Smart ANPR PCN - Overstay - Forged Evidence on PCN? - ***Won at POPLA***

[FTMDave]

Firstly, well done on winning your case against these total charlatans.

 

Secondly, your attitude in wanting to go after them for their forgery and thus help others is commendable.

 

You probably think we're not being very helpful!  But it's not that.  Sadly the fleecers lie to motorists and the courts every single day and get away with it.  So we're used to it.

 

For example, they are supposed to get planning permission before putting up their signs & cameras.  To not do so is actually a criminal offence under a specific law.  But they hardly ever get PP.  And 99% of councils can't be bothered to do anything about it.

 

Initially the PPCs took some motorists to court, because, though they had paid in a pay car park, they had input their registration details wrongly, mixing up 0 for O or 1 for l or 5 for S.  The judges told them this was "de minimis" (the law does not deal with trivialities) and booted the cases out.  So they stopped issuing tickets for this, right?  Wrong!  They issue the tickets, send all the threatening letters all the way up to starting a county court claim ... but don't take that final step as they know they would be hammered in court.  Loads of motorists after the letters will have wet themselves and given in. 

 

So this is what you're faced with.

 

By all means bring their forgery to the attention of your local councillor, your MP, the BPA, the local newspaper, the police, etc. - just don't expect much to happen.  However, nothing ventured ...

 

To answer the question in your last paragraph, Smart Parking are imbeciles who have been humiliated in court countless times but still continue because, sadly, so many motorists give in and pay them.  They're not interested in reputation.  All they want is £££££.

[CaptainMannering]

Nothing one bit you’ve said is surprising Dave, the law protects the wrong people in this country.

 

I think you are being more than helpful in all this I really do and appreciate it. If others learn from my incident and even just one person fights I’m more than happy.
 

Scaremongering really then as I thought, worry people with letters and threatening behaviour and the majority will fold. Numbers game I guess, more you send out more £££ you gain.

 

I suppose losing to motorists and courts is one thing but going to the trouble of falsifying documents to obtain £ using theirs illicit tactics is quite another. You’ll be much better placed to really know the difference and impact. 
 

I didn’t expect they’d be concerned and like you say this is bread and butter for them the cones, courts, letters etc. I only asked in terms of how much they are likely to comply with things like the SAR request and responding to emails. Play the game and do just enough to be seen to comply, play hard ball and ignore the majority or engage and try to resolve the matter rather than deal with all the time and effort it needs? 
 

im happy to fight it if it helps others but don’t want to be barking up the wrong tree or spending excessive time effort and money if it’s not worth the (if any) reward.

[BankFodder]

If you can provide evidence to show that there has been a forgery then I would say that it would result in some interesting damages for you – and yes I think it would be serious for them.

Whether or not it is worth pursuing is a matter for your own judgement.

The comments you have received from the local parking operator are extremely interesting – and if you could get those as a written commentary on the images that you have, then this would be very helpful evidence.

I think you're going to have to wait until you receive the data disclosure

[CaptainMannering]

Thanks BF I appreciate your comments.

 

I think the decision on pursuing it will depend on what’s said by them.

 

The SAR, what would you expect them to produce in this and are they likely to (a) respond and (b) disclose all the info they have.

 

The comments were exactly what I thought, but not necessarily what I expected would be stated. Getting a written statement on this may prove challenging but can you think may be willing to state it? Perhaps a rival company that has a severe dislike .

im not sure whether they had to provide specifics on their monitoring system to POPLA do that it a reliable and legal system but the spec of that would clear up its abilities.

 

not sure how to get them to answer the specific questions in regards the system, data, photo and legality of the image really as up to now it’s been a questions that’s been swerved as I’d expect?

 

thanks guys and gals

[dx100uk]

as for A/B they MUST its your legal right

else its off to court to MAKE them comply.

 

though i would not be asking specific question nor changing the sar text.

 

 

 

[CaptainMannering]

Thanks I just assumed their level of cooperation would be low and as absolute minimal as they can legally get away with based on their knowledge of previous cases they’ve had, but again see what’s stated. 
move not asked specifics just followed the template given, I was more curious as to how when and if, it would be possible for them to comment on it

[dx100uk]

IMHO manipulation of a JPG image if it did happen .....directly concerns your data and it must be disclosed.

im not sure if your unredacted doc with the images that have poss been manipulated has been sent anywhere private

but if you could PM me a +600dpi or better pdf copy to me i will look at it. pretty good with these things since PC image inception. cant any more why here.

if the image is +4.8MB let me know and ill give a secure email. +1200dpi would be good too

dx

 

[CaptainMannering]

ive sent this over but if you need anything further please let me know. also sent some wording from their case summary and the photo and camera system scrape too. Everything points to my initial suspicions and what the local operator said

 

just been looking online and all correspondance on these systems states image on entry and exit. Does say its deemed wrecklessly negligent if they are applyinjg to the DVLA for personal data knowing that they have no right to request it. The DVLA & ICO should be made aware and the DVLA should have checks in place to prevent improper data being given oout, but its worth reporting the data breach and consider requesting compensation from the operator under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1999

 

 

The problems listed include 

 

Obstructed camera vision – Sometimes, if you’re in a line of cars waiting to leave the car park and you’re either a bit too close to the vehicle in front or you’re right behind a high vehicle, the CCTV exit camera doesn’t get a shot of your plate.  So, as far as the system is concerned, you’ve entered the car park and bought a ticket but haven’t left by the time your ticket expires.

Likewise, it’s possible to have a problem with glare from the sun, heavy rain or snow stopping the camera getting a clear image. One interesting case showed that the number plate fixing bolt gave an inaccurate interpretation of the number to the camera.

 

ANPR technology is not the same as CCTV technology; it does not record a continuous stream of images. Instead, a photograph is only taken and recorded when a numberplate is detected.

 

Number plate misses are a bigger problem. As the system only records information when a number plate is detected, the operator will have no record on their system of that particular entry and exit, so no matter how long they search their database they will never be able to resolve the problem. Some operators acknowledge this is a problem and are receptive. Others bury their head in the sand and pretend the problem does not exist.

[dx100uk]

pers i dont think it's been manipulated, its obv the same car, but some of the explanation is simply copsplaining to use a tactic police use to confuse the public into complying.

infra red is of no use during daylight hours either.

dx

 

[CaptainMannering]

Thanks for your comments and time looking.

 

as bf said it’s subtle the difference but I do take your point, I suppose the mind sees things it wants to.

 

there is no explanation tho for how the camera, which takes a single image is able to then provide that image. The cameras pick up reg plates and that’s what triggers the photo to take. As VRNs take various formats, right down to 2 letter alphanumeric plates, it’s simply seen the 5 on this vehicle and takes the photo.

 

I just cannot see how it possible to display that VRN when it can’t see it.

[dx100uk]

sorry but most ANPR cameras systems do not take a 'single image' to gander a reg number, they take a series of single shot images until they get a successful read from a single shot, that is the one used and stored, you also need to factor in the parallax error spacing will not be uniform.

[CaptainMannering]

my understanding is that the cameras are programmed to detect reg plates and activate (as in only takes photos) when one is detected. It will be set within a specific location that the cameras height angle and focus is best set to view the plate.  Id expect that is has a very very small distnance on the ground to capture the image as before and after this the plate will be less visible or at an angle too steep etc. That distance may be a meter or less on the ground.

 

If the cameras detected characters and within that split second people have walked in the way, will it not then detect the 5 characters it has done, not see the two that are blocked and just capture that image? The whole image provided by the camera then, with vehicle, plate and personell on, what actually triggers that to take the picture then if its not the ANPR. In this event that actual image is pointless as it shows nothing evidence based and as POPLA say ( in the event the PCN had been provided it would have had no bearing on the outcome of their decision), now surley all else they would base their decision on is the imagery of the cameras.

 

if they didnt trust or believe them images then why would they come to the same outcome? Smart Parking are now happy to confirm the PCN is cancelled (although not in any way by them) and no further action is required, coiuld it be any potential wrong doing and investigation by POPLA is  into this they are trying to avoid in just keeping quiet.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[Gick]

There has been and will be, no investigation by POPLA into the alleged wrong doing. They have a very narrow remit, slanted firmly towards the benefit of the PPC.

[CaptainMannering]

I understand that, POPLAs remit is to decide on if the ticket is upheld or the appellant has grounds for appeal and the PCN being revoked.

 

based on evidence provided the the two parties they decide. They did this I’m just saying that they stated that in the event Smart Parking had provided further evidence, their decision would have been the same. Kind of saying the appellant has a case to question the evidence you’ve provided and on that basis his case that your evidence is questionable is sufficient for me to cancel the PCN?

 

As an independent appeals board I can’t believe they’d have no interest in potential wrongdoing as it would bring a companies reputation into question.

 

I need to get firm info on how they work really

[BankFodder]

Who said they are independent? We have a very strong impression here that they are the lapdog of the BPA

[CaptainMannering]

Their website, albeit I’m with you that they are all in the same bed so independent is just a smokescreen. That’s why I was fully expected my appeal to be rejected by them and stand by Smart.

 

just reading up on cameras and seems the  ANPR camera takes the image and the software reads the registration from that, rather than reading characters then taking the image. I’d say the cameras are fixed so will take the image at a certain spot, if it had to zoom and focus it may lose the time to capture a good image so a fixed position would make sense.

[dx100uk]

Private anpr cameras do not zoom nor focus they are infinity set , as said before they take snap shots until the software captures a REG . those relevant snaps are then saved. 

 

they do this because they have to apply to the DVLA for keeper details unlike motorway cameras that are linked to the national PNC database directly

[CaptainMannering]

Hi dx sorry not being challenging at all but as a reg plate can consist of between 2 and 7 alphanumeric digits, if the camera doesn’t zoom then it must take the image at a set spot would that be right then? 
 

If that’s the case is that this would have picked up the 5 characters and that’s what it’s returned as the plate. All I can see on it is that the ANPR technology scans the photo rather than the photo being taken as a result of ANPR technology. Can the technology read a moving vehicles plate, or is it more likely the high speed shutter of the camera takes the picture and the ANPR reads that. If the focus of the camera was on the plate would the rest of the image be out of focus, but also given plates take variations of sizes and locations again can that camera detect quickly enough their location shape etc or again, Is it done from the image captured. 
 

Again apologies but I’m simply going off information read and an element of logic not in any way saying you’re wrong?

 

thanks mate

[dx100uk]

dont confuse private ANPR technology with that used by the highway authorities etc , two totally diff systems, the latter being true ANPR cameras, the former are not ANPR cameras but a std CCTV camera and infra red lights for night time use as all plates should be florescent . there is no zoom there is no need for focus just as with your home CCTV cameras they have infinity lenses.

 

everything inc detection of the reg number is done by PC software and post processing. 

 

 

[CaptainMannering]

You chaps are far more knowledgeable than I am and your knowledge of these systems more superior.

 

I will await what they disclose. What would you get expecting in some thing like this?

 

where also would I get info on their specific site cameras so I can look at their capabilities, can see anything on their submission to POPLA , I thought this may have to be supplied to conform to a minimum standard under regulations. Street view seems to far away on my phone  to see 

 

Best 

[CaptainMannering]

Hi all just a update.

 

So SAR requested 10 November so 30 days is this Friday.

 

I’ve had an email asking me for proof of address to validate my identity, I understand this I can be requested so I have no issue.

 

This has been provided and they tell me that the “35 day timeframe only begins once your SAR has been recognised and identity has been confirmed”

 

Just wanted peoples views on this. Waiting 20+ days to request this seems nothing more than a delaying tactic, I just wanted to know if it’s right and acceptable.

[BankFodder]

Of course it is a delaying tactic.

Also, you are clearly the person that they are threatening with action and they are happy to send those kinds of letters to you and have no difficulty with your identity.

To hurry things along I suggest that you give them what they want but I suggest also that you accompany it with a letter telling them that you realise that they are simply dragging their feet and being obstructive because they are happy to send you threatening letters and even threatened to issue a court claim that your address in your name.

Tell them that if there's any mucking around or any delay that you will begin an action against them on the expiry of day 31.

[Ethel Street]

41 minutes ago, tbbt1901 said:

This has been provided and they tell me that the “35 day timeframe only begins once your SAR has been recognised and identity has been confirmed”

 

That's wrong on two counts:

 

1. The time frame is one calendar month, not 35 days

 

2. The time doesn't start from when your ID "has been confirmed", it starts from when they receive it.

 

Send them this ICO link and tell them you expect them to comply with it.   Time limits for responding to data protection rights requests | ICO

 

 

 

[CaptainMannering]

No problem, fair response on threatening letters and court action too.

I don’t quite understand their term “recognising the SAR” it was obviously received and stated SAR on the email and SAR attachment, again sounds like a nothing term.

In terms of the 30 or 35 days then is their DPO wrong and is it on receipt of the letter. I’m not surprised by any of this. My reasonable assumption was that the information would be collated within this period  pending receipt of my identity which would then allow them to send it. Rather than waiting till identity is confirmed then having the luxury of 35 days 

Ethel that’s perfect

What are the implications then of not responding by the 30 day timescale.

my incline is that they will just do what they want and probably reply on day 35 with little to no information so is it a case of doing as BF said and begin action

Slightly confusing. 

as you say it starts when they receive the SAR but seems to read that if they request identity documents it starts when they receive them.

so the 20 days between receipt and them requesting can these not be included as I can’t control when they choose to respond.

in what way does a utility bill confirm my identity too? Confirms my address but not my identity surely?

thanks 

[Ethel Street]

The ICO site is your friend, you should find the answer there to your questions

 

eg, this is what the say about ID requests.  It's up to the organisation to decide what ID information they need, so if they asked for Utility bill and it's in your name and current address that's what they've got.

 

They should have asked for it "promptly" and the time between them receiving the SAR and receiving the proof of ID doesn't count to the one calendar month timeframe. Although I wouldn't call 20 days "promptly" I doubt it's worth arguing about now. Calculate when you should get the information based on ICO guidance on earlier link and tell them that's when you expect it.

 

Right of access | ICO

 

Can we ask for ID?

Yes. You need to be satisfied that you know the identity of the requester (or the person the request is made on behalf of). If you are unsure, you can ask for information to verify an individual’s identity. The timescale for responding to a SAR does not begin until you have received the requested information. However, you should request ID documents promptly.