ParkingEye ANPR signage "clear" and "transparent" ...?!

[PBar1]

Hello,

 

Last week I also lost a case against ParkingEye (because I hadn't 'followed procedure' in respect of presenting my evidence before the day).  The judge was not remotely interested in anything I had to say.

 

It is my contention that the signage this despicable company uses to advertise its ANPR system is disgraceful and designed that way purposely to extort money from us and continue to line its - already bulging - pockets.  I even got out of my car and read the signs but I completely missed the tiny camera symbol (and even smaller wording) !

 

This cannot be allowed to continue.  They utilise the banner of the BPA and yet are clearly not adhering to its Codes of Conduct in respect of ANPR usage: "clear" and 'transparent" it certainly is not !

 

How on Earth can these companies - especially ParkingEye - be allowed to continue operating in this way ?  There MUST be something that we can do.  Surely the Media could get involved and run a campaign or something ?  Together we could effect a wholesale change in the way they do things.  Had the signage been adequate there is NO WAY I would have parked there as I know one doesn't reason with a machine !

 

The pictures of the signs at the location - EVEN THEIR OWN (the ones they hadn't vastly magnified in order to mislead, that is) clearly demonstrate that the signage does not comply !  This cannot be right !!

 

PLEASE can someone help me - and, indeed, THE WHOLE COUNTRY - clamp down (no pun) on this insidious and deeply questionable practice.  We could really 'make a difference' ...

 

PB

[PBar1]

Hello,

 

I pulled off the M40 (before I caused an accident through lack of sleep) and parked somewhere I had parked with impunity on many occasions in the past.  (The car park is huge and was virtually empty.)  Because I am a responsible sort, I read the signs and even got out of my car to view them properly - I could see nothing to suggest that not leaving the vehicle unattended would be an issue.  I was inconveniencing nobody and after all, I reasoned, if a parking attendant was doing his/her rounds, a simple tap on the window would suffice to move me on.

 

Less than a week later, I received a PCN in the post along with pictures captured by the ANPR system at the location.  I was extremely surprised that I could have missed the signs.  And so I returned to have a look and it ended with my feeling utterly indignant.  Leaving aside the absurdly high position of the entrance camera (to deter vandals, right ?), the signage had tiny camera symbols and even smaller wording.  I knew that couldn't be right.

 

So I did some research and it is clear that, as a member of the BPA, ParkingEye is obliged to comply with its Codes of Conduct.  There is NO WAY that they are doing so.  I would NOT have parked there had their signage been clear as I know that one doesn't reason with a machine !

 

It is my contention that they deliberately design their systems to maximise income at the expense of the motorist.  And I know I can demonstrate why I - and countless others - believe this to be the case.

 

Alas, I pushed it to court but because I did not 'follow procedure' (i.e. I hadn't supplied my evidence to them before the day) the judge wasn't remotely interested in anything I had to say, although he was clearly sympathetic and did remark that I could bring a private case against ParkingEye if I so wished.

 

I need to highlight this issue and, ultimately, effect a wholesale change in the way these companies operate.  But I do not know how to go about it.  I am sure the Media could get involved - if only they were brave enough !

 

I know I'm right.  And it's not fair that ParkingEye (inter alia) are allowed to continue operating in this manner.  PLEASE will someone join me in bringing this matter out into the open ...?

 

Regards,

 

PB

Edited July 30, 2019 by PBar1

[dx100uk]

what when 99% of the Media call them FINES.

 

judge lottery sadly move on.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

you lost because you didnt follow the court procedure and put your evidence into the court 14 days before the hearing. That is all written down in the paperwork the court sends you but you have to read it thoroughly.

 

anything you say afterwards is irrelevant, they could have claimed that they are empowered by aliens from the planet Zaeg and if you dont challenge this in time you lose.

 

Court hearings replaced trial by combat and you turned up to a swordfight without a sword and got slaughtered and holding the moral high ground doesnt make you armour plated.

 

If you had come here some months ago we would have helped you through all of this step by step and the chances are you would have defeated their claim if the signage was evidently lacking

[PBar1]

I am well aware, eb, of the reason why the judge did not entertain my case; nor do I hold anything against him for it.  I do not require a 'telling off' by you, thank you very much, and your response, whilst factually accurate, is utterly unhelpful to me !  My entire point still stands.  But thanks all the same ...  PB

[Mrs O'Frog]

Try your MP. You can offer them your experience as this is still going through and getting tweaked.  Have a read of this https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

 

In the meantime, go to your local press by all means, but unless you have a "story" to tell (think "woman gets fined for giving birth in car park" - even though it's not a fine) to give them a good headline, they're not likely to be very interested. On the plus side, if they do take up your story, it'll at least give a "heads up" to some other poor souls.

[lookinforinfo]

It is never easy for a litigant in person to get things right in a Court case.

That being said I am not sure that many Judges would have come down in your favour if signage was the only objection you had. After all, the majority of motorists would have seen the signs or the Court would have been inundated with irate motorists. 

 

What you needed was whether PE had

• planning permission to even erect their signs [they often don't];
• did their contract with the land owner allow them to bring charges against you;
• were their signs where they said they were,
• did their PCN's comply with POFA and BPA guidelines;
• did their PCN's arrive within the statutory timelines and
• were they taking you to Court as the driver or the keeper, etc.etc.

 

PE and the others, rarely manage to get all those things correct so with a good defence normally lose in Court.

 

Small consolation to you but many MPs are working hard to get legislation pushed through to cut back on the outrageous ways they go about parting motorists from their money with no good reason.

[PBar1]

Many thanks for your considered opinion.  PE and many others flout the rules and codes by which they are supposed to comply IN RESPECT OF ANPR SIGNAGE and they do it for one very obvious reason.  This CANNOT be right - however a right-thinking person chooses to look at the matter - and yet no one else seems to want to do anything about it !

 

In respect of irate motorists ... a quick look at the reviews on Trip Advisor for the Holiday Inn, High Wycombe will reveal that I am far from alone in taking issue with their lack of clear ANPR signage !  I can assure you that I am both entirely correct ... and not alone ... PB

[steveod]

Never mind that their signs rarely capable of forming a contract, but their signs and anpr in itself is not GDPR compliant.

That is why PE and other ppc allow my appeals every time.

 

Read up on the GDPR and two things stand out, and the court of justice has already ruled on these.

One, if there is any alternative to the processing of personal data, especially of a data subject ie the RK that is not even there to view the data processing notification , then that must be used eg barriers such as NCP uses.

 

Two, privacy info cannot be displayed on the same document/signage as other contract info.

In almost every occasion they cannot meet these and therefore there is no legitimate reason for the parking charge notice.

[king12345]

Interesting,  can you please expand and make it clear for dummies like me?

[dx100uk]

ummmm...

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

On 31/07/2019 at 20:35, steveod said:

Never mind that their signs rarely capable of forming a contract, but their signs and anpr in itself is not GDPR compliant.

That is why PE and other ppc allow my appeals every time.

 

 

Interesting too that consent is supposed to be freely given. It is hardly given freely in car parks, one is forced to agree to the processing if one wants to park there.

[brassnecked]

They are relying on you parking there as informed consent possibly allowing them to process your data.  I wonder if ANPR captures anything wider than a car number plate, and if pedestrians are also captured?  So if I  wore a pair of number plates with my car/motorbike reg no on my front and back, and walked on site the ANPR would register me as a car?  As PE infest my local ALDI, might try it with plates cut to size and felt tipped onto cardboard and I ride in on a pushbike with the plates,

[Ethel Street]

14 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Interesting too that consent is supposed to be freely given. It is hardly given freely in car parks, one is forced to agree to the processing if one wants to park there.

 

It's freely given as far as contract law is concerned. No-one forces you to park there! It's a choice - you could park somewhere else or get a taxi or bus or walk.  As a practical matter we might argue that not being able to park in that car park makes life very difficult, but that's not something relevant to accepting contract offers in contract law.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Ethel Street

[ericsbrother]

that is the thing about unilateral contract by advertisement, they are open to anyone to accept of decline.

you are not forced to buy washo soap powder just because the telly says you should and likewise if they say that if you dont like the result you get your money back they cant suddenly say it doesnt apply to wednesdays.

 

The way the offer is made is more important and that is why we ask to see the signage at the entrance to the land from the public highway as it can easily be argued that a sign that is half way up a lamppost behind a tree isnt a universal offer.

 

Proper attention has to be brought to the contents and the terms must be complete so those stupid small print terms that say that full terms on online are irrelevant and not binding as you get what you see at the time

 

A lot of companies get this wrong and TBH it isnt rocket science to create a sign that says what it needs to.

 

I keep saying that the best sign would say, "parking £100 but if you leave within 2 hours the charge is waived" is all that is actually needed but the bandits like to complicate things by inventing other conditions to screw the public without real justification.

 

If genuine managemnt of the spaces is the concern then they need peopel to eb there at the gate and advise the punters of how they should behave and point to the signage that says they will be charged if they ignore the nice man