Are "Double Dips" and APR Mis–reads deliberate?

Chris56000

Having read all the cases on this thread regarding "Double Dips" and "APR Misreads :–

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6670474/anpr-double-dips-and-read-error-list-private-companies

The question I have to ask is :–

. . .Is this deliberate action by ANPR software (I presume PPC's use this) to automatically record a "Double Dip" by being programmed to automatically delete the first exit and second entry of the same vehicle (and then illegally add two short visits, each within the car park T & C to create an "unauthorised longer visit") that may have legitimate reason to enter twice in any daily "enforcement" period?

Regarding ANPR Mis–reads, is this deliberate programmed action as well?

The number of cases on this Section of the MSE Forum regarding such issues is so great I cannot help thinking that such is the case!

Woodstok2000

No, it's not deliberate. If the system was programmed to do this there'd be more cases by several orders of magnitude.

However, ANPR cameras are not infallible and the companies involved do not want o pay for the level of manual checking needed to detect all the errors, therefore there are all these erroneous charges we see on this forum and elsewhere.

Car1980

Depends on the PPC.

At least one company will be on the fiddle, especially if they're in the IPC.

I suspect BPA members quite like them as they help reach their quota of "appeals accepted" for tickets that never really existed. Then they can go back to their templated "appeal refused" for the other 95%.

h2g2

I doubt they're deliberate. That's the sort of malice that would terrible were it to come out, and it creates a very easy case for a whistleblower to raise. The risk of doing it purposefully would not, I think, be worth the damage or the extra regulation that gets created, whether that's extremely tight control on ANPR camera use* or even an outright ban.

With that being said, if the camera occasionally misreads or doesn't see a car or something, that's not provably malicious (and I'm sure genuine errors do also happen) and the error works in favour of the PPC so they have no incentive - a disincentive, even - to fix it.

*ANPR can be used sensibly. One car park I use regularly has it set up at the entry barrier where there's no chance your car is obscured because it's up against the barrier. Once read, the barrier lifts. On your way out you look up your registration in a kiosk and pay for the time used there (no chance of overstaying the initial amount you paid!) and then a camera positioned similarly to the one on entry checks your car at the barrier on the way out. If you've forgotten to pay there is another kiosk right by the barrier. The driver behind you might be a bit annoyed, but there are multiple exit lanes. It's a good example of a system using ANPR technology to make it almost impossible to get a large parking charge, unless I was purposefully trying.

Coupon-mad

AIUI, most PPCs set ANPR to default to rely on the 'first in last out' images in a set period, e.g. 24 hours.

So yes, this part of it is deliberate.

To mitigate this, the BPA CoP always required human checks before PCN issuance - and so does the 'piece of pp.ssCoP' - but sadly the DUA Act 2025 has ruined all that I think, by no longer requiring human checks of Automated Decision-Making.

This gives carte blanche to PPCs to let double dips happen and to shift the burden to the consumer to object after the fact. Which is the uselessly weak 'safeguard' in the DUAA, which seems to say firms can do what they want as long as a data subject has a right to object!

This weakened data law will be abused unless the statutory Code makes it crystal clear that in this sector, there MUST be human checks of any ADM or part-automated systems before DVLA data may be sought.

SpinninginInfinity

Well they often use a fuzzy matching algorithm to identify small alphanumeric variations between the ANPR and keyed registrations thus picking out minor keying errors, however it's possible to disable this functionality at source.

I have seen at least one case using Zatkiosk where an operator has tried their luck this way.

Car1980

That's the sort of malice that would terrible were it to come out, and it creates a very easy case for a whistleblower to raise

The thing is that who would they blow a whistle to? There are loads of dodgy practices that nobody is interested in. The failing to send out tickets on purpose so the first notification demands £170 instead of £60 is another one.