Registering on terminal not working -- twice |
Registering on terminal not working -- twice |
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 22:03
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Here's my appeal for my second PCN in two visits to the dentist.
I might accept once as being a mistake on entry, but twice -- especially as I was very careful -- is ridiculous. QUOTE This is the second PCN I've received in two visits to the dentist, despite entering my vehicle details correctly on the terminal in the surgery on both occasions. There is clearly a fault with the registration system recording the vehicle details. I refer to previous PCN xxxxxxxxx. Last time, you refused the appeal, and told me I must pay it anyway (I have not and will not). This time, it's abundantly clear that the registration system is not working and therefore I expect both PCNs to be cancelled by you. I have also complained to XXXXX Dental, and was told that even the staff have received PCNs, which is clearly ridiculous. I've ignored the repeated debt collection letters from the first PCN after they rejected my appeal. It's the careless automated type, that starts serious but gets friendlier and reduces the amount as time goes on and they "sell" the debt "cheap" to another agency with a very similar address and reduce the amount "owed". I like to collect the letters, and see how long they keep it up. Usually it's about a year or so before they just stop sending them. The previous one is still going! I'm hoping they see sense and cancel both, to be honest. The system they use at the dentist is a dumb terminal, with no images, whereas the system at my gym is more comprehensive, you enter your reg and select the image of your car, so there's less possibility of making mistakes. This post has been edited by baldmosher: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 22:04 -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 - 22:03
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 3 Mar 2021 - 20:29
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Dentist again refusing to get involved - "the parking company manages the car park, it's nothing to do with us" Well someone is principal to the parking contract... It may not be the dentist - but CEL won't own the land for sure. 1. On a separate visit on a later date, I took a photo of the signage outside, and entered my reg no again, and reeived another PCN. Is this second visit relevant to my defence of the first PCN? I would like to demonstrate the pattern with their obviously unreliable logging system. Your Witness Statement can talk to it. 2. Can I put in a Letter of Claim for damages for harassment against the dentist to make them sit up and take notice? Am I wasting my time there? Could I win a case even if the court sides with CELtd? Well the principal can be liable for their agent's actions (by they give them an indemnity). The usual way is your costs with a favourable judgment, but these are limited unless you can show unreasonable behaviour. 3. Is the "proof of demonstrable loss" defence relevant any more? Or does Beavis justify levying of management charges for noncompliance now? Realistically 'Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss' is dead. I have another appointment on Thursday, so I'm actually hoping that they send me another PCN, this time I'll be ready with my camera to take a photo of the screen saying my parking is authorised in my defence for this case!! It's worth being paranoid - I take photo's of these screens too! This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 - 20:29 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 10:31
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Thanks again for input -- I still am going for the system being unfit for purpose, rather than any legal technicalities, as that seems to be the truth of the matter!!
Defence statement (if that's what it's called) laid out as follows. Honestly the info from the court is pretty shabby -- no indication whether I'm supposed to serve this on the claimant, just that the claimant needs to serve me! QUOTE 1. I dispute the debt because I complied with the contract. 2. The terms of the contract are clearly stated on signage in the car park. 3. The terms of the contract are that the car park is for “permit holders only” and that “patients/visitors must obtain a permit using the touch screen at reception” and that if the reader breaches these terms they “will be charged £100” (see enclosed evidence). 4. It is not possible to pay for parking, therefore the car park must be free of charge for patients and visitors who accept and comply with the displayed terms and conditions. 5. I have enclosed evidence of my dental appointment at this date and time. 6. I confirm that I attended the surgery, at this date and time, as a patient. 7. The vehicle entered the car park immediately before the appointment. 8. The vehicle registration number was entered carefully and correctly in the terminal in the dentist surgery reception area. 9. The terminal is a touch screen device, and no physical permit can ever be issued (e.g. a printed receipt), and therefore the contract is impossible. 10. There is no instruction on the signage, nor verbal guidance from the surgery staff, for visitors or patients to obtain, or retain, their own evidence of registration. 11. Confirmation that “we have issued a permit for Reg. No. XXXXXX” was displayed momentarily on screen and therefore I believe a permit was issued for parking. 12. The vehicle exited the car park immediately after the appointment. 13. The terms and conditions of parking were met, to the fullest extent possible, and the vehicle remained in the car park no longer than necessary to attend the appointment. 14. I received a Parking Charge Notice on XXX XXXX 2019 claiming that I had breached the terms and conditions of parking. 15. The response to my appeal from the claimant on XX XXXXX 2019 states that there is no record of the vehicle being registered as instructed (enclosed evidence). 16. After a separate visit to the surgery on XX XXXXXX 2020, I received a further PCN, in similar circumstances, with a different vehicle registration number (XXXXXXX). 17. I wrote to the surgery in XXXXX 2020 to ask them to cancel the charge, highlighting the two erroneous PCNs received. 18. The surgery states that they have “no control over the car park” (see enclosed email response from XXX XXXXXX 2020). 19. I have been advised verbally by the surgery reception staff that this is a common occurrence, and that the surgery staff have also received PCNs from the claimant. 20. The logging system appears to suffer from recurring errors. 21. On a separate visit to the surgery on XX XXXXXXX 2021, I took photographs of the screen, while registering both correct and incorrect registration numbers, to observe the difference. 22. Entering a correct registration on the terminal showed the full vehicle details (make, model, trim). This did not happen when using the terminal previously. This leads me to believe that the system may have been recently upgraded. 23. Entering an incorrect registration on the terminal also shows that a permit has been issued. 24. I watched another patient enter their registration on the terminal and it shows no details about the vehicle. This leads me to believe that the system performs unreliably or inconsistently. Wondering whether on a technical point, the "you will be charged" part of the terms is a way out...! How much evidence can I ask them to provide in a SAR? Surely they can't provide me with the full vehicle logs? Can I ask them to provide me with the number of PCNs issued by the system per day to indicate that this may be a common recurrent error? It isn't really possible to prove a negative -- hence the claimant stating "we have no record" and not denying the possibility of an error. This post has been edited by baldmosher: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 10:45 -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 10:53
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
Is this car park only for the Dentist?
If so, has a complaint been made to the Practice Manager? |
|
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 10:54
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Yes, only for the surgery.
Yes, complained by email. They get this a lot. QUOTE Thank you for your email, we do sincerely apologise but it is unfortunately out of our hands .
You would have to take this up with the company, we have no control over the car park. Kind Regards, XXXXXXXX Dental Practice. This post has been edited by baldmosher: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 10:55 -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 11:44
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,074 Joined: 17 Nov 2015 Member No.: 80,686 |
There may be different software or indeed hardware in use, but at my workplace the PE entry pad DOES bring up the make and model of the reg entered- in considerable detail.
When it doesn't it is usually (but not always) due to a keying error. |
|
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 - 11:46
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
When it doesn't it is usually (but not always) due to a minor keying error. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 8 Mar 2021 - 14:20
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 116 Joined: 2 Dec 2020 Member No.: 110,817 |
Beavis may not apply, it was found not to apply to a residential permit for example, you did not deprive the parking company of revenue. Also 'permit' is the operative term here I guess.
Jopson v Homeguard |
|
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2021 - 23:47
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Beavis may not apply, it was found not to apply to a residential permit for example, you did not deprive the parking company of revenue. Also 'permit' is the operative term here I guess. Jopson v Homeguard I'm reading through that -- a couple of relevant points but it's a different situation. However, it's also different to Beavis, that much is true. "This is not a simple case of parking without permission on somebody else’s property having seen a notice imposing financial conditions for doing so (as in the recent decision of the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis [2015])." -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 - 01:04
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Do I need to submit my defence/response to the court & the claimant? Or is that instruction only for the claimant to issue it to me?
-------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Tue, 11 May 2021 - 17:16
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Thanks all for input.
I spent £2 unpaid postage fee to get a letter delivered that was improperly franked. Turns out, it was a final attempt to offer a settlement, and it arrived through the door on the very same day as the follow up letter informing me that the court claim has been cancelled. So that was nice! -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Tue, 11 May 2021 - 18:20
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Bill them for the £2!
|
|
|
Wed, 12 May 2021 - 07:57
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Bill them for the £2! Heh. (Are you being serious?) If they chase up the other PCN, I'll be counter claiming for harassment. Suspect they'll just quietly drop that now though. -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Wed, 12 May 2021 - 10:23
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Breach of DPA etc. Harassment is tricky to prove.
Serious. They're responsible for postage. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 18:22
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Unexpectedly received a court claim through for the second PCN.
I've copy & pasted the majority of my previous defence so at least I've not put much more effort into defending it this time....! Seriously considering a counter claim for harrassment (and the £2 unpaid postage) but I just can't be bothered. This thread was very useful to me, so thanks everyone: http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t124565.html QUOTE 1. I dispute the debt because I complied with the contract and the
PCN was incorrectly and unfairly issued. 2. The terms of the contract are clearly stated on signage in the car park: that the car park is for “permit holders only” and that “patients/visitors must obtain a permit using the touch screen at reception” and that if the reader breaches these terms they “will be charged £100”. It is impossible to pay for parking, therefore the car park is assumed to be free of charge for patients and visitors who accept and comply with the displayed terms and conditions and receive a permit for entering their vehicle registration. 3. I have evidence of my dental appointment at this date and time. I confirm that I attended the surgery, at this date and time, as a patient. The vehicle entered the car park immediately before the appointment. 4. The vehicle registration number was entered carefully and correctly in the terminal in the dentist surgery reception area, as instructed. Confirmation that “we have issued a permit for Reg. No. XXXXXXX” was displayed momentarily on screen. 5. The vehicle exited the car park immediately after the appointment. The terms and conditions of parking were met, to the fullest extent possible, and the vehicle remained in the car park no longer than necessary to attend the appointment. 6. There is no instruction on the signage, nor verbal guidance from the surgery staff, for visitors or patients to retain evidence of registration for the permit. The terminal is a touch screen device, and no physical permit can ever be issued (e.g. a printed receipt), and therefore I argue that the contract is impossible and unfair. 7. This is not a simple case of parking without permission on somebody else’s property having seen a notice imposing financial conditions for doing so (as in the recent decision of the Supreme Court ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]). 8. I received a Parking Charge Notice on 15th January 2020 claiming that I had breached the terms and conditions of parking. The response to my appeal received from the claimant on 28th January 2020 states that there is no record of the vehicle being registered as instructed. Their response does not acknowledge the possibility of system error, but this evidence shows that the system performs unreliably. 9. I made a separate visit to the surgery in July 2019. The vehicle registration was entered exactly as before, and a visual “permit” was issued exactly as before. I received a PCN from that visit, and the claimant cancelled the claim prior to the court date. This shows that they agree that the system performs unreliably. 10. On this visit in January 2020, I took photographs of the signage as evidence for defending the previous PCN received in July 2019. The vehicle registration number was entered into the terminal exactly as before, but this time, with great care. The visual “permit” was displayed on screen. This shows that the system performs unreliably. 11. I complained by telephone to the surgery reception staff, and I was told that this is a common complaint, and informed that the surgery staff have also received PCNs from the claimant. This shows that the system performs unreliably. 12. I wrote by email to the surgery in February 2020 to ask them to cancel both charges, highlighting the erroneous PCNs received. The surgery replied to state that they have “no control over the car park”. 13. I wrote again to Civil Enforcement Ltd in March 2020 to suggest that a system error or minor keying error may have occurred. They confirmed again that there is no record of the vehicle being registered as instructed, nor any “similar” number on that date. Their response did not acknowledge or address the possibility of system error. 14. On a separate visit to the surgery on 4th March 2021, I took photographs of the terminal, while registering both correct and incorrect registration numbers, and observed a third party entering their registration number, to note any differences. 15. Entering my correct registration on the terminal showed the permit issued for parking with my full vehicle details (make, model, trim). This feature was not observed when using the terminal at any of my previous visits. This shows that the system performs unreliably. 16. Entering an incorrect registration on the terminal shows that a permit has been issued for that vehicle, despite the vehicle not being in the car park. This shows that the system performs unreliably. 17. I watched another patient enter their registration on the terminal, and it displayed that the permit had been issued, with no associated vehicle details. This shows that the system performs unreliably. 18. When the system performs unreliably, and fails to record a permit, the claimant directly benefits, generating £100 revenue. The claimant has provided no evidence to show that the system works reliably, they are under no obligation to do so, and the surgery is unwilling to become involved on behalf of their patients. 19. I believe that pursuing erroneous claims to court and then cancelling the claim at the last moment constitutes harrassment. I have spent many hours of my own time researching and gathering evidence to defend the previous claim and now this claim, plus the distress caused. 20. I had to pay a £2 unpaid postage charge to receive the cancellation notice for the previous PCN. This post has been edited by baldmosher: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 18:48 -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 20:19
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 Member No.: 17,593 |
Can we find out whether it was the surgery that engaged the parking company? If so, the OP should remind the surgery they are responsible for the actions of their agent and may be named in any action against the PPC
|
|
|
Sat, 30 Oct 2021 - 21:45
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Harassment - tricky. DPA 2018 is much easier.
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Apr 2022 - 15:45
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
Well this is very embarrassing.
Turns out, I entered the wrong reg number on the second visit. I've had the evidence submission from Civil Enforcement through the post, and I can see where I entered my *old* reg number for the vehicle, instead of the correct "private" reg number that I'd fitted a couple of months prior to the visit. Honest mistake, but very silly of me. I feel a bit daft. I feel like this will exonerate me and I'd win the case in court, since entering the correct registration number on the terminal is not a condition of the advertised T&C of parking. It only asks that I obtain a permit from the terminal, which I did, albeit with the old reg number. I do feel sorry for CEL at this point, who have probably undergone a chunk of admin costs to prepare a case for court and apply for the hearing. Any simple recommendations, other than simply returning my own defence evidence that refers to the registration number I actually entered, at the time I entered it, as per their own evidence, and in clear compliance with the terms advertised? -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Apr 2022 - 18:42
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
As in a witness statement yes?
You should also make it clear that there is no commercial justification as payment was made. This means that, as per Beavis, the penalty rule is not disengaged. You need to read up on this to kniw how to argue it. Yiu can also point out that they didn't need to obtain your details - they had an unmatched payment within a few min of entering, and competent process would have spotted that and assigned them. Etc. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Apr 2022 - 20:14
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 11 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,580 |
As in a witness statement yes? You should also make it clear that there is no commercial justification as payment was made. This means that, as per Beavis, the penalty rule is not disengaged. You need to read up on this to kniw how to argue it. Yiu can also point out that they didn't need to obtain your details - they had an unmatched payment within a few min of entering, and competent process would have spotted that and assigned them. Etc. To be clear, no "payment" was made -- free parking for visitors if you register on the terminal and obtain a permit, which I did, kinda, so arguably the "payment" of my effort to register as instructed was indeed made. Annoyingly I only have 2 more days to respond, including serving evidence & postage delays. Timing is not on my side (although it would have been, had CEL sent me the list of reg numbers at the time when they responded to my appeal, as we could have avoided all this back and forth!) -------------------- baldmosher™
|
|
|
Tue, 19 Apr 2022 - 09:27
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yes, that was payment or at least consideration
Then you just get it done. Have you not thought of serving via email? Courts and claimants do this all the time |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:19 |