DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40181--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: allondon
Date: October 10, 2024, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There were no "Staff A" or "Staff B" or "Staff C" areas, which
are probably only mapped internally. Barnet hospital parking is
a complex of connected areas of various shapes that you can
drive through. There are areas where the signs say "Staff
Parking. Permit Holders Only" or similar but the area is not
ring-fenced: one side may have a sign and the other does not.
I'm certain that I did not knowingly parked in the staff area,
though I may have driven through them multiple times as it is
one huge parking lot.
Will it be worth to appeal and ask for the evidence of the
actual parking location and the signage there?
Thank you.
#Post#: 40184--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 10, 2024, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They will have no evidence of the actual parking spot you were
parked in. They are relying on ANPR to cover the area they claim
is Staff Car Park C.
It may be useful to confirm beyond any doubt that the area they
came the vehicle was parked is a single entry/exit area and
exactly what the signs at the location show.
#Post#: 40190--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 10, 2024, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suggested initial appeal to PE:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN
Reference Number]
>
> I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in
relation to the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN),
which was issued for an alleged parking contravention at Barnet
Hospital on 30th September. The Notice to Keeper (NtK), dated
7th October, does not provide sufficient evidence of a parking
contravention at a specific location or indicate a clear breach
of terms and conditions.
>
> Grounds for Appeal:
>
> 1. Payment Was Made for Parking:
>
> A payment of £2.15 for parking was made, as reflected in a
bank statement dated 2 October. This payment covered the
appropriate parking duration. The payment was made in accordance
with the pay-on-exit system at the hospital, where the vehicle
registration number is entered, and the fee is calculated
accordingly. The lack of a receipt function at the payment
machines makes it impossible to provide additional
documentation, but the bank statement confirms that the relevant
parking fee was paid.
>
> 2. Confusing Signage and Unclear Markings:
>
> The parking layout at Barnet Hospital consists of a complex
network of interconnected spaces with inconsistent signage.
While some areas are designated for staff parking, these zones
are not clearly separated from public parking areas, and the
signage is not always prominently displayed. Any alleged
contravention would likely be due to the confusing and
inadequate signage rather than a deliberate breach of parking
terms.
>
> 3. Lack of Evidence of a Specific Contravention:
>
> The images provided in the PCN show the vehicle in motion but
do not demonstrate that it was parked in a prohibited area or
indicate the specific location where the alleged contravention
occurred. Without evidence showing a clear breach of parking
terms and conditions, there is no basis for holding the
registered keeper liable for the charge.
>
> 4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA):
>
> The PCN fails to comply with the requirements set out in
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which mandates an explicit invitation for
the registered keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charge or
provide the name and address of the driver. The notice does not
contain any such invitation or equivalent wording. Instead, it
merely outlines the consequences if the charge is not paid,
which does not satisfy the legal requirement. As the registered
keeper, I am not liable under PoFA for this parking charge due
to this non-compliance.
>
> Request for Evidence and Cancellation of the PCN:
>
> In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the
charge be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, I request
the following:
>
> [indent]• Clear evidence of the location where the vehicle was
allegedly parked in breach of terms.
>
> • Photographic evidence of relevant signage in the area,
showing the restrictions in place.
>
> • A copy of the parking terms and conditions applicable at the
time of the alleged contravention.
>
> • A detailed explanation of how the charge is justified
despite the payment made.[/indent]
>
> If the appeal is not upheld, please provide a POPLA code so
that I may escalate this matter to the independent appeals
service.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 40208--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: allondon
Date: October 10, 2024, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent text - my own draft goes to the Recycle Bin.
However, it seems that the PCN wording in section Protection Of
Freedoms Act is compliant with PoFA 2012, or am I missing
something?
How biased is POPLA? I expect ParkingEye to reject any appeal
and by applying to POPLA I forfeit the option of a reduced
penalty.
Many thanks.
#Post#: 40212--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They're better than the IAS, but they're not brilliant. It's
your money, so your choice, but I usually take the view that if
I feel I don't owe the money, I run the argument as far as I
need to, up until court if necessary. I'd never rely on a POPLA
decision - they can be unpredictable. It's also impossible for
us to offer much steer with the current information - we'd need
to see the signage etc.
#Post#: 40216--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: allondon
Date: October 10, 2024, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
I may try to find the parking location and if successful - will
add pictures.
#Post#: 40221--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 10, 2024, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: allondon link ---
>
> However, it seems that the PCN wording in section Protection
Of Freedoms Act is compliant with PoFA 2012, or am I missing
something?
>
--- End Quote ---
Have a read of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA and show me where
there is an invitation or anything that means the same as
"invites" the keeper to pay the charge.
PoFA 2012
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
Here is a little précis I wrote a while ago that explains the
failure:
--- Quote ---
> PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failures
>
> Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
>
> This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold
the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
>
> [indent]An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly
invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.[/indent]
>
> Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation
and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.
The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice
non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
>
> Non-Compliance Issue
>
> If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or
any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach
of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests
that payment is required, without an explicit invitation
directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice
does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
>
> Significance of Full Compliance
>
> Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance
with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.
>
> Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the
notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of
a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw.
The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial
compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must
be present and correct.
>
> Consequences for the Operator
>
> Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial
element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking
charge.
>
> Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to
the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice
to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the
driver is unknown.
>
> Conclusion
>
> In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit
"invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully
compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012.
Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if
minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any
obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal
response to the charge.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 40223--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the car park is split I to sections monitored by different
ANPR cameras, photos indicating the whole layout and the
different areas would be useful, not just the ones for the
section the vehicle was in during the indicated times.
#Post#: 40229--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: allondon
Date: October 10, 2024, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with b789 - PCN invites the driver to pay the charge
without mentioning the keeper at all.
As for the car park layout - there are certainly multiple
cameras as my entry time known to the parking machine was
earlier than the one on the PCN. Unfortunately, Streetview does
not show beyond car park entrance, so I will need to get there
and retrace my journey.
Thanks everyone, very much appreciated.
#Post#: 40310--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
DIR By: allondon
Date: October 11, 2024, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought this may be of interest to share...
This morning I left my car on an unrestricted street and
attempted to find the parking location at Barnet hospital. I
walked to the area that looked familiar and took some pictures
(added to imgur).
At the entrance the only Staff Parking sign is when turning
left. There is no sign when you turn right, however the row on
the right side has a sign and the row on the left has none. I
believe this is where I was parked (see the spaces between the
dark coloured vehicles). This area is drive-through and connects
to the next set of parking spaces.
I was pretty sure ParkingEye would reject the "no signage"
argument or even add the sign if they see the pictures,
but...surprise, surprise...
... when I got home, I found an email response from Royal Free
Parking Team saying that they cancelled the charge as a goodwill
and ParkingEye will confirm this to me in the next few days.
I only wrote to them yesterday and I can't believe they actually
read mails and employ sensible staff!
Happy end (if ParkingEye can't overturn this decision).
Thanks everyone.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page