3. ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN  (Read 3052 times)

0 Members and 133 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #15 on: »
Thanks.
I may try to find the parking location and if successful - will add pictures.
Logged
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #16 on: »
Quote from: allondon on October 10, 2024, 03:54:50 pm
However, it seems that the PCN wording in section Protection Of Freedoms Act is compliant with PoFA 2012, or am I missing something?

Have a read of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA and show me where there is an invitation or anything that means the same as "invites" the keeper to pay the charge.

PoFA 2012

Here is a little précis I wrote a while ago that explains the failure:

Quote
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failures

Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

Consequences for the Operator

Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.

Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.

Conclusion

In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #17 on: »
If the car park is split I to sections monitored by different ANPR cameras, photos indicating the whole layout and the different areas would be useful, not just the ones for the section the vehicle was in during the indicated times.
Logged
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #18 on: »
I agree with b789 - PCN invites the driver to pay the charge without mentioning the keeper at all.

As for the car park layout - there are certainly multiple cameras as my entry time known to the parking machine was earlier than the one on the PCN. Unfortunately, Streetview does not show beyond car park entrance, so I will need to get there and retrace my journey.

Thanks everyone, very much appreciated.
Logged
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #19 on: »
I thought this may be of interest to share...

This morning I left my car on an unrestricted street and attempted to find the parking location at Barnet hospital. I walked to the area that looked familiar and took some pictures (added to imgur).

At the entrance the only Staff Parking sign is when turning left. There is no sign when you turn right, however the row on the right side has a sign and the row on the left has none. I believe this is where I was parked (see the spaces between the dark coloured vehicles). This area is drive-through and connects to the next set of parking spaces.

I was pretty sure ParkingEye would reject the "no signage" argument or even add the sign if they see the pictures, but...surprise, surprise...

... when I got home, I found an email response from Royal Free Parking Team saying that they cancelled the charge as a goodwill and ParkingEye will confirm this to me in the next few days.
I only wrote to them yesterday and I can't believe they actually read mails and employ sensible staff!

Happy end (if ParkingEye can't overturn this decision).

Thanks everyone.
Logged
Winner Winner x 1 View List
Re: ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN
« Reply #20 on: »
We see mixed results with NHS teams, some trusts are better than others, but they should be helpful to genuine patients.

Good to see they seem to have been in this case!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. ParkingEye-Barnet Hospital-PCN