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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2024, 03:09:27 pm »
Let me know what needs changing and I'll sort it.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #31 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.
Like Like x 1 View List

Parkingchase

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #32 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.




Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #33 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.



b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #34 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?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2024, 02:00:21 am by b789 »
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 #35 on: July 09, 2024, 12:41:59 pm »
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,






b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #36 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]
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 #37 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?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2024, 05:11:14 pm »
Yes. You aim as high up the management food chain as you can get.
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 #39 on: July 09, 2024, 05:26:14 pm »
Thank you email sent.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #40 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.

mickR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #41 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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2024, 09:58:53 am by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #43 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.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Karma: +23/-9
    • View Profile
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm Hospital
« Reply #44 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.