Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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.

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,

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?

Thank you email sent.

@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.

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.