ANPR Double dipping PCN

LemonBerry

Hi all,

I have unfortunately been sent a PCN in the post and this is a “double dipping” scenario.

I would be very grateful for any feedback on my proposed appeal below.  Thank you for taking the time to read.

The car park in question is next to a number of retails shops and not too far from a train station. I have not been able to identify who the landowner is of the car park.

The vehicle was used to enter the car park to pick up my son from the nearby train station one evening. The ANPR cameras detected the entry time, but not the exit time. It was very dark and the ANPR camera barely registered the registration number on the vehicle. The vehicle can’t even be identified in the picture in the PCN I got in the post (attached below). Just two blurry headlights can be seen in the dark. I left it in the attached picture. The total stay in the evening was perhaps around 20 mins.

The next morning, the same car park was used to drop off my son to walk to the nearby train station. The visibility was clear and good around 08:50 in the morning, but the ANPR didn’t register when the car entered, it only registered when the vehicle exited the car park around 40 mins after the entry.

The car park is free to use for 3 hours, no return within 1 hour. There are no payment machines. You cannot pay for a longer stay.

I have read the newbies guide several times, but I’m a bit overwhelmed over all the information.

I have read through the PCN (NTK?) several times, but I cannot find anything wrong with it that could invalidate it, except for the charge that “may increase to £170.00” at the end of the first page. It didn’t arrive late.

I did go back to the car park another evening and noticed that one of their lights in the car park was broken and took a photo of it, if that can help me.

It seems for the “double dip” a shorter appeal might be sufficient. Is that correct? I have found some double dipping posts in this forum so I have based my appeal on the information in those posts.

I will under no circumstances name the driver.

 

I’m also considering attaching the following in my appeal. Would any of this be helpful? I guess it can’t make it worse:

1. My son’s train ticket arriving to the train station in the evening related to the first visit to the car park.
2. My son’s train ticket departing the next morning – related to the second visit.
3. Screenshots from my wife’s google timeline showing the journey from home to the car park / train station (for the second visit), stating that the mobile device was in the car. She was not in the car on the first visit the evening before.
4. Screenshots showing tracking information from a mobile phone tracking app that I and my son travelled home in the evening after the first visit and also that we travelled from home to train station in the next morning.
5. Photo of broken light in the car park.

 

The purpose of attaching my son’s train tickets would be to show intent, that there was no intent to leave the car overnight.

The purpose of the screenshots would be to show that we travelled home in the evening and back the next morning, so the car was not in the car park overnight. The tracking data doesn’t show exactly going to the car park, but nearby, as I guess it only updates every now and again, (but I won’t mention that.)

I thought I might include as much information as possible now in case I can't add more information if I need to appeal to POPLA later.

 

Below is the text I’m considering in my appeal. Information from the text below has partly been copied from a few other posts in this forum, plus the newbies guide.

 

Appeal Text

I am appealing as the Registered Keeper. It is denied the vehicle was present for the XXX hours YYY minutes you allege. This is a clearly a case of ANPR "double dipping" and you should search your system for the missing orphan images. Please cancel the PCN to avoid having to take this to POPLA.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. 

The vehicle entered AND exited the car park on DD/11/2025 and it also entered AND exited the car park on the next morning BB/11/2025.

First visit: DD/11/2025

• Entry: HH:MM
• Exit: Between 19:37-19:43

Second visit: BB/11/2025:

• Entry: Between 08:50-09:05
• Exit: HH:MM

 

Your ANPR system has failed to record the exit of the first visit and the entry of the second visit.

I request that you examine your CCTV/ANPR or any other camera pictures/videos around the time of 19:37-19:43 on the first visit where you will find the vehicle exiting the car park and between 08:50-09:05 on the second visit where you will find the vehicle entering the car park.

Furthermore, on the first visit, on DD/11/2025 the vehicle can’t even be identified on the picture, only two headlights are shown in the dark picture. Only due to the headlights, the ANPR system could see the registration number on entry on the first visit. When the car existed on the first visit, only the red tail lights would have been visible, but with the poor quality of your camera system, it has not detected the exit.

 

As part of the BPA code of practice you must do a manual check for the missing video/pictures of the vehicle exiting on the first visit and entering on the second visit.

BPA Code of Conduct:

7.3. Use of photographic evidence 7.1. Use of photographic evidence technology THE SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE Camera images Camera images – e.g. ANPR 07 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.

 

NOTE 1: 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 (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary. NOTE 2: Where parking operators are accepting as evidence for issue of a parking charge images forwarded, copied, uploaded by or stored on an individual’s personal mobile phone or other personal device then, as data controller, the operator must ensure that such images are only kept by the individual capturing the images for the minimal time taken to upload them via an app, webpage or similar secure portal or address supplied by the parking operator, must be satisfied that the image is a true and fair representation e.g. including the accuracy of time stamp, and relates only to the controlled land subject to the relevant conditions.

 

Furthermore, you have provided no evidence of Landowner Authority:

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot
be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

Yours sincerely,

Mr xxxx

Pictures

Coupon-mad

Do NOT talk about using a retail car park to pick up your son from the station. That's not what a retail car park is for. Don't do that again, not even if it is a free car park. Avoid!

You don't need a car park at night anyway and certainly not to pick up a passenger. Next time use the street (a side street if necessary). Picking up or dropping off passengers is what double yellow lines cater for and actually exist to facilitate.

You could have waited almost anywhere on-street perfectly legally. Avoid private car parks like the plague!

Anyway:

Just send an appeal that tells them it is a double dip ANPR error and demand they find the orphan images of the car leaving at around TIME in the evening of DATE then driving back in, around TIME the next morning. Tell them you'll report them to the ICO if they fail to cancel the PCN and erase your data which was unlawfully obtained.

LemonBerry

Thank you very much for the quick feedback! 

Due to road works, road closures, lane closures, even parking suspensions outside the train station with closures of the train station drop off which caused delays up to 40 mins even at 7pm, outside the train station, regrettably the car park in question was used. Won't use that again for sure!

Car1980

You only need a brief appeal for this. Just a paragraph, like Coupon has suggested.

LemonBerry

Yes, thank you very much @Car1980. I'll post an update later to let people know how it goes.

LemonBerry

I just had an email from Premier Park saying that my appeal has been upheld and my PCN cancelled and my details have been removed from this PCN.

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @Car1980 for your advice with this!!!

Coupon-mad

Quite right too. Double dips are data abuse.

Apoplectic13

Hi, I'm quite confused by the "double dipping" phenomenon. My car is a victim of it currently, being pursued by UKPA.

"Double dipping" seems to have been a recognised problem for over a decade now so presumably all experienced car park operators using ANPR must be aware of it.

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 states that if a false representation is made to cause a loss and the representation is known that it MIGHT be untrue then a fraud is committed.

Given the unreliabilty of ANPR surely UKPA must know that their representation MIGHT be untrue and are therefore knowingly committing fraud.

P.S I know they are because I did not overstay.

I'm currently trying to get my MP involved in this. The local authority Trading Standards department now seem to pass everything to Citizens Advice and are therefore unable to show any interest.

Others must have felt similarly aggrieved, what am I missing please?

Half_way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917420#Comment_81917420

Please start you own thread,

in my opinion is that the landowner - that is the entity that contracted the parking company must be dragged into this and financially hurt, preferably the person who signed the contract personally affected.

Info needed: full name of parking company, location of car park, and any stores/shops/places attached to it

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81917420#Comment_81917420

Report them to the CMA and the ICO but to do that you must first exhaust the complaint to the DPO of UKPA.

Apoplectic13

Thanks for the advice.

Looking at the Waitrose car park debacle in Christchurch after all these years of harassing motorists unfairly surely something will have to be done.

I've raised the issue with my local MP and he's showing signs of sympathy.

Today received another letter from the debt recovery company.