, a legal obligation, or a court order. Without one of these, using images for such purposes would be deemed disproportionate and a violation of data protection laws.

Umkomaas

cyru said:

Thanks for your replies! You're all correct and I am overthinking it. But with a clear photo of the driver to hand, they could test the waters by bringing a court case against me anyway as the driver but always ready to drop the proceedings if I can prove it's not me in their vehicle photo.... which I then (and likely most others in my boat) cannot do!

LDast said:

Stop worrying about that. They are only allowed to use the images to get the VRM.

But do you have a source for this? Which legislation, case law, authority, etc actually prohibits this? That's all I really want to know! I think it was actually Umkomaas above who also said the same thing in another post on MSE somewhere! 

Which one of my 42,000+ posts - help me narrow it down, buddy! 😄

fisherjim

Shakes head in disbelief!

Gr1pr

That comprehensive reply by Ldast should be the Bible exemplar regarding this type of ID question 

cyru

Thank you very much LDast for your detailed reply, it's much appreciated!!

But doesn't this lead to an bizarre and amusing conclusion? So EVEN IF the Parking Firm knows the Driver and Reg Keeper are both the same person because they can see in crystal clear footage Sir Lewis Hamilton/Boris Johnson/Any Other Famous Person parking without a ticket, they can't bring a claim against them unless they can use POFA to go after them as the Reg Keeper OR the Reg Keeper is stupid enough to admit to them that they were driving?!

Gr1pr

They can and often do issue claims based on the balance of probabilities test, its up to the judge to decide if the defendant is legally liable or not, based on all the evidence, the claim, the defence, the witness statements etc 

I cannot see how a defendant can state under oath that they were not the driver, if they were the driver, regardless of pictures 

Anyone can issue a court claim, for any reason, issuing a claim is extremely easy, so of course a parking company can issue a claim, tens of thousands of claims are issued every year, using MCOL