Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Vike on June 08, 2024, 06:25:27 pm

Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 12, 2024, 12:45:29 am
As always, Plan A is worth the effort. Judging from the first response you received from PALS, I suspect that the email higher up the Trust management food chain and a reminder about the Trusts responsibilities with regard to contracted out private parking, filtered back down to PALS.

God news for you OP.  If you feel you have the time and energy, there can be no comeback on you for pressing the Trust Managment about the problems this flawed system is causing you and no doubt many other visitors to the hospital. We already have another case at the same location.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 11, 2024, 07:42:20 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!
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 11, 2024, 07:32:13 pm
Hi everyone and thank you all so much for your help, particularly to @b789 and @DWMB2

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 @b789, 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.





Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 10, 2024, 05:22:22 pm
Quote from: DWMB2 on July 10, 2024, 04:47:37 pm
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.
Let's leave the debate about the VRM.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 10, 2024, 05:15:56 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on July 10, 2024, 04:29:06 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 10, 2024, 04:47:37 pm
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:

Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 10, 2024, 04:29:06 pm


@mickR, a tad harsh!

@DWMB2.......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?


@mickR, 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 10, 2024, 11:14:08 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 @b789 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 10, 2024, 09:54:01 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: mickR on July 10, 2024, 09:42:02 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 09, 2024, 07:04:08 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 09, 2024, 05:26:14 pm
Thank you email sent.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 09, 2024, 05:11:14 pm
Yes. You aim as high up the management food chain as you can get.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 09, 2024, 05:09:30 pm
Thank you b789

As the email for Pete Landstom bounced, while I find the correct one for him, would it be fortuitous to send the email you drafted to Rachel Anticoni, the director of operations from whom I did receive a read receipt?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 09, 2024, 02:42:09 pm
The CEO of the Trust should have been corresponded with separately from PALS. Any correspondence should be formal. No "Hi" and no "All the best". These are not your pals and if they fob you off, any luvvy duvvy interaction is wasted.

This is something that should be sent to the CEO of the Trust:

Peter Landstrom
Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust

Dear Mr Landstrom,

Subject: Urgent Attention Required - Unfair Parking Charge Notice Issued by ParkingEye Ltd

I am writing to bring to your attention an issue regarding the management of the car park at Chase Farm Hospital, Enfield, which is contracted out to ParkingEye Ltd. As the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number [Vehicle Registration Number], I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that I believe was issued unfairly due to a failure in the payment system managed by ParkingEye Ltd.

Background

On 31st May 2024, the vehicle in question entered the car park at 08:52 and exited at 10:42, as recorded by the ANPR system. On exit, as required, the driver made the payment at 10:39, which was calculated by ParkingEye Ltd’s automated system. Despite the actual parking duration being 1 hour and 50 minutes, the system incorrectly charged for only 1 hour. Consequently, a PCN was issued for alleged underpayment.

Issue

The driver had no control over the amount calculated by the automated payment system and paid the amount requested. The receipt for the payment and the entry and exit times demonstrate compliance with the parking terms. ParkingEye Ltd ignored these facts in their response to the appeal, failing to acknowledge the system error.

NHS Parking Guidelines

I refer you to the NHS Patient, Visitor and Staff Car Parking Principles, specifically the section on "Contracted-out car parking", which states:

1. NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.
2. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable.
3. Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’.**

Breaches of BPA Code of Practice

ParkingEye Ltd’s actions also breach several sections of the BPA Code of Practice:

1. Section 23: Unfair handling of the appeal by ignoring the automated payment system error.
2. Section 20: Issuing a PCN based on a payment system error that was out of the control of the driver, misleading the consumer.

Breaches of Consumer Rights Act 2015

ParkingEye Ltd’s actions also contravene several sections of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

1. Section 49: The service must be performed with reasonable care and skill. ParkingEye Ltd failed to ensure their automated payment system accurately calculated the correct parking fee.
2. Section 50: Information provided about the payment process and parking charges was not accurate, as the system incorrectly calculated the fee.
3. Section 62: The terms should be fair. Imposing a penalty for an underpayment caused by ParkingEye Ltd’s own system error is to be considered unfair.

Request for Action

As the contracting authority, the NHS Trust is jointly and severally responsible for ensuring that ParkingEye Ltd operates in accordance with the NHS guidelines, relevant codes of practice and consumer protection laws. I urge you to:

1. Intervene to cancel the unjust and incorrectly issued PCN: Given the clear evidence of compliance and ParkingEye Ltd's system error.
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.

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 09, 2024, 12:41:59 pm
Quote from: b789 on July 09, 2024, 01:57:53 am
What response, if any, have you had from the CEO of the Trust?

I have just forwarded the following email to PALS, and added the email addresses of the CEO and The Director of Operation of the trust, The email of the CEO bounced but I have a read receipt from Rachel Anticoni:

Hi Taurean
Hope you’re well.
Unfortunately, I have still not had a notice of cancellation from Parking Eye regarding this Charge.

May I please re-iterate the following:

There was no option for the driver to change or alter the amount requested, so paid that amount and left. There was nothing else that the driver could do.

From what can be adduced, the operator’s system has failed to calculate the correct fee. It is not the driver’s fault that their system has failed. The driver cannot purchase the “appropriate time” because it is the operator’s payment system that determines the appropriate time.

Any alleged breach of contract was frustrated by the operator.
Please would you make this clear to Parking Eye and please would you also pass this on to Pete Landstrom, the CEO of the Trust and/or Rachel Anticoni, the director of operations, if the emails for them are not correct.

Thank you so much for your help.

All the best,





Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 09, 2024, 01:57:53 am
It is going to be a POPLA appeal. The PCN is for either (?) “not purchasing the appropriate time” or “remaining at the car park for longer than permitted”.

So, which is it? The operator has not shown what precise term the driver has breached. The keeper has explained that the driver made a payment on exit, which the operator has conceded actually happened but the operators payment system automatically calculated the payment requested.

All this faff about the keying error is irrelevant.

There was no option for the driver to change or alter the amount requested, so paid that amount and left. There was nothing else that the driver could do.

From what can be adduced, the operators system has failed to calculate the correct fee. It is not the drivers fault that their system has failed. The driver cannot purchase the “appropriate time” because it is the operators payment system that determines the appropriate time.

Any alleged breach of contract was frustrated by the operator. PALS should have that clearly explained to them and they need to own that fact.

What response, if any, have you had from the CEO of the Trust?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 08, 2024, 11:23:25 pm
Hi Parkingchase et al

Let me clear up a few point that was originally my fault for causing confusion.

It was originally thought that the payment machine on that day was unable to print receipts.

Proof of payment was however available as a contactless payment was made by phone.

When the keeper went to appeal the ticket a receipt for the transaction was found and this was uploaded to the PE website as proof that payment had indeed been made for that VRN.

It was not until the appeal was rejected that, thinking that it was an open and shut case the receipt was checked again and it was noticed that a digit was missing from the printed VRM. EITHER The driver had inadvertently missed out a digit OR, MORE LIKELY the input of the J was not registered by the machine. It seems unlikely that the driver entered the wrong VRM.

Clearly what HC Andersen has outlined above is true. The function and algorithm of the payment machine should be:

1. To notify the user that the entered data is OR is NOT recognised; or IF recognised
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 if the user indicates that they require one;
4. To abort the transaction IF The input of the VRM is not recognised as a VRM that is on site and if this is the case to inform the user that "VRM not recognised, please check your Registration Number.

Clearly this is not how the algorithm has been set up and therefore the payment machine requested payment for one hour's parking for a VRM that does not exist OR was never on site. It then accepted and printed a receipt for payment with the same non-existent VRM.

When the appeal was rejected, PE said that they can see that a payment was made but that it was INSUFFICIENT for the period parked.

They did NOT mention that Payment was made for a different VRM as they themselves did not notice that there was a missing digit to the VRM that the ANPR captured.

BTW the payment that should have been requested for the period parked was £3.20 as it was up to 2 hours. Even if the driver had noticed this, there is NO OPTION to alter the payment and why would they?

Do you think that I, as the registered keeper should now just make the appeal to POPLA within the statutory time frame by repeating what I have said above while still waiting for PALS to get the ticket cancelled or should I re-email PALS with this first and add that the trust's contracted operator is using a payment system not fit for purpose?

Is what I have said above, originally outlined by by H C Andersen, sufficient for an appeal to POPLA or should it be framed in different wording or "legalese" and/or anything added?

Thank you all for your input.


Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Parkingchase on July 08, 2024, 10:07:21 pm
Hi Vike,

And FTLA community. Wanted to let you know a very similar case happened but in carpark 3 at Chase Farm hospital. I will make a separate post. Also parking eye, also no option for printable receipt and card payment out of order.



Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 08, 2024, 09:42:24 pm
Hello DWMB2

The post that needs modifying is the 4th one in this thread dated: June 29, 2024, 05:58:39 pm.

Please would you be able to remove the PCN Reference number and the VRM as it was put in thinking that only the name and address needed to be redacted. The content of the rejection was copied and pasted as I could not load the image at the time.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 07, 2024, 03:09:27 pm
Let me know what needs changing and I'll sort it.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 06, 2024, 11:28:44 am
Why can I no longer modify one of my posts to redact personal details, please.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 09:45:47 pm
So, was LP16DK on site? Where's the operator's evidence? Of course the system could accept payment for LP16DK because it doesn't know that it wasn't the driver of LP16DK who input the VRM, however, unless it had recorded LP16DK as entering the site and not leaving before the user entered this VRM then the system's ONLY option was to abort.

OP, stick with evidence and logical deductions pl.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 04, 2024, 04:49:30 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 04:17:06 pm
Isn't this hypothetical?

OP, pl post the receipt and confirm the tariff options.

This is the receipt:

(https://i.imgur.com/8d8L88S.jpeg)

Tha actual reg recored by ANPR is LP16JDK
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 04:17:06 pm
Isn't this hypothetical?

OP, pl post the receipt and confirm the tariff options.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 04, 2024, 04:10:56 pm
Quote
The driver could not have entered the wrong VRM
Should not have been able to, but has been able to because ParkingEye's system is crap.

Given that none of the 4 "system responses" you have listed seem to have actually happened, it seems the system also has an option of "Charge the minimum tariff if VRM isn't on site". Such a system is clearly rubbish, and this shouldn't happen, but it clearly can and has here. I don't think this at all weakens the OP's argument that the system has led to a charge being issued when it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 03:58:53 pm
Which might be something to take to the Trust after the keeper has proved their point.

Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 04, 2024, 03:54:55 pm
And the argument could be that the NHS Trust has allowed an unregulated private parking company to install an unreliable system that can entrap patients/visitors.

Contracted-out car parking

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’.

The NHS Trust is responsible for the actions of this operator. They  should take ownership of the fact that the system is not fit for purpose if it allows the input of a VRM that has not been captured on entry. They are also responsible for the system then taking a payment that cannot be changed even though there is no record of that VRM in the system.

PE is one of the many "rogue" operators referred to in parliament. They must accept responsibility for allowing this operator to install a system that is obviously flawed.

To who does the parking charge amount go to? PE or the NHS Trust?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 03:54:01 pm
The driver could not have entered the wrong VRM:

The only system responses to any input are:

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

None applies.

A wrong VRM means a non-existent car that isn't on site and therefore doesn't have an input time. The only option is for the system to abort, it is not to carry out a fuzzy search, look for the closest match, use this, calculate and accept payment and then have second thoughts!
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 04, 2024, 03:40:50 pm
Just rowing back here slightly... ParkingEye are likely to focus on the fact that the driver made an error I putting the VRM. This doesn't seem to be disputed, so the OP should make sure they have a plan for addressing this (which I think HC's point above does - a decent pay on exit system wouldn't allow payment to be made for a vehicle that isn't on site).

The only reason I mention this is that simply "the system is at fault, not the user" invites a reply of "But the user did make an error" (albeit one that a decent system could and should prevent).
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 04, 2024, 03:30:42 pm
In other words... the system is at fault, not the user.  ::)

Complain to PALS and the NHS Trust CEO to get this cancelled. Point out that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents and therefore a faulty system or one that allows their agent to wrongfully issue PCNs is at odds with the guidelines for private parking operators at NHS Trust sites.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: H C Andersen on July 04, 2024, 02:58:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 03, 2024, 10:23:33 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’.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 03, 2024, 09:59:02 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?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 03, 2024, 04:05:49 pm
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 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles)
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 03, 2024, 03:38:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: sparxy on July 03, 2024, 03:21:02 am
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 https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ecp-parking-pcn-payment-permit-not-enough-cover-treaty-centre-hounslow/ and I seem to recall another too...
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 02, 2024, 11:23:54 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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 02, 2024, 09:31:34 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/jGDyhXR.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ABVHBIL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DPMHiVi.jpeg)
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on July 01, 2024, 11:28:40 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.



Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on July 01, 2024, 12:45:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on July 01, 2024, 09:31:44 am
I'm waiting for Vike to redact some personal info on the notices, then I'll add them to the thread.

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?
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 30, 2024, 11:25:29 pm
Thank you

(https://imgur.com/a/FjbZQ9J)
(https://imgur.com/a/LuUXWgQ)

I've pmd you.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on June 30, 2024, 10:40:29 pm
If you're struggling PM me with a link to the Imgur pages and I'll stick the BBcodes on here for you.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 30, 2024, 10:38:57 pm
Thanks b789, but every time I try to embed the jpgs from imagur they never seem to show here. In fact the ones from my other thread one of the moderators had to sort it.

Let me try again and see what's going on.

Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: b789 on June 30, 2024, 12:24:41 am
Without expecting us to download the PDFs, you could simply convert them into jpg images and then host them on imgur.com, preferably following the instructions in the HELP thread and embedding them in the thread rather than forcing us to open the images on imgur.com
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 29, 2024, 07:51:24 pm
Let's try this for the pdfs:
http://www.skphotography.co.uk/HD/Pepipoo/ParkingEyeChaseFarmPCNRedacted.pdf
http://www.skphotography.co.uk/HD/Pepipoo/Receipt_ChaseFarm.pdf
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 29, 2024, 05:58:39 pm
Update. We did find a receipt for the payment which was uploaded to Parking Eye. I have just checked their website fully expecting the PCN to be cancelled to be cancelled. Instead I find a rejection of the appeal with a POPLA code.

As I have never been able to attach any PDFs to this site I'm copying and pasting the contents instead:

20 June 2024

Reference: Parking Charge Notice -  POPLA Ref:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 31 May 2024 at 10:42, at
Chase Farm Hospital, Enfield - Patient & Visitor 2 car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal and can see that a payment to park was made on
the date of the event. Unfortunately, the tariff purchased was insufficient and did not cover the
entire duration of the stay. The terms and conditions and tariffs are outlined on the signage which
are on display throughout the car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now
reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an independent
appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a
British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be
found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman- services.org/)
provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your
appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.
As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the driver can
appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).

As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date
of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you will not be able to pay the discounted amount
in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge will be outstanding. In
addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you will no longer be able to pay the discounted
amount and the full value of the charge will be due.

A payment  can  be  made  by  telephoning  0330  555  4444,  by  visiting
www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to Parkingeye Ltd,
PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference number on the reverse of any
cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated.

If you have received this correspondence via email, please allow 24 hours for our systems to
reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated payment line or website.

Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ


Yours faithfully, Parkingeye Team

How can they possibly turn down the appeal since the driver paid what was asked for on the screen by contactless card.

PS today I rechecked the payment receipt and only just noticed that  one of the digits for the VRN  is missing.

Again though, with these payment machines you type in the VRN then select it when it comes up and confirm that that is your Registration Number.

PE clearly didn't notice that the receipt VRN printout did not match the reg number on the PCN just as the driver did not not. but again, the driver can only pay what is displayed on the screen.

I am now going to ask PALS at the hospital to intervene as they told me that I should wait to see if the appeal was rejected then call them back.

In your experience, how can they reject the appeal while admitting in the letter that the charge was paid according to what was requested?

Do I really need to go to POLA to cancel this?

Thanks again for your help and please can you look into why my images from Imagur cannot be displayed here.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 08, 2024, 07:25:39 pm
Thanks @DWMB2

I'll upload as soon as I can and I'll contact PALS on Monday.
Title: Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: DWMB2 on June 08, 2024, 06:32:00 pm
Parking Charges are like London buses  ;)

Yes, show us the documents. A copy of the receipt you mention might be useful too.

Before we get on to appeals, speak to the PALS department at the hospital, assuming someone involved was there to use/visit the hospital.
Title: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
Post by: Vike on June 08, 2024, 06:25:27 pm
You guys are going to think that I'm going out of my way to get PCNs just so I can appeal them: This is the 2nd PE charge that I have received as the registered keeper of this vehicle in the last month!

This time the driver entered the car park at Chase Park Hospital in Enfield and left an hour and fifty minutes later on 31st May 24.

Today I received a Parking charge from PE presumably for non payment. On checking the driver's phone we can see that there are two payments to Royal Free Radio(?)  both for £2.15, one for 29th May and one for 31st May, therefore payment was made for both parking sessions. We also have a printed receipt for payment on 29th May but not for 31st May. The driver states that the payment machine was not able to print receipts on 31st May and did not want to take time inputting an email address for a receipt so having confirmed that payment on the phone had been authorised believed that that was sufficient as proof of payment. The only thing to note is that although proof of payment is available on the device, there is no proof of which VRN this payment refers to.

I'm here again to seek advice as I am definitely going to appeal this as I refuse to pay PE on top of what has already been paid.

Is this simply a case of appealing to PE and expecting this charge to be cancelled once proof of payment is submitted or will they dispute the fact that we have no proof of the VRN and saying that the wrong vehicle may have been paid for. What proof can we get now that parking has already been paid, no receipts could be printed, and no email receipt requested.

Do I need to upload the PCN as usual or is this more straightforward?

Thank you guys for any advice. I promise I'm not deliberately collecting PCNs!