PPC and ANPR

[mikeymack2002]

I was surfing on Scoop (http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news) today and come across this story your thoughts please especially the final few words

 

 

Automatic number plate recognition allows cameras to read car number plates.

Invented in Britain in the 1970s, its use by police was followed up by private car park operators who use it because cameras do all the work. Fewer, if any, attendants are needed.

 

Cameras are linked to computers which recognise numbers and letters on a plate, check cars coming into a car park and then recognise it when it leaves.

If the driver has not paid, or the car has been in the car park longer than allowed, the operator sends the number to the DVLA which will send on the details of the owner’s address to the operator.

 

The operator will send out a penalty notice – which is unofficial but carries a similar name to the statutory penalty charge notices sent out by councils – demanding a fine be paid. But it is illegal for councils to use it because the system is deemed to be unreliable.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2960986/Thousands-rip-parking-fines-dished-town-hall-car-parks-illegally-using-automatic-number-plate-recognition.html#ixzz3Sf67bGQH "

 

 

The BIG question here is that in purple, I am wondering if this argument can be used in the PPC area of law, simple because the law MUST BE EQUAL in ALL aspects.

[mikeymack2002]

Having done a Google search with these words "ANPR and parking on private land the law" I came across this statement from the British Parking Association (BPA) see attachment.

 

 

If by the admission of the BPA and stating this in writing/public what are the consequences of the statement in the attachment?

 

 

By their own words they are using non-compliant equipment if so again what are the implications to this.

 

 

I think that using non-compliant equipment should NOT be admissible in Court or "EVIDENCE"

[ericsbrother]

It may be a moot point but if there is no-one to approve a device it cannot be approved. Everyting is legal unless legislation says otherwise so legal tp park on someone else's land and legal to offer a contract for doing so and legal to use ANPR to see who is parking. By creating a keeper liability for civil tort the government made one of those historical decisions that is contrary to the rest of the law. However, this is not the first time in recent years that governments have overturned centuries of civil rights or taken people's right away. The Bill of Rights of 1688 put on paper the contract between the monarch, parliament and the people so it was clearly understood by all when William of Orange was invited to become king. The monarchs and the people have, ever since held their part of that bargain. The only ones to break the covenant has been the government/parliament and have done so repeatedly.

So, can ANPR be used as evidence? yes because the faulty law doesnt prohibit it.

[mikeymack2002]

TBH the MP's ought to make and/or an Act of Parliament whether or not the use of ANPR by Civilian sources is legal or not. If so what if not get rid of them

 

 

If the BPA has and has stated it publicly the equipment is NOT compliant with the law, then it should not be used end of.....

 

 

Speed guns are compliant roadside gatso's and so on are compliant the list goes on, they CAN be used in Court because it is deemed for for purpose.

 

 

The ones used by the PPC controllers are NOT. So again why are they accepted. I will ask my MP to look into this and post up the result.

[ericsbrother]

In about a month's time it may be worth telling the suits who come knocking at your door looking for a handout for the next 5 years that you think the PoFA is flawed legislation and ask them to lobby to get it changed in certain respects. Sitting MP's standing again are more likely to listen as they have the most to lose.