ANPR car park issues and problems

[peteb]

Many station car parks now, like supermarkets and retail parks, use ANPR systems to monitor entry and exit, to substantiate parking charges etc

I've personally become aware of problems with these systems if you go in and out more than once in a day.

The photo taken at say 1pm may show you going in, and another at say 8pm may show you leaving. But what if you also left at 2pm and returned at 7pm?

I'm aware people are getting penalty notices for such occurrences when the exit/entry between the first and last are not recorded.

What are other people's experiences of this? Have appeals been successful?

The onus seems to be on the driver to prove the car was removed from the car park, not the parking company to prove it remained there.

And how do these systems cope if say you leave tailgated by a lorry which obscures your numberplate?

 

[jfollows]

Although any kind of engagement with the legal system - courts etc - would very much be the last resort, in the end the answer for these kind of things is to tell the people asking for payment to get lost. They would have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities (EDIT in the case of a civil case for parking on private land; the burden of proof is even higher if it's a criminal case where byelaws on railway land apply) and you turning up in court and saying under oath that you weren't there would likely kill their case.

The onus isn't on the driver, it's the other way round. But the parking companies attempt to make out that it's otherwise, and use intimidation as their primary tactic to make people pay up.

Their technology is flawed and they know it but they like to pretend otherwise.

 

[peteb]

Although any kind of engagement with the legal system - courts etc - would very much be the last resort, in the end the answer for these kind of things is to tell the people asking for payment to get lost. They would have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities and you turning up in court and saying under oath that you weren't there would likely kill their case.

The onus isn't on the driver, it's the other way round. But the parking companies attempt to make out that it's otherwise, and use intimidation as their primary tactic to make people pay up.

Their technology is flawed and they know it but they like to pretend otherwise.

Yes their letters talk about escalating debt, debt collection agencies etc, and try to frighten people off with referral to court costs liabilities etc.

 

[jfollows]

Yes their letters talk about escalating debt, debt collection agencies etc, and try to frighten people off with referral to court costs liabilities etc.

The way it works is on the legal side of extortion, they know that a significant percentage of their victims just pay up, and then if not they employ debt collectors who have no power but use a lot of red ink and - in one case - incorporate the word "Baliffs" in their title (DCBL) to frighten their victims further into payment.

The only sensible tactic is to put yourself into the category of "too much effort" from their perspective but it's still a pain, ignoring them isn't wise.

No personal experience but I've read up on many cases.

EDIT https://www.ftla.uk/index.php is a forum with a lot of knowledge, but - unlike this forum - unfortunately it's populated by people who are more interested in demonstrating how clever and knowledgeable they are than in actually helping people.

Also, and sorry to rabbit on but it's a peeve of mine, it's important that most station car parks are covered by byelaws which mean that breaking them is a criminal offence. Most supermarket car parks will be private land, covered by civil law. They all tend to use ANPR. The usual tactic with station car parks is that you'll be asked to "bribe" the operator so that they won't initiate a criminal case against you - because if they do, even if they win, they won't get any money because it's a criminal offence and so it goes to the government and not to them. Also, the opportunity to take you to court will time out after six months.

 

[peteb]

The way it works is on the legal side of extortion, they know that a significant percentage of their victims just pay up, and then if not they employ debt collectors who have no power but use a lot of red ink and - in one case - incorporate the word "Baliffs" in their title (DCBL) to frighten their victims further into payment.

The only sensible tactic is to put yourself into the category of "too much effort" from their perspective but it's still a pain, ignoring them isn't wise.

No personal experience but I've read up on many cases.

EDIT https://www.ftla.uk/index.php is a forum with a lot of knowledge, but - unlike this forum - unfortunately it's populated by people who are more interested in demonstrating how clever and knowledgeable they are than in actually helping people.

Also, and sorry to rabbit on but it's a peeve of mine, it's important that most station car parks are covered by byelaws which mean that breaking them is a criminal offence. Most supermarket car parks will be private land, covered by civil law. They all tend to use ANPR. The usual tactic with station car parks is that you'll be asked to "bribe" the operator so that they won't initiate a criminal case against you - because if they do, even if they win, they won't get any money because it's a criminal offence and so it goes to the government and not to them. Also, the opportunity to take you to court will time out after six months.

Ah thanks. My own case is with a couple of car parks administered by the same car park company outside two large superstores. The usual thing: made two short visits in a day, their cameras tell them I stayed all day! (So where's the photos of exit/re-entry, I'm asking).

 

[dangie]

I had a parking charge letter from a private car park in Camborne Cornwall. I've never been to Camborne. It had my vehicle type and number plate. I wrote to them explaining it couldn't possibly be me and asked for photographic proof. I never heard anything else.

 

[John Webb]

.......Also, and sorry to rabbit on but it's a peeve of mine, it's important that most station car parks are covered by byelaws which mean that breaking them is a criminal offence. Most supermarket car parks will be private land, covered by civil law. They all tend to use ANPR. The usual tactic with station car parks is that you'll be asked to "bribe" the operator so that they won't initiate a criminal case against you - because if they do, even if they win, they won't get any money because it's a criminal offence and so it goes to the government and not to them. Also, the opportunity to take you to court will time out after six months.

I thought the majority of stations were run by Train Operating Companies these days, and they employed contractors who worked under the conditions set by the contractor/TOC and not under the railway byelaws as parking at a large NR-operated station might be. Can anyone clarify the byelaw position in a TOC controlled carpark?

 

[jfollows]

I thought the majority of stations were run by Train Operating Companies these days, and they employed contractors who worked under the conditions set by the contractor/TOC and not under the railway byelaws as parking at a large NR-operated station might be. Can anyone clarify the byelaw position in a TOC controlled carpark?

You can’t “un-byelaw“ land - car parks - which are covered by them. It’s historical, and whoever administers railway car parks can’t change it. Although sometimes they pretend they can.

 

[John Webb]

You can’t “un-byelaw“ land - car parks - which are covered by them. It’s historical, and whoever administers railway car parks can’t change it. Although sometimes they pretend they can.

Thanks for the prompt reply. Interesting. And logical I suppose since the TOCs do use the railway byelaws to do people for holding the wrong ticket etc.

 

[jfollows]

Thanks for the prompt reply. Interesting. And logical I suppose since the TOCs do use the railway byelaws to do people for holding the wrong ticket etc.

They're different byelaws of course, but the detail can be important.
For parking (under byelaws), it's the car owner who's liable for the criminal offence, whereas for parking on private land in a civil case it's the driver at the time who can be pursued for payment. So in the latter case, not identifying the driver can be important, but on railway land it might be irrelevant.
On railway land, under byelaws, one tactic can be to spin things out so that the 6 month clock for prosecution runs out. For civil cases this doesn't apply (or, rather, it's much longer).

 

[Bikeman78]

Many station car parks now, like supermarkets and retail parks, use ANPR systems to monitor entry and exit, to substantiate parking charges etc

I've personally become aware of problems with these systems if you go in and out more than once in a day.

The photo taken at say 1pm may show you going in, and another at say 8pm may show you leaving. But what if you also left at 2pm and returned at 7pm?

I'm aware people are getting penalty notices for such occurrences when the exit/entry between the first and last are not recorded.

What are other people's experiences of this? Have appeals been successful?

The onus seems to be on the driver to prove the car was removed from the car park, not the parking company to prove it remained there.

And how do these systems cope if say you leave tailgated by a lorry which obscures your numberplate?

I've heard similar stories. It is remarkably convenient that the photos of the first exit and second entry seem to go missing. I had a problem about 10 years ago. I was in the car park for slightly longer than I'd paid for but the expiry time on the ticket was a few minutes after the time on the photo of me departing. I made a few copies of the ticket in case the print faded. They pushed it for about two years and then gave up. I think they have to go to court within six years so I doubt I'll hear from them again.

 

[TheTallOne]

It might be the clocks on the cameras are out of sync? Thus when you look at the day's data it doesn't find what it should.

Or maybe it's on purpose (as some people alledge)

Or maybe it's just the software is difficult to write - trying to find entries and exits for each car across multiple days sometimes, etc etc.

Also a chance of entry/exit data going missing, software bugs, network failures etc.

I was sent a PCN for visiting a supermarket twice in a day, managed to get the supermarket to cancel it, although not all of them are willing to help.

 

[jfollows]

I don’t think it’s on purpose but they don’t care. It’s usually their only source of income and if people want to pay them for something they didn’t do, they’re only too happy to accept it.

 

[Snow1964]

I've heard similar stories. It is remarkably convenient that the photos of the first exit and second entry seem to go missing. I had a problem about 10 years ago. I was in the car park for slightly longer than I'd paid for but the expiry time on the ticket was a few minutes after the time on the photo of me departing. I made a few copies of the ticket in case the print faded. They pushed it for about two years and then gave up. I think they have to go to court within six years so I doubt I'll hear from them again.

I have also seen car parks with these cameras where the terms and conditions board includes a clause says something like no return within 4 hours.

Of course many never read these and do go back later same day and get caught (and case law is that you had chance the read the displayed terms and conditions and if don't like them exit free of charge, which is why you can always drive out within few minutes, even putting unpaid ticket in exit barrier if required).

 

[TheTallOne]

The problem is, they are restricting the no return to the car, not the human.

So if Bob visits the supermarket in the shared car before lunch and Tom visits it after lunch in the same car, then supposedly the car has broken their rules.

It can't be the human? It was a different human that returned!

It can't be the car either really as a car cannot enter into a contract.

 

[Buzby]

The practice is known as ‘double-dipping’ - whilst the cynic in me would believe it is a money making scam, the reality is considerably different. The fact that these ANPR systems use a single camera per entry/exit leaves a considerable margin for error with misreads compared to dual aspect systems. I believe there is an average 20% failure rate variously caused by obstructions (tailgating), reflection (Sun position) and misreads (dirty or modified plates, darkness). The software will work with what it is given, but as the business model is to be profitable, the remaining 80% of captures and payments of a subset of that is enough to make it a viable business model.

i don’t often return to the same car park in the same day, but in the last 5 years I have been challenged 3 times with an overstay, recording my 1st entry and 2nd exit times. My first response was to provide dashcam footage of my entry/exit of the site and the threatening letters simply ceased But without acknowledgment or apology. The remaining times I didn’t bother, as in Scotland the law is different and no viable POFA equivalent - so they were ignored but the dashcam files retained in case they were needed. Once the flurry of correspondence demanding payment completed, the matter ceased to be of interest to them.

I wouldn’t dream of using any CP without my own dashcam for corroboration.

 

[Kite159]

Just shows that use of ANPR cameras show be banned for use by those parking parasite companies whom are just out to make an easy buck.

Bring back proper car park management by people patrolling on the ground, that way they can get for any abuse of disabled bays or idiots whom decide to park their oversized SUV across multiple parking bays (pretty much bang in the middle of two bays)

 

[Bikeman78]

I have also seen car parks with these cameras where the terms and conditions board includes a clause says something like no return within 4 hours.

Of course many never read these and do go back later same day and get caught (and case law is that you had chance the read the displayed terms and conditions and if don't like them exit free of charge, which is why you can always drive out within few minutes, even putting unpaid ticket in exit barrier if required).

What purpose does such a policy serve? I have only done it once. Drove to supermarket, parked up and realised that I had forgotten my wallet. So I went home to collect it and parked for the second time about 20 minutes later. Not sure why anyone would want to fine me for doing this. Fortunately the car park in question doesn't have ANPR cameras.

 

[Kite159]

What purpose does such a policy serve? I have only done it once. Drove to supermarket, parked up and realised that I had forgotten my wallet. So I went home to collect it and parked for the second time about 20 minutes later. Not sure why anyone would want to fine me for doing this. Fortunately the car park in question doesn't have ANPR cameras.

As the technology is faulty and can't be trusted not to tie the two stays together.

Even if the two stays were by different people using a shared work car.

 

[Ediswan]

What purpose does such a policy serve?

'No return within X hours' started when parking limits were managed by human beings making regular patrols and noting which vehicles were parked when. I suspect the rule has become habit.

 

[Howardh]

'No return within X hours' started when parking limits were managed by human beings making regular patrols and noting which vehicles were parked when. I suspect the rule has become habit.

Taxi drivers often return to the same space (ie Sainsbury's) several times a day; thus breaking the "no return" rule. Do they have to log their number with the parking firm to avoid charges; which would be several in a town?

 

[skyhigh]

It is remarkably convenient that the photos of the first exit and second entry seem to go missing.

Because the issue only occurs if that is what happens. If the first entry went missing a letter wouldn't be triggered.

 

[Bikeman78]

Because the issue only occurs if that is what happens. If the first entry went missing a letter wouldn't be triggered.

What if the first entry and second exit went missing? Then the system would think the car had departed before it arrived. It's clearly not reliable.

 

[skyhigh]

What if the first entry and second exit went missing? Then the system would think the car had departed before it arrived. It's clearly not reliable.

That's exactly my point - the system wouldn't generate an overstay letter in that case. It's not "remarkably convenient" only cases where an overstay get recorded are reported, it's simple logic.

 

[Bikeman78]

That's exactly my point - the system wouldn't generate an overstay letter in that case. It's not "remarkably convenient" only cases where an overstay get recorded are reported, it's simple logic.

The point is, the system fails, so the photos prove nothing. So no one should be getting fined.