URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 28147--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 1, 2024, 6:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It would appear that this is a pay on exit car park where the
       driver enters their VRM into the machine, the machine shows the
       close up ANPR photo of the number plate when it entered the car
       park and the driver agrees that it is the correct VRM and the
       machine then calculates the payment due.
       The NtK says exit was at 10:42 and the receipt says payment was
       made and 10:40.
       However, the receipt does show a single digit missing from the
       entered VRM. Even so, their system should not allow a VRM that
       was not recorded entering the car park to be accepted on payment
       at exit.
       The system is flawed and can be shown to be so if it accepted
       the VRM with the missing digit. At POPLA, they should be put to
       strict proof that their ANPR system logs show either the VRM for
       the vehicle or the ANPR photo of the incorrect VRM.
       #Post#: 28241--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: Vike
       Date: July 1, 2024, 5:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you both. My point exactly. They accept that payment was
       made and I have re-submitted another appeal even though they say
       that "you have now reached the end of our internal appeals
       procedure." I asked them to please explain how the driver could
       possibly pay a tariff that was not requested by contactless
       card. They did not notice that there was a digit missing from
       the entered VRM same as the driver did not. Apparently there was
       a queue and raining and the driver was trying to be as quick as
       they could. I had already mentioned in the original appeal that
       the driver could not possibly pay anything other that what was
       requested by the machine therefore it was the software that
       requested an incorrect tariff. They have even said that as a
       gesture of goodwill I can pay the discounted charge until
       Wednesday! Maybe I should never have submitted the receipt as it
       was originally thought that the machine was unable to print
       receipts on that day, then the driver found the receipt and we
       assumed it was obviously an erroneously issued PPCN.
       Would redacted copies still help? the name and address has
       already been redacted but the VRN and PCN number still remain.
       Thank you for your help thus far.
       #Post#: 28379--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: Vike
       Date: July 2, 2024, 3:31 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/jGDyhXR.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/ABVHBIL.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/DPMHiVi.jpeg
       #Post#: 28395--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: Vike
       Date: July 2, 2024, 5:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Update
       I have emailed PALS at Chase Farm and attached the PPCN and NOR
       and hope that they can do the same as the Aldi manager  in
       getting the thing cancelled. I'll keep you updated.
       #Post#: 28411--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: sparx
       Date: July 2, 2024, 9:21 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Is this a car park that's also barriered (I.e. you drive up to
       the barrier to exit, using a ticket or automatically through
       ANPR)?
       If so, and it let the car out, surely that could only mean that
       they had paid...
       I feel like there has been a few cases of these automated
       machines going screwy, first
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ecp-parking-pcn-payment-permit-not-enough-cover-treaty-centre-hounslow/<br
       />and I seem to recall another too...
       #Post#: 28465--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: Vike
       Date: July 3, 2024, 9:38 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi again
       No, this is an open air hospital car park that has no barriers
       either in or out.
       In the meantime I have contacted PALS with the following:
       Hello Taurean
       It was a pleasure speaking with you on the phone this morning.
       I have previously spoken to someone at PALS about cancelling the
       charge by Parking Eye as the driver paid for parking according
       to what was requested on the machine.
       I was told to appeal and let them know if the appeal was
       rejected. It was rejected. PE say that they can see that payment
       was made but they say it was insufficient for the period parked.
       The driver can only pay what was requested by the machine and it
       is not possible to manually alter this. The PPCN Ref No is
       ******/****** and the Registration Number is *******
       . Please could PALS investigate this as quickly as possible as
       Parking Eye is saying that we have until Wednesday 3rd to pay
       the discounted charge "as a gesture of goodwill".
       This seems grossly unfair as they accept that payment was made
       but that it was insufficient. My point is that there is no
       option to pay an amount other that what is displayed on the
       machine.  Someone involved was there as a patient at the
       hospital. Thank you for your help in this matter.
       I am attaching a copy the PPCN as well as one of the rejection
       letter and a screen shot of the proof of payment.as requested.
       I hope you can get Parking Eye to cancel this charge as it is
       causing us a great deal of stress on top of the original medical
       issue.
       Thank you for your help in this matter.
       All the best
       Because it took several attempts for this email to reach PALS,
       PE's "gesture of goodwill" to hold the discount for 14 days
       expires today. and when I explained this to PALS it was
       suggested that I appeal to POPLA anyway so that I don't lose the
       discount.
       I have attached the non-redacted versions of the original PPCN,
       the NOR and a screenshot of the contactless payment, but not the
       receipt withe the missing digit.
       Is it not the case that once a POPLA appeal is made you lose the
       discount anyway and the charge reverts to the full amount if the
       appeal is lost?
       What advice would you guys give me. I was hoping not to have to
       go through the POPLA appeal process.
       Thanks again.
       #Post#: 28470--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 3, 2024, 10:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It is not a “discount” but a “bribe” to incentivise you to. It
       bother them with the laborious task of having to waste their
       time rejecting your appeal.
       Whilst you have contacted PALS, if you do not get confirmation
       from them that the PCN has been cancelled then you will need to
       appeal to POPLA. The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the
       date of the initial appeal rejection, not the 28 days mentioned.
       Have you also complained to the CEO of the NHS Trust?
       You should also refer PALS to the NHS car parking guidance 2022
       for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts
  HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles
       #Post#: 28544--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: Vike
       Date: July 3, 2024, 3:59 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you b789. Is there anything specific in the NHS Parking
       Guidance that I can refer PALS to that may help my case?
       It also worries me that I got the impression that PALS won't
       just ask for the charge to be cancelled like the Aldi manager
       did in my last thread, but that they will simply restate my
       appeal to PE and hope that they accept which if they didn't when
       I appealed, why would they do so now?
       #Post#: 28551--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 3, 2024, 4:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It’s for you to read and understand. The bit about
       contracted-out car parking is certainly relevant.
       NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private
       contractors who run car parks on their behalf.
       NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line
       with the relevant codes of practice where applicable.
       Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises
       additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge
       notices only’.
       #Post#: 28626--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: July 4, 2024, 8:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There's no evidence that anything untoward is happening as
       regards the Trust's processes for letting this contract.
       Monitoring/oversight - who knows?
       OP, back to the PCN.
       General:
       Your posts refer to 'I' and 'we'. If it's 'we' pl confirm that
       any appeal would be made by the correct legal entity. Also, as
       you were not apparently driving, what weight could PALS put on
       any claims made by you?
       Some thoughts.
       The car park:
       Is it pay on exit? I ask so that we hear it from you - although
       this could be deduced.
       If POE, then does this operate in the manner suggested i.e. the
       only user input is a VRM?
       If there aren't any barriers on exit then is it possible for a
       driver to enter the wrong VRM, make a payment and still exit?
       The obvious answer is yes, but only if that VRM is still
       on-site. The key here is making a payment. The charge for
       parking is not user-entry, it's a system function and requires
       the system to match its input data(the VRMs recorded as entering
       and being on site) with the data entered into the payment
       system. A correctly functioning system then only has the
       following options:
       1. To notify the user that the entered data are not recognised;
       or
       2. To determine and indicate a payment due as at the time of the
       transaction;
       3. On payment of the indicated sum to produce a receipt(whether
       this requires further user input as in 'do you require a
       receipt' I don't know);
       4. To abort the transaction
       In this case, a receipt was produced - which hasn't been posted-
       which means that the user entry was accepted by the system and
       the full indicated parking tariff paid. The receipt indicates
       that payment was made at 10.40 and subsequent operator data
       shows VRM **** leaving the site at 10.42.
       The tariff paid was £*****. Retrospectively, the tariff board
       has been examined and the correct sum which should have been
       calculated by the payment system was £***** being the advertised
       sum for a stay of 1hr 48minutes i.e. between entry and payment.
       Any variance between the user's payment and a retrospective
       calculation is a fault to be laid at the operator's door i.e.
       they may not visit errors in their charging system on to a user
       but accept responsibility and maintain their equipment to the
       required standard. It is interesting to note that miscalculating
       the tariff was not the system's only fault at that time because
       the receipt produced did not include the full VRM. As explained
       above, this cannot have been the result of user error because
       demand for payment is predicated upon the correct VRM having
       been entered - unless this is another fault with the system i.e.
       calculating random charges based upon the VRM of a vehicle which
       isn't even on site and, as in this case(confirmed by DVLA),
       doesn't even exist.
       OP, what should have been the tariff based upon 1hr 48mins and
       pl post the receipt.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 6
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page