Parking Eye and Illegal Scameras in the Priory Centre.

UPDATE: 26/11/2015. http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/probe-after-claims-parking-eye-cameras-at-worksop-s-priory-centre-are-illegal-1-7592427

Parking Eye is using ANPR cameras in the Priory Centre Worksop illegally. They do not have planning consent for the cameras.                                                       This email has been forwarded to APCW by a resident who sent an FoI request to Bassetlaw District Council about Parking Eye’s ANPR cameras in the Priory Centre.              I can confirm that the original planning permission (02/90/00260) for the Priory Centre do not include any reference to CCTV provision of the site                                                    Lisa Taylor. Planning Support Manager. Bassetlaw District Council.

There have been 100’s of complaints about Parking Eye’s ‘management’ of this car park and this revelation shows the depth of the underhand practice used by PE to snare motorists. If you or anyone you know has paid a Parking Eye invoice which includud ANPR images from the Priory Centre they have been defrauded.                                          All of the car park users’ details are logged on this system. Over and above the scope that this provides for accessing the DVLA’s database purely on a say so, it would leave a justifiable suspicion that any bulk collection of data in this manner might be open to abuse, if its collector was anything other than scrupulously honest. Tightening up on the DVLA’s apparent cavalier attitude to data requests, in the face of abuses such as those that lead to prosecution, is long overdue. But perhaps it is also high time to crack down on the widespread use of misleading correspondence by parking enforcement companies looking to bully motorists into paying exorbitant charges for trivial civil law misdemeanours that will usually involve no material loss or damage. Especially when there is no need for new law, only effective application of existing law. And indeed to ask out loud whether monitoring car parks with ANPR cameras is either proportionate or desirable.  ANPR systems are not without their flaws though. Firstly, they are based on the assumption that between the times you were filmed, you are parked. Is that the case? How many times do you spend ten minutes finding a space before you park? If you get a parking ticket for a reasonably short overstay request the parking company to provide evidence that the car was parked for the period claimed, and not just in the car park. If they don’t have any evidence to refute your claim that you weren’t parked, then on the balance of probabilities you weren’t parked for all of that time. So, if you get an ANPR ticket be sure to check these points; ask the parking company for evidence of the contravention.

From the BPA AOS Operators Handbook.  

Section 9.2 ANPR and Data Protection.                                                                                   The Information Commissioner Office (ICO) has published an updated CCTV Code of Practice in 2008 in which they say: “this code provides good practice advice for those involved in operating CCTV and other devices which view images of individuals. It also covers other information derived from those images that relates to individuals (for example, vehicle registration marks)”. The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is the UK law transposing the Data Protection Directive and it defines personal data as data, “which relates to a living individual who can be identified (a) from those data or (b) from those data and other information, which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller”.
So it is clear that data captured by an ANPR system should be treated as “personal data” under the principles of the DPA and falls under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office.                                                                                                              Section 9.4: Administering your ANPR system. Has the operator notified the Information Commissioner’s Office that they are a data controller (and paid the notification fee)? Does the notification cover the purposes for which the images are used and the disclosures that will be made?  If you use ANPR to identify vehicles, you must tell drivers that you are doing so and why you are collecting their data.                            See Section 21 of the Code and Section 9 of this Guide for more information on using ANPR.

Section 2.2: The general rule is that the principal and not the agent can take steps to enforce a contract. If the parking operator is merely acting on behalf of the landlord/landowner then normally the operator is acting as an agent. In these circumstances the parking operator has no rights to recover the debt and it is for the principal (ie: the landlord/landowner) to do so.                                                          Section 2.3: It is important to remember though that if you (The PPC) are given a serviceable name and address for the driver, you must use this information. It is unlawful for you to pursue the keeper of the vehicle if you have a serviceable name and address for the driver.                                                                                                                 (A good example would be if a relative or friend from overseas -or even from the Isle of Man- drove your car with your permission and was unfortunate enough to be given an invoice from a PPC the Registered Keeper will be sent a letter demanding a silly amount of money. The RK. tells the PPC who was driving and that should be the end of it. The PPC will probably ignore it but there is nothing in legislation that says the ‘serviceable address’ has to be in England and Wales)  The laws in Scotland are different and bear in mind an invoice from a PPC is NOT a ‘Fine’ or a ‘Penalty’.            Under the 2007 planning regs. for advertising signs if a sign is over 0.3m2 it needs planning permission. For certain signs there is a thing called “deemed consent” this includes the house number on your front door, informational signage such as bus stop signs, signs for fire exits etc. Parking contracts are not included but a ‘No Parking’ sign may well be (not always)     There have been cases where Parking Co’s. claim they are entitled to deemed consent as their signs are informational.  a judge has said no they aren’t in the same class so Planning Permission is required. If a parking sign is under 0.3 sq m then it is too small to be considered adequate for contract purposes and even the BPA (British Parking Association) say that it should be this size as a minimum so no argument there really.  Now, where it gets interesting is that NOT having planning permission for signage is a criminal offence and you cannot agree to any contract that is based upon criminal activity otherwise people will be suing each other for not robbing banks or for charging too much for their marijuana etc. ………..Complain to the local council planning dept and to the Valuations Agency regarding the use of the land. If the Parking Co’s don’t have planning permission and they fail to rectify that after they have had an appeal based on repudiation of contract for being repugnant then they are committing fraud by misrepresentation every time they send out a new demand as they know it is based on a criminal deceit.                                                                            Parking Eye could apply for retropective planning permission and/or argue the siting of cameras is ‘deemed consent’. Cameras mounted on poles require planning permission, cameras mounted on buildings may not. What is at stake is that PE can breach planning regulations (Not for the first time) and after exposure apply for permission retropectively. If this is the case then everyone can breach the regulations and apply for permission afterwards. This attitude makes a mockery of planning laws.                                                                                                                                     I would urge everyone to write to Bassetlaw District Council. Planning Department. Queens Buildings,  Potter Street. Worksop. Notts. S80 2AH and to the landowner pointing out the illegality of the cameras. The manager of the Priory Centre is David Aunins. Centre Management Office, Priory Shopping Centre, Bridge Place, Worksop. Notts. S80 1JR.  He has discretion to quash illegal invoices from Parking Eye on production of valid shopping receipts.This raises another question; If the invoices can be cancelled because you are a genuine shopper in the Priory Centre why are they issued at all?  

The landowner of the Priory Centre is;                                                                               Columbia Threadneedle. Threadneedle Asset Management Limited.                            Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6AG.  Registered No. 573204.                 Do they really want to be associated with a company that scams motorists by using illegal ANPR cameras?

Parking Eye’s address is; 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley.                 Lancashire. PR7 7NA.                                                                                                             Accounts overdue at 3rd November 2015.                                                                              Capital £6,535.00 on 27th April 2015.

Parking Eye was sold to Capita in 2014 for £57 Million.

Further reading: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu…0Nov%202011.pdf https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/parkingeye

GlossaryBPA-British Parking Association*.                                                                AOS-Approved Operators Scheme.                                                                              PPC-Private Parking Company.                                                                                     ANPR-Automatic Number Plate Recognition                                                                                   *The BPA is owned, operated and policed by Parking Companies.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Community News, Parish Council News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Parking Eye and Illegal Scameras in the Priory Centre.

  1. Alan Russell says:

    I can’t understand why old bill and jonny think its right to rabbit on about other people when this part of the blog is about Parking Eye and their illegal cameras in Worksop.
    On other forums I’m on they would be called ‘trolls’ because their only purpose seems to be to cause disruption and diversion from this thread. Perhaps they do not understand the practices of private parking companies or they don’t understand what was written so they think they have to write something.
    Daft as bats both of them.

    Like

  2. Jonny says:

    Hi Colin sorry I mean watchman
    Which part of free speech don’t you understand, isn’t this what the previous council was accused of.
    This is communism 😏

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      First of all Colin does not moderate this blog. Secondly you are confusing free speech with bad manners and forum etiquette.
      Either stick to the thread or risk being blocked.
      Your choice.

      Like

  3. old bill says:

    mr colman no didnt work 24 7 or 365 a year but did carry my title 24 7 365 and still do even in reitrement stop press been told today contractors are looking at spare seat on council

    Like

  4. Jonny says:

    DEAR EDITOR WHERE IS MY POST I WROTE ??

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      What part of ‘Stick to the subject’ did you not understand? Your previous post was deleted because it offered nothing constructive to the debate and it concentrated on attacking a previous poster.

      Like

  5. old bill says:

    glad you pointed that out mr colman that your a resident and not a cllr on here so when the public go to apc meetings that means they are a resident and not ex labour or contractors witch some cllrs love to point out when in public office sorry you cant be a cllr when you want to be you are thats it if you dont want the title why have the job seems to me when the cap fits ware it

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      Hold hard there cowboy!
      This thread is about Parking Eye and their illegal practices in the Priory Centre . It is not about you having a go at Mr.Colman. He disagreed with the contents of your post just as much as you can disagree with his posts- without introducing insults.
      All contributions to this blog are welcome but please, stick to the subject matter.

      Like

    • Mick Colman says:

      Watchman, I agree with you that replies should stick to the article subject, as I did in my first post on this thread (November 22, 2015 at 11:16 pm). That was of course before old bill decided to stick his oar in with the sole intention of insulting me. However I intend to defend my corner on this. old bill, first let me get this quite clear. As far as I am concerned being a Councillor is NOT a job. It is a privilege and an honour and furthermore it is an UNPAID privilege and honour, in fact not only is it unpaid but it actually costs me money to do it. So don’t give me all that crap. Even if it was a paid job it would still not stop me from being a member of the public, except when I was on Council duty. I don’t know what you do or did for a living Mr bill but I will bet you that you didn’t do it 24/7/365 and I am sorry to disappoint you but I am not a Councillor 24/7/365. I am a Councillor when I am on Council duty, otherwise I am a resident of Anston and as such I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion on this internet forum the same as you are. By all means disagree with my opinions, that is what forums are all about, but DONT YOU DARE question my integrity as a Councillor because if you do then I will question your integrity as a person who wants what is best for this village and the people who live in it.

      Like

  6. old bill says:

    very good post on parking eye cant under stand why cllr colman thinks its got nothing to do with anston think before you write anston people do shop in worksop and do use ther car parks so yes they need to no silly mistake on your behalf granville dos not ride up the bulk on his butchers bike any more delivering groceries so we need to go to worksop thank you for keeping us informed

    Like

    • Mick Colman says:

      old bill, Once again I feel I have to correct you on your post. This time it has nothing to do with grammar or spelling but as usual the content. First let me correct you as the post you refer to was sent by Mr Mick Colman, resident of Anston, not Cllr colman as you wrongly name. If I wanted to post as Cllr Colman I would sign the post Cllr Colman. (at least I have the balls to add my name to my posts, which you don’t). Secondly I did not say it had nothing to do with Anston, I asked what it had to do with Anston Parish Council. Watchman seems to agree with my point by saying “It does’nt have anything to do with Anston Parish Council” As for you telling me to think before I write?…No I will stop here and let other readers form their own opinion on that.

      Like

  7. Ian Woodward. says:

    Further to your excellent article on Parking Eye I wonder if this might be of any use to your readers?
    On the 12th June 2015 Cumbria County Council Trading Standards said:
    “a breach of Regulation 5 (3) (b) of the CPR’s (Civil Procedure Rules) relating to a traders compliance with information contained in a code of practice does not give rise to a criminal offence but is an issue which can be part of any civil litigation between the trader and a customer. When the EU directive was transposed into UK law failure to comply with the requirements of a Code of Practice was not made a criminal offence but a civil matter.
    In this instance if Parking Eye were to sue you in respect of an alleged parking overstay the question of what was in the relevant paragraph of the BPA Code of Practice in operation at the time of the alleged contravention of the parking requirements would be an issue you could raise in the court using Regulation 5 (3) (b).”
    Parking Eye is breaching para 2.4 of the BPA COP which requires it to comply with the law. It clearly isn’t doing.
    On the 23rd October Cumbria Trading Standards confirmed its view when it said “If a trader fails to comply with a provision of a Code of Practice to which they are a signatory this is indeed a breach of Regulation 5 (3) (b) of the CPRs.”.

    In the Beavis-v-Parking Eye decision (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf) at paragraph 96 there is a mention of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Limited. At paragraph 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” The Code of Practice at paragraph 2.4 states “All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.” It then lists specific examples and in particular “consumer protection law.” Broadly, the Code of Practice obliges Parking Eye to comply with the law and it has clearly failed at this car park.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102796

    Like

  8. Mick Colman says:

    Phew, again a well constructed but rather long winded report and I will need to read it through again but I have to initially ask, what has this to do with Anston Parish Council. The main bone of contention seems to be planning permission for the cameras and the infringement of peoples rights regarding their illegal parking. I agree that car parks that record the entry and exit of the car parks should make allowances for drivers spending time to find a parking spot, especially in the run up to Christmas, but In my humble opinion most cameras do more good than harm. Maybe I am missing the point here and I don’t mind being educated, but in my opinion parking restrictions are there for a purpose and should be adhered to. If it takes cameras do this then so be it. Heaven forbid that we never need them in Anston.

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      It does’nt have anything to do with Anston Parish Council but it does concern Anston residents who shop in the Priory Centre.(Call it a “Service to the community”)
      Nobody believes in nor wants unrestricted parking and the chaos that would result if that was the case. Properly regulated parking with reasonable charges is the correct and proper way to encourage shoppers. A company that issues flawed invoices based on ‘evidence’ from illegal cameras-which is a scam-should not have any rights to manage a car park.

      Like

  9. Veritas. says:

    As well as being illegal in the Priory Centre Parking Eye’s cameras are defective in as much as most ANPR cameras do not have a clock which records entry or exit to the car park. The time stamp is put onto the photo by a server located somewhere on the network which the camera is part of. The time recorded is not the time the vehicle entered or exited the car park. If the network is busy or undergoing maintenance the times recorded could differ widely. ANPR cameras of this sort cannot be relied on to give exact timings and time differences.
    IF the cameras have an inbuilt clock it is up to the parking company to show that their entry and exit cameras are synchronised, otherwise they cannot be relied on.
    Since PE took over the Priory Centre car park they have issued 100’s of tickets to drivers for mostly flimsy excuses and.the landowners are quite happy for Parking Eye to alienate drivers and customers who now take their custom elsewhere.
    Paying on exit as you do at Bassetlaw Hospital is a much fairer system but ‘fairness’ does not generate profits for Parking Eye in the Priory Centre.

    Like

Comments are closed.