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

[lookinforinfo]

Trading Standards may be the way for you to go. One of the matters they investigate are illegal sales  practices which is along the lines of what you are thinking. They won't be able to get you compensation for any possible wrong doing but if they can prove your allegation you can take out your own claim.

One would imagine that given the number of pictures taken of the coming and going of cars in and out of car parks that there have been incidences of the cameras not getting the full number plate. One would like to think that no action would be taken if the vehicle with a partial number had also breached the T&Cs. But we are talking about car parking companies........

[IDR car]

On 06/11/2021 at 10:31, lookinforinfo said:

If you believe it was forgery then you should report them to the police. However the Police would surely ask you  if it was  the case that your car did overstay the allotted time then the clarification or enhancement  of the VRN  did not cover the fact that you were guilty as charged .

Even if he was over the time  that still does not allow them the powers to fake evidence.. even the police cant do that   mmmmmmm 

[dx100uk]

Send a copy of your ctax bill as the posts in the sar link state

 

i believe it is 30 days from when they are satisfied its you wanting rhe info, but i also believe that only applies if you had moved?

 

Dx

[CaptainMannering]

good morning chaps and chapess's

 

I have finally received the data from the operator.

 

In short I'm not surprised. A copy of my emails to them

• Image x1 each of front and rear ANPR camera of car (same as previously supplied - VRN not visible)
• Copy of car parking T&Cs
• Copy of their email in response to my appeal (upholding their charge)
• Copy of my email appeal
• Copy of "Ticket Details" showing details and cancelled by POPLA. Case notes have CCTV incident ref XXXXXXXX, Camera Type, Camera Serial No and  Video control unit all state not specified
• No DVLA details have been provided as that vehicle is in my wife's name so not personal data

The correspondence is not on letterheaded paper as they say its raw data off the system and any dates displayed are reprinting dates and may not be the original date. There are emails missing between myself and them mainly the ones once the POPLA appeal was underway.

Seems very limited information but again i wasn't sure what to expect.

 

Still no comment on the only image available on the entry photo and how from that partial number plate they managed to the missing digits and supply a picture of the full VRN AA55 CON when the image shows AA55 C

Prior to the image being taken (when the full VRN would have been visible) the vehicle was not within the range of the camera. At the split second the vehicle moved into range the obstruction walked between the vehicle and the camera and the image captured what it saw as a 5 digit VRN. The image which you kind people have looked at shows the bottom right corner of the VRN (which i believe may have been manipulated) cut at an angle to replicate the obstruction on the image. If the image was a true image of when the full plate was visible, there would be no reason for the corner to be missing.

 

So am i in a position to ask direct questions in relation to this, like - from the entry photograph showing a part VRN can you provide clear evidence showing how the attached full VRN image was obtained for the vehicle which you then used to obtain personal data on the vehicle from the DVLA and issue a notice charge and threaten court action. I believe the image may have been manipulated using the subsequent "exit image" due to the two images not matching, the angle of characters and the cut of the corner of the image. (feel free to re word )

 

Thanks in advance

[CaptainMannering]

Good Morning

 

could anyone advise on the next action with this?

 

thank you in advance  

[CaptainMannering]

Hello All

 

Little update after their limited disclosure they have made the following comments if anyone can help out with their thoughts. Finally got a response, after being ignored, when i said their cooperation was very low and I would be reporting the matter to Action Fraud and applying for a court order to seek compensation, 3 hours later i got a response.

 

I'm not entirely sure how credible their representative is as they again confirm they have 35 days to disclose contrary to the ICOs info and what you all advice.

 

The comment made on the DVLA was as I had requested a copy of the documentation sent to the DVLA to request the personal data as if they did not have the right to request the keepers details based on the evidence then there may have been a breach of GDPR. Although "they believe it was obtained inline with GDPR". The comment "most definitely not been photoshopped" in comparison with the comment on GDPR "I believe" is a very certain comment which ultimately they surely would not be able to state as they have no way of knowing. Playing devils advocate here but is the "photoshopped" element more "we wouldn't photoshop any image but we do use Microsoft paint"

 

I have asked for copies of the images with metadata but these haven't been supplied yet, the metadata would by all accounts show any alterations.

 

Usually takes up to 125 photos seems quite vague, and I'm not sure on the relevance of infrared technology being used to take photos either. Does this not only work in low light conditions?

 

Quote

 

On the X December 2021 I advised that there was not any identification attached to your email and the 35 day period for a SAR to be responded had not yet started, as I had not received your identity.

This was provided on the X December 2021 – therefore, the 35 day period begun.

 

 

Quote

 

regard to the comments made regarding the images on the PCN, I would firstly like to make it known that these images have most definitely not been photoshopped. It is acknowledged that the image does show people walking in front of the vehicle, however the cameras on site usually take up to 125 images when capturing a registration, and the two lenses are in slightly different positions.

Therefore, one lens is capturing the actual vehicle registration and one lens is capturing the whole image. Therefore, it is dependent on which image of the plate the camera has sent through for each lens. On this occasion, the camera has sent through an image of the plate and the whole image which would have been taken within milliseconds of each other, it is unfortunate that they just don’t match on this occasion

 

 

Quote

Please note, that the images that have been provided on the Parking Charge Notice and within the Subject Access Request are the only images we hold regarding that Parking Charge Notice.

 

Quote

I believe that the data of the Registered Keeper was obtained in line with General Data Protection Regulations – as advised, above regarding how the photographs have been taken. Please note also, that the cameras use infrared technology to take a photograph of the VRM.I believe that the data of the Registered Keeper was obtained in line with General Data Protection Regulations – as advised, above regarding how the photographs have been taken. Please note also, that the cameras use infrared technology to take a photograph of the VRM.

 

Quote

The correspondence sent to the DVLA is no longer obtainable, in addition to this, it wouldn’t have been your details we were requesting, but the Registered Keepers. I can confirm that the way in which the system operates means the request for data is created and then overwritten when the information is received.

 

Quote

I would like to address that I cannot discuss the actual Parking Charge Notice – as a Data Protection Officer, I am not to discuss the PCN it itself, just the data that relates to it. However, I can confirm, as you are already aware, that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

 

[BankFodder]

I do think it's going to be very tough. I have flagged it up to the site team to have a look

[CaptainMannering]

I agree it’s not easy but as I say if I can expose them and help anyone else out in future then it’s worthwhile for me.

 

Operate in a manner which is a disgrace and think they have the right to do as they want.

They've got to be able to substantiate their actions. They’ve got 125 images and can’t provide one that supports the claim. What use are 125 images if they aren’t available to use? Cant provide correspondence they sent to the DVLA as it’s overwritten. Can’t have breached GDPR as they were requesting the registered keepers details rather than my personal data - assume this could mean the cars in my partners name? Can be absolutely certain an image hasn’t been manipulated which they would never know, yet can only believe they haven’t breached GDPR.

 

Their history as a company is hardly squeaky clean so I’m very skeptical on anything they say. As I say if I can help just one other person succeed against these criminals my mission is complete 

 

 

[FruitSalad1010]

The logic which leads to a breach of the Data Protection Act is if the company requesting the information of the keeper had no lawful basis or rather reasonable cause to request the information from the outset.

This is one of the most comprehensive comments I have seen written on the subject.

It is my understanding that in order to win any claim for breach of the Data Protection Act you would also have to prove they had no lawful basis to demand payment from you.

 

What makes this more difficult is that whether there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you was never ruled on by a judge.

It would be far easier to bring a claim for a breach of the Data Protection Act if you had already successfully defended a court claim for demand for payment of the PCN.

 

It would appear the only way forward would be almost to have both cases heard at once, one of which is a case that was never due to be heard in court as the demand for payment was withdrawn. It could get very messy and while CAG clearly has a strong success rate with defending claims for payment with reference to a PCN there is still the so called judge lottery and I expect the lottery aspect of being successful in this claim would increase.

 

You also risk - should it get that far - that the judge decides there was a lawful basis to demand payment from you and now not only is your claim for breach of the Data Protection Act dead in the water you could also end up owing the PCN which at the moment is cancelled.

Your premise to help others is understandable but helping others requires that you help yourself and helping yourself requires ensuring that you will win. I think the general consensus at the moment is that is highly uncertain and would certainly need to be underpinned by substantial effort and high quality of the case you are able to present.

Edited January 10, 2022 by FruitSalad1010

[CaptainMannering]

Thank you so much for you comprehensive feedback on this.

 

In terms of the data request then, by their own admission they have no evidence to support an entry time of the vehicle, this does not allow them to calculate the duration of stay. 
It is therefore not possible to issue a PCN as there is no proof of any breach of their terms and conditions. I would guess that as they cannot substantiate their claim it would be unlawful to request data based on this? In their submission to the DVLA they must have to provide some evidence or reasoning behind the request?

 

They upheld their PCN on appeal, it was POPLA that cancelled the charge it wasn’t withdrawn by SP, not sure if that would make any difference.

All I can say on did they have lawful basis to demand payment is that without evidence I’d hope it is not lawful. They use the technology to collect evidence, which must be needed? The demand for payment also threaten court action etc (im sure you know ) and I’d quite a strong intimidating request.

 

what else could/would you be requesting now or what do you suggest regarding this?

 

thank you

[FruitSalad1010]

I think you need to be careful about your presumption that the parking company has no evidence to show the arrival time. The POPLA appeal was granted on the basis that no evidence was provided in response to the appeal. It is still plausible that the evidence does exist but for one reason or another it was not presented to POPLA in response to your appeal. As I have stated previously it may not be the case that their request was in fact unlawful and without a judgement to that effect you are risking a lot for potentially little gain.

 

I'm not sure whether above you have alluded that you are not in fact the keeper of the vehicle - perhaps you could clarify this. I cannot see that a copy of the speculative invoice has been made available in this thread and thus whether it was actually served to you personally or to the keeper.

 

This is important because if you are not the keeper of the vehicle then it is not in fact your data which has been requested.