Friday, 25 September 2015

ParkingEye ANPR blunders again

ParkingEye have been caught out yet again issuing tickets for one long stay when a motorist actually visited twice.

The Yorkshire Evening Post have the full story.

ParkingEye regularly tell the courts that this kind of thing cannot happen because of the 19 checks they make.

However, they never reveal exactly what these checks are, leading to the reasonable belief they are as much use as a Volkswagon emissions test.

In this case the motorist visited the park in the morning to do some shopping and in the evening to buy a coffee. ParkingEye initially refused to cancel the ticket and only acted when the Yorkshire Evening Post intervened. At this point they admitted their systems were faulty and could not cope with the bolts affixing the registration plate to the vehicle. It was not apparent why their system sometimes could, and sometimes could not cope, or why their 19 checks failed to pick this up in the first place, or why they had no fail-safes built into the system to report and check on mismatches.

Currently the DVLA have no system which can stop giving keeper details out on a car park by car park basis, so they will continue to supply keeper details for this car park even though the ANPR equipment is prone to false readings.

ParkingEye have previously admitted in court documents that they issue 65% of tickets in error and have to cancel them on appeal.

A further 47% are then cancelled by the appeals service POPLA.

Following that, another 50% are cancelled in court hearings.

With so few tickets being issued correctly it is time for the DVLA to step in and change their systems. Once a car park has been identified as having an issue, all ticketing should cease and the DVLA should stop providing keeper details until the problem has been resolved.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. I think you mean Volkswagen not Vauxhall.

    Meanwhile, the POPLA contract between London Councils and the BPA which ends on 1 October has ended in disaster.

    It's about time the private parking industry recognised the contribution that Nick Lester-Davis has made.I was thinking a knighthood.

    1. Expect a blog on this sometime soon

    2. In response to (a) I can confirm that the earliest day that the BPA would have defaulted on its debts would have been 20 February 2015 which is 30 days after the issue of the 2013/14 reconciling invoice which is in dispute.

      Is Nick Lessor-Payment too scared to go to court?

    3. Wow! £168k arrears is the equivalent of a considerable number of Council Tax payments.
      Will London Councils start enforcement action soon?
      Should Ombudsman Services require BPA Ltd to pre-pay for their POPLA services to avoid a large deficit building up?

    4. I'm sure DRP/Zenith/Miah/Wright-Hassall/ZZPS will all be very willing to take debt recovery action. They might even recommend referral back to the client to take legal action, threaten additional costs, a CCJ and a credit unworthiness endorsement.

      Scary, or what!

    5. Patrick Troy wrote to Nick Lessor-Payment in June 2014 saying the BPA would not pay the extra overheads.

      London Councils has had 15 months to go to mediation or to court. They have done neither.

      It may be the POPLA contract is unenforceable because there was no agreement in place under the Localism Act 2011 in place.

      The Act is not retrospective see para [145] of
      The Manydown Company Ltd. v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council [2012] EWHC 977 (Admin) (17 April 2012)

      "Finally, I think the Council's reliance on section 1 of the Localism Act was misplaced. As Mr Jones submitted, that was not the power under which the Manydown site was acquired, nor the power under which the Council had been managing the land. And, plainly, the Council was not purporting to act under section 1 of the Localism Act when reaching either of the two decisions challenged in these proceedings. That provision is not available to rescue an authority from the consequences of unlawful actions taken before it came into effect. And in my judgment it would not be right for this new power to be relied upon to justify an authority's use or management of land inconsistently with the statutory purpose for which that land was acquired."


  3. Payment by results! We don't like the results, so no payment. Go swivel. Lots of BPA love - Pat Tf x x