Are Parking Companies Committing Fraud?

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?

cooldude255220

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.

No, it doesn't.

For a person to be guilty of fraud by false representation, they must:

1. dishonestly
2. make a representation that is untrue or misleading knowing that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading
3. intend, by making the representation—
   1. to make a gain for himself or another, or
   2. to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Your "test" is missing a fundamental ingredient of the offence - dishonesty. Realistically, a PPC is only going to be acting dishonestly (within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006) if they know that, in any particular case, the PCN is caused by a double-dip error and they continue to pursue the driver on the basis of an overstay anyway.

Coupon-mad

By all means involve your MP and do as advised to you on another thread last week:

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

kryten3000

Realistically, a PPC is only going to be acting dishonestly (within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006) if they know that, in any particular case, the PCN is caused by a double-dip error and they continue to pursue the driver on the basis of an overstay anyway.

Oh they know….

Apoplectic13

Thanks for the responses.

And yes they know that it's untrue because I've told them so. The second demand and the Debt collection proceeded after I had informed them that it was untrue. It's the arrival of the follow ups that I think strengthens the case against them.

So I guess it becomes a matter of who is telling the truth.

Does my evidence stack up against their evidence perhaps becomes the question. I suspect it is the definition of a dishonest man as mentioned in the notes appended to the Act.

I'm hoping that the frequency of double dipping and the evidence that I put forward to show it to be untrue might win the day.

However, COOLDUDE, I agree that the Dishonesty definition is presumably the weakness that they hope to exploit.

It would be interesting to know if the case has been run in court at anytime.

Coupon-mad

You can't run a fraud accusation in small claims. Judges shut you down.

Apoplectic13

Thanks Coupon-mad.

I think this system is so corrupt that I'm not looking at small claims involvement.

If it is fraud then it's a criminal matter.

How many thousands of innocent people going about their everyday business have had to deal with the hassle and expense both in time and money of this absurd system involving the use of ANPR?

Wasting their time in an effort to prove a negative just because the industry relies on dodgy tech.

Any information on the numbers involved would be much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

The latest KADOE figure is likely 17.6 million per annum at the next count, due soon. And 90% of private PCNs are captured by camera, therefore that's 16 million largely unfair charges churning out to spook people who are merely shopping or using businesses properly.

You are totally right and it has been said (correctly) that their use of camera surveillance urgently needs curbing.

IMHO it is corrupt.

These firms know exactly what they are doing, even down to 'dashboards' restricting whitelists with a 'one in, one out' unworkable farce that forces businesses to remove a staff member's car from exemption in order to exempt someone else.

And reducing free parking from 3 hours to 2 hours or less, bombarding councils with demands to alter planning consents purely so that they can issue PCNs to the slowest customers (mainly elderly or disabled motorists who won't make a fuss and think they've got a real fine).

How is that acting in the best interests of landowners & retailers? No idea how so many retailers keep allowing this crap.

With ANPR in lots of places where time limits are tight or simply not needed and (more recently) 360 degree night vision 24/7 unrestricted filming by CCTV all over the place - including cameras on one shop filming across a busy road at another shop forecourt and capturing pedestrians, cars on the public highway, busloads of people and residents in their front gardens - the Government should have banned much of it.

The ICO did warn the DCLG 11 years ago in a reply to a Call for Evidence, specifically raising concerns about ANPR. And that was before the influx of covert CCTV.

Apoplectic13

Thanks Coupon-mad, that's really useful information.

All grist to the mill.