Author Topic: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital  (Read 455 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2024, 09:47:40 pm by Vike »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 966
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #16 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
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #17 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?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 966
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #18 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’.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #19 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.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 966
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #20 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.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #21 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).

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #22 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!

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 966
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #23 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?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2024, 03:56:40 pm by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2024, 03:58:53 pm »
Which might be something to take to the Trust after the keeper has proved their point.


DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2024, 04:12:43 pm by DWMB2 »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2024, 04:17:06 pm »
Isn't this hypothetical?

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

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 966
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2024, 04:49:30 pm »
Isn't this hypothetical?

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

This is the receipt:



Tha actual reg recored by ANPR is LP16JDK
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #28 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.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2024, 11:28:44 am »
Why can I no longer modify one of my posts to redact personal details, please.