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 They upheld their PCN on appeal, it was POPLA that cancelled the charge it wasn’t withdrawn by SP, not sure if that would make any difference.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

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

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?

Good Morning could anyone advise on the next action with this? thank you in advance

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.