Drivers receiving unjust parking fines due to poorly placed ANPR cameras and spike in vehicle cloning, investigation finds

Motorists are being issued unfair parking charge notices (PCNs) because of failing camera technology and a spike in vehicle fraud, according to a new investigation.

It comes amidst soaring volumes of charges being handed out by private parking companies and calls from motoring bodies and drivers for a clampdown on some of the rogue tactics deployed by these firms.

It was revealed late last year that a record 15.9 million PCNs had been given out by private businesses in the 12 months to the end of September 2025.

This was up 17 per cent from 13.6 million issued in the year prior, analysis by Press Association found last year.

Simon Williams, head of policy at the RAC, said the surge in charges suggested something has gone ‘badly awry’ with the parking system, as he claimed the majority of motorists ‘try very hard’ to avoid tickets.

And the new probe by consumer watchdog Which? points to drivers receiving unjust parking tickets due to flaws with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which are sometimes positioned poorly and fail to capture every movement by vehicles entering and exiting car parks.

Individuals are then forced to go to staggering lengths to prove their innocence and avoid expensive parking charge notices and the threat of debt collectors. 

A surge in illegal number plate cloning by criminals has also resulted in tens of thousands of charges being cancelled by councils, the consumer group exclusively revealed to This is Money.

The investigation raised major concerns with the reliability of ANPR camera technology.

In 2023, the Home Office’s biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner claimed the tech has a 97 per cent accuracy rate. But given the scale of ANPR enforcement in 2026, the 3 per cent of instances not correctly surveilled is representative of two million missed readings at car parks per day.

And one of the biggest issues is the installation of cameras, according to Dr Robert Gurney from the Vehicle Identification Group at Cranfield University.

They are commonly attached to the top of poles to provide a higher and wider surveillance angle. But Gurney told Which? that such elevated positions limit their ability to detect registration plates.

This is especially the case when vehicles are ‘tailgating’; when a car’s plate is blocked by the vehicle they are following close behind.

He also suggested that ANPR systems sometimes reboot, which can result in them missing vehicles entering or exiting car parks during reset periods.

Both poor camera positioning and rebooting is triggering instances of what’s called ‘double-dipping’.

This is when motorists are caught on camera entering a car park, but their departure – which could be just moments later – is not captured by the ANPR system on exit.

When they return to the same location the next day or days later, the technology assumes the driver has used the car park for the duration since the system first picked up the vehicle’s entry, with motorists stung with astronomical charges for overstaying.

Most of these cases take place at locations where drivers visit habitually, such as train station car parks when dropping off and picking up family members, or when parking at supermarkets. 

One of Which?’s staff fell victim to such an incident.

Senior researcher, James Aitchison, received two PCNs within three months last year. Both were occasions when he had given his partner a lift to a train station on two subsequent days.

Because the camera had not identified the moment he left the car park on the first day or when he entered the following day, he was issued a parking charge for failed payment for a 24-hour stay in both instances.

‘The camera didn’t register me leaving the car park on one day or register me entering the car park the following day,’ James said.

He was forced to challenge both PCNs, including using location data from his smartphone and other travel expenses to prove that he hadn’t left his car at the station overnight.

And poorly located cameras are even stinging motorists who haven’t entered the car parks they are monitoring. 

Which? member John, from Gloucestershire, was wrongly issued four fines after a car park ANPR camera picked up his registration plate when driving down a road adjacent to reach a holiday cottage he was staying in.

John hadn’t been notified of the PCNs at the time they were issued in 2024. Instead, he found out about them after paying a legitimate parking fine on the private parking firm’s website in January of this year.

He told Which?: ‘After a lot of digging in my records, I recalled that I had rented a holiday cottage near Swanage, which had a narrow access road that passed a car park, which was ANPR checked. 

‘Looking on Google Street View, I could see that the ANPR camera from the car park was positioned in such a way that it had detected my car as it drove past on the way to the cottage.’

John then looked for charges against his son, who’d also been staying in the cottage. He had even more PCNs listed against his car, though his son hadn’t been notified about them.

After some back and forth, the parking operator agreed to remove all the charges.

Number plate cloning on the rise

Another problem fuelling unfair parking charges is illegal vehicle cloning.

This results from individuals modifying the letters and numbers of their own registration plates to avoid detection, and criminals stealing or duplicating the plates of cars of the same make, model and colour so they can go about other illegal activity without being caught.

This includes bilking (driving off without paying for fuel at petrol stations) and evading congestion and low emission zone charges, such as London’s ULEZ.

Eric Lytra, 77, received nine PCNs from Horizon Parking between March and October 2025 after the number plate on his car was cloned by another driver.

‘The rogue car used two black tape strips on the ‘L’ to change it to an ‘E’, so it mirrored my registration,’ he said. 

Each fine was due to the car overstaying at a Tesco car park, which was operated by a private parking company.

He appealed the fines and reported the issue to the police, the DVLA and his insurance firm. However, he continued to receive PCNs in the post, despite his innocence.

‘The whole saga only really ended when I managed to get the police, after all that time, to contact the offender, warning that action would be taken if they persisted,’ Eric explained. The criminal did then finally stop.

Horizon Parking conceded to Which? that it is ‘challenging’ to identify deliberately altered or cloned number plates.

As a result, it is up to victims to provide credible evidence of their innocence.

The Government earlier this year responded to calls for a crackdown on cloning and ‘ghost’ plates – when drivers use reflective sprays or coatings to number plates to make them invisible to ANPR detection.

It came after a Daily Mail probe revealed that plates on up to one in 15 cars are likely to have been tampered with by criminals and unscrupulous drivers.

Motorists who use number plates invisible to road cameras face penalty points and having their vehicles seized under new plans to improve road safety launched in January.

Tougher checks during annual MOTs have been introduced to ensure plates are readable as part of the clampdown.

The government has also promised the introduction of a Private Parking Code of Practice, which will replace the industry’s self-set code, which fails to provide drivers with enough protection from rogue private parking companies.

The government first proposed the Code in February 2022, but it was withdrawn later that year after the industry issued legal proceedings against proposals to change maximum fines and ban additional fees.

In September 2025, the government launched a consultation on the Code. 

It includes new measures that include a requirement for standardised signage across car parks to avoid confusion, a ban on debt recovery fees and universal appeals system to make it easier for drivers to challenge unfair PCNs.

Which? says the code of practice should go further than that, calling for a ban on parking charges issued to motorists who pay for their stay in full before leaving an ANPR car park.