How to stop repeated PCNs issued because of ANPR fault?

kryten3000

Kaizen2024 said:

Out of curiosity, what manual check do you feel would identify a double dip?

Every captured image is supposed to be manually checked before the charge is issued.

Note 1 posted above is in relation to section 7.3 of the code which states:

Use of photographic evidence

Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a

parking charge unless:

a) at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle's VRM to

which the parking charge is deemed to apply;

b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;

c) the image(s) show, where appropriate, the pay and display tariff receipt as displayed

or not being visible; and

d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control

check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

Usually a double dip is because the vehicle has only been captured 3 out of 4 times it passed the ANPR cameras and the system automatically takes the first entry and last exit as time on site to calculate the time on site*, so a manual check should be to check for the existence of an unmatched image.

Of course the reality is none of this actually happens.  It's much more lucrative for a parking company to issue a PCN with the wrong VRM or match 2 visits as one and then argue that it must be the fault of the motorist for some ridiculous reason even when they have been provided proof to the contrary.

This is another systemic failure, along with the lack of O/0 I/1 pattern matching, dodgy payment machines and all the other wheezes which parking companies rely on to generate revenue.


*which isn't even an accurate period of parking.

1505grandad

As above  -  after all it is stipulated that to use KADOE the ppc must:-

"A7.  Membership of an Accredited Trade Association

A7.1. The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice"

If the T & C's cannot be complied with then, as victim motorists have been told by scamming (Hansard) operators, they (the ppc) should go elsewhere for the required facilities/services.

Nellymoser

Kaizen2024 said:

Out of curiosity, what manual check do you feel would identify a double dip?

Extremely concerning someone who works in the industry doesn't know how to complete a task stated in their ATA CoP. You really must identify your training need to your boss rather than asking on a public parking forum. 🙂

Kaizen2024

Coupon-mad said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Out of curiosity, what manual check do you feel would identify a double dip?

By fairly checking for ANPR captures where that car was detected between the two "AI cherry picked" images they relied upon.

Like ParkingEye did in this case:

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

"Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site.

When Mrs B made a similar request ParkingEye stonewalled her and refused to supply the data. The Prankster believes the data would have backed up her claim to have been driving around the site".

Please don't try to insult us by suggesting that the very common issue of double dip PCNs is caused by vehicles not being seen by the cameras when the driver left and returned in the middle of a 24 hour period.

They ARE detected (or at least one capture is there) but the system defaults to 'first in last out' and no human can be bothered to look because your lot make no money by doing the right thing by consumers.

I have had that confirmed by a parking firm. That is how they set the system.

IF the system used by a single operator ‘defaults to first in, last out’ then that needs changing. 

Most operators (not all) use Zatpark, which absolutely will not disregard any reads and will pair in and out reads correctly.

So (with Zatpark anyway) if there is a double dip, it can ONLY be the case that BOTH an exit and an entry read has failed for any number of reasons; some of which are outside of the operators control i.e no manual check would identify the double dip as you can’t view reads that do not exist.

Kaizen2024

Umkomaas said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Out of curiosity, what manual check do you feel would identify a double dip?

Out of curiosity, what sanctions do you think should be imposed on PPCs that miss double-dips and erroneously pursue motorists?

Double dips can be caused by a number of reasons. In some cases poor installation, others due to motorists having dirty plates (it’s a legal requirement to keep your plates clean) or maybe tailgating or even an untimely pedestrian crossing the road.

So it would be difficult to sanction an operator where it unclear whether the missed reads were due to the operator, the driver or a 3rd party.

Kaizen2024

Umkomaas said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Out of curiosity, what manual check do you feel would identify a double dip?

Out of curiosity, how do you comply with your much vaunted Single Code of Practice's requirement in this regard?

By checking the in and out read data for any given period so as to ensure that there is not a disproportionate number of in to out reads (or vice versa). 

Kaizen2024

Usually a double dip is because the vehicle has only been captured 3 out of 4 times it passed the ANPR cameras and the system automatically takes the first entry and last exit as time on site to calculate the time on site*, so a manual check should be to check for the existence of an unmatched image.

This is factually incorrect, a double dip will only occur (with Zatpark anyway) where 2 reads have been missed i.e the first exit and the 2nd entry.

Fruitcake

Other manual checks should be for an independent computer programmer to go through the ANPR system code to ensure it isn't set to discard/ignore/delete images between the first in/ last out images.

Kaizen2024

100% agree, but that’s not really the type of manual check the CoP is referring to.

Half_way

any parking company that has so called double dip incidents should be prevented from accessing DVLA RK data, with the ban extending to t he d directors/management/owners of those companies.

ANPR is not fit for the purpose of generating parking charge notices on its own