Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?

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.

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.