DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 9, 2024, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Which fails to mention that it was the driver's fault that the
wrong VRM was entered! The previous comment regarding inputting
the wrong VRM having no significance could not be further from
the truth IMO. But what's done is done and it might be
sufficient for the CEO to know that the system is fundamentally
flawed.
The DRIVER made a mistake and input the wrong VRM.
There was no such vehicle on site, but despite this the system
demanded a charge of ***. This is a glaring fault.
The only option for the system was to alert the driver to their
error and abort the transaction.
There was no failure to pay the correct tariff for the vehicle
on site i.e. the one whose VRM was captured at entry because a
sum was never demanded for this vehicle, only another fictitious
one.
OP, pl remind us whether you have registered your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 29343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 10, 2024, 3:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@HCA
there you go again making assumptions.
you weren't there so do not know. where is your evidence it was
the OPs fault.
the OP has stated they are sufficiently satisfied they input the
correct VRM but the machine did not register the input
correctly. I personally have had this happen (not at this site)
so is entirely feasible.
I also think its irrelevant if the OP had, as the machine
accepted it. why did the machine not display "vehicle not found"
or "error" if it was entered incorrectly?
The CEOs response will be an interesting read.
#Post#: 29345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2024, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The incorrect VRM entry, whether it happened or not, is
irrelevant. PE have already acknowledged that the driver paid
for parking. They are not accusing the driver of a minor keying
error.
What they are accusing the keeper of, is that they didn’t pay
enough for the period they say they their evidence shows they
were parked for.
The OP has already pointed out the flaw in PEs payment system.
Harping on about how it can only be the drivers fault for having
entered an incorrect or incomplete VRM is obfuscation of the
matter.
#Post#: 29366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 10, 2024, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the VRM is relevant insofar as whether it was down to
user error or system error, the wrong VRM was registered by the
system, which seems to have given rise to the charge as the
system hasn't asked for the . However, as
[member=26]b789[/member] rightly notes, ParkingEye's gripe seems
to be not that the wrong VRM was entered, but that insufficient
payment was made, so focusing on this seems sensible.
#Post#: 29401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 10, 2024, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=75]mickR[/member], a tad harsh!
[member=103]DWMB2[/member].......This problem looks to have been
created by driver error, after they entered the wrong VRM when
seeking to pay - how does payment work at this car park?
[member=75]mickR[/member], who am I to disagree?
The OP posted:
It seems unlikely that the driver entered the wrong VRM.
However, entering is not a one-way process, the machine gives
feedback and the driver has to confirm entry of the correct VRM,
not just initially press buttons but confirm. So, absent other
concrete evidence to the contrary, I stick with my assumption on
the balance of probabilities.
#Post#: 29404--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 10, 2024, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure a protracted debate about whether the VRM error was
caused by user input or system foul-up is of much benefit to the
OP's position. If I were a betting man, I'd wager a character
was missed - the keyboards for input are seldom any good on
those machines so it's easily done. Either way, as has been
mentioned, if the VRM was wrong, the system should not have
demanded a tariff.
But as I noted above, if ParkingEye are focusing on the issue
that sufficient payment was not made, it seems sensible to make
this the focus of any challenge. The driver paid what the system
demanded, with no option to alter the tariff:
- If the VRM entered was correct, then the machine has failed to
collect the correct tariff, through no fault of the driver who
followed all the required steps
- If the VRM was incorrect, then the machine should not have
demanded any tariff, as it would/should have recognised that no
vehicle bearing that registration mark was on-site
#Post#: 29413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2024, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> However, entering is not a one-way process, the machine gives
feedback and the driver has to confirm entry of the correct VRM,
not just initially press buttons but confirm. So, absent other
concrete evidence to the contrary, I stick with my assumption on
the balance of probabilities.
>
--- End Quote ---
How on earth can you state that with certainty that the has to
confirm the entry? It is a bit like a hire company transferring
liability to the "driver" when in fact it is transferring
liability to the hirer.
I have used a similar system similar the one mentioned above at
a hospital. When exiting, the driver starts to enter the VRM and
before completing the entry, the system shows a picture from the
ANPR of the suggested numberplate and the driver simply presses
a red or green button and then the system calculates the fee
due. The driver is acknowledging that the close up photo of the
VRM is correct. The system uses a very simplistic version of AI
or predictive text to bring up the most likely VRM. If the
driver does not agree that the is the correct VRM then the
system will start again.
The driver insists that they entered the correct VRM. PE is not
disputing that fact. Why does HCA presume otherwise as he is
not a direct witness to the fact?
#Post#: 29415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 10, 2024, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I'm not sure a protracted debate about whether the VRM error
was caused by user input or system foul-up is of much benefit to
the OP's position.
>
--- End Quote ---
Let's leave the debate about the VRM.
#Post#: 29537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: Vike
Date: July 11, 2024, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone and thank you all so much for your help,
particularly to [member=26]b789[/member] and
[member=103]DWMB2[/member]
The latest update:
I took a call from Chase Farm Hospital, PALS this morning to
tell me that the PCN in question has now been cancelled.
Whether this was due to my initial email to PALS or whether it
was due to the intervention of the Director of Operations at
Chase Farm (I couldn't reach the CEO of the trust as both
emails I used for him bounced).
In any event a result for logical argument and a win on
principle although the time spent was ridiculous. (I think this
is a lot of what both private parking companies as well as
councils rely on in beating us down, and I've had a few cases of
friends I've tried to help in the past just roll over and pay
the reduced charge).
Now, although the first point of my email (verbatim from
[member=26]b789[/member], thank you.)
1. Intervene to cancel the unjust and incorrectly issued PCN:
Given the clear evidence of compliance and ParkingEye Ltd's
system error.
has been addressed, the second and third points (b789 again) to:
2. Review and amend the contract with ParkingEye Ltd: Ensure it
aligns with NHS guidelines, particularly regarding the
prevention of practices that incentivise unfair charges.
3. Ensure accountability and compliance: Monitor the actions of
ParkingEye Ltd to prevent future occurrences and protect
patients, visitors, and staff from unfair practices.
have not, so far as I have heard.
My final question to the forum is, should I push for a response
from the director of Operations regarding the last two points,
or put it all behind me and move on?
Might they see me as a troublemaker if I need to call on them
again?
I'd be interested in your opinions.
Thanks guys.
#Post#: 29538--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 11, 2024, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whether you take further action is your call. If you've had
confirmation it's been cancelled and want to get on with your
life, fair enough. If you want to continue pushing the matter,
more power to you!
Good result, getting PALS to intervene is always a good option.
Well done!
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page