PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Southampton ABP Town Quay - Parking Eye, Penalty Charge Fault in Pay Terminal
parkingmadmick
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 18:24
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



Well here again another fish on the hook of ParkingEye Southampton Town Quay, 24th July 2019 I had my registered vehicle parked on Town Quay, as I was going to get our Red Jet tickets I checked the Tariff Board which said Payment Any Time Before Exiting the Car Park.

Fine move on Red Jet Tickets and off to IoW, mother had been in St Marys Hospital and I had used the car park here recently, camera system and on return to the pay machine you enter the reg number and an option appears which asks if the image is your vehicle, you press yes it calculates your tariff, you pay you leave, no barriers.

On return to the mainland Town Quay, I first went to one payment machine whilst the car was being started etc, the first machine was cash only and put my details in and it didn't respond. I went to the next terminal at Town Quay in the middle of the car park, I entered my details reg no 5 or 6 times no recognition of vehicle so at the last attempt I went to the time step facility, pushed the button numerous times and it then stopped responding so I paid what it displayed 5.50, I left with my receipts and ticket.

Move forward ten days I received a PCN from ParkingEye, I still had the ticket in the car so retrieved that and noticed that one digit of my reg number was missing so I get that the ANPR had picked up my full reg number and said no payment. Straight away I appealed to PE stating that an error or mistake on inputting was made however a ticket was obtained and that the step time button stopped so I paid what was requested.

Appeal Denied

Appeal then offered to POPLA with further information (90 pages from PE) so I read through and the obvious bits they claimed I had breached T&Cs in that I hadnt paid on arrival, entered full registration number, and hadn't paid.

I replied with the error and that 18 signs say pay on exit, one sign says pay on arrival (at Starbucks), grace period they say in report is 10 mins but signs say 15 mins, I repeat the fault with time step button etc and that I had purchased a ticket but the number will not match the ANPR image due to the missing digit. I then cover Bylaws and POFA 2012, using all 3000 characters and received the result APPEAL DENIED.

I found reports dating back to 2014 at this location DVLA were aware etc etc, Dr Julian Lewis MP was aware and still the cases were continuing, I wrote to PE, POPLA, Dr Julian Lewis MP and ABP. We are now November and still pursuing the case and ABP answer today saying its inappropriate for ABP to intervene or cancel the ticket and that PE should deal with correspondence mmmmm they ignore it.

My case if it goes further shows that I was a £1 payment short but that there was a fault at the time I paid, ANPR cameras do not calculate to the payment machine of time spent, you pay what you think is time spent only to find on receipt of PCN that you may or may not have remembered correctly on entry and exit times. Other Car Parks will give a ticket you re insert this ticket it tells you the tariff, you pay and exit.

Not PARKINGEYE it does not calculate your time parked, I have various documents from this site and MSE, DVLA told me that Town Quay was land that was covered by PoFA 2012 although there have been other decisions made. Fight On
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 18:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 21:15
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,730
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I would email P/Eye and ask why they have pursued a case where the driver paid what was displayed on exit, when the only error seems to be that a sticky key in their old weather-worn keypad failed to record one digit of the VRN.

Not only should the system not recognise a VRN & take payment until the system records it correctly against the images they have already captured, but in addition, the BPA issued clear instructions to all AOS members in 2018, warning them not to pursue 'minor keying errors' whether caused by faulty equipment or driver error. One digit out should have been easily reconciled by ParkingEye's routinely trumpeted to POPLA '19 manual checks' especially given the fact that the system already has an image of the numberplate in full.

As such, the charge is unconscionable and should never have been pursued as far as POPLA, and it is ParkingEye's own oversights and machine failures which have allowed this case to get this far. Further, they may or may not be aware that the Southampton Courts have just this week found in favour of a consumer on three counts of breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in a case where BW Legal unsuccessfully made an application to object to duplicate Britannia Parking cases being summarily struck out. District Judge Grand sitting at the Southampton Court, very close to Town Quay, was persuaded that the CRA 2015 certainly applies to such cases.

Whilst the facts differ, the CRA 2015 is engaged and breached in this case too. Schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 is breached more than once, including but not limited to paragraphs 6 and 18 of the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair. Consumer signs are never saved by the core exemption and nor are faulty machines.

Further, a failure of the system to properly attribute the payment and/or display the wrong payment due on exit then try to blame the consumer for paying the sum displayed, is a 'misleading omission' contrary to 6(1)(c.) of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, in that the commercial practice ''provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely''. This is explained further in 6(3)(1) “material information” means the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision''.

Paying for parking space is an invitation to purchase, where ''the following information will be material if not already apparent from the context in addition to any other information which is material information''
- ref 6(4)(d)(ii) where the nature of the product is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is calculated; or (e)where appropriate (ii) where such charges cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the fact that such charges may be payable;
(f) the following matters where they depart from the requirements of professional diligence—(i) arrangements for payment,''

Clearly, in this case, ParkingEye has departed from the requirements of professional diligence and this is not a matter where your company can be heard to say that this is a complaint about a price term that might otherwise be exempt from the test for fairness. If you disagree, perhaps ParkingEye would like to test this in front of District Judge Grand or Taylor, if you believe you will have more success fighting against consumer statute law than BW Legal did on Monday.

I urge that your Legal Team now cancel this flawed PCN to save your time and mine and to save wasting the court's resources.

yours

your name and PCN number


Send the above to

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

The point being, the legal team have NOT seen your case yet so this is news to them. So hit them with the above. Only the appeals team has handled it in robotic style so far and we know from experience that the legal team WILL cancel hopeless causes.

HTH

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingmadmick
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 16:34
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



Many thanks for those details, ABP letter in last paragraph,
As Parkingeye manages and operates the Town Quay car park on behalf of ABP, I would ask that any correspondence relating to this case is addressed to them going forwards.

translation

Bugger off and leave me alone Im not interested
Port Director

Ummmmm you are the land owner, you contract PE they do not control the land rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingmadmick
post Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 16:48
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



I had originally written to my local MP who had previously had dealings with ABP and PE, he wrote to ABP asking them to cease matters before he took it up with ministers, today (18th Nov) I received a copy letter that ABP had sent dated 5th Nov explaining that ABP Legal and PE say that the land is relevant land for PoFA 2012 and that they would not intervene, stating that the Parking Fine is correctly made, oh dear surely it can not be a fine under the Codes of Practice issued by BPA.

Attached is the entry sign at Town Quay Southampton and B18.2 from codes of practice.

Another question sent to BPA,,,,,,, Should ANPR Cameras in Car Parks be linked to Payment Systems ie you enter VRM and pay machine confirms you have remained from entry till exit input data. will update reply.

Parking Eye Town Quay does not link cameras to payment machine
Attached File(s)
Attached File  British_Parking_Association_Codes_of_Practice_B18.doc ( 1.92MB ) Number of downloads: 13
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peter4321
post Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 18:42
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,063



This question may have been addressed in previous cases relating to this car park but how can ABP say that Town Quay is relevant land for POFA when it is within the Statutory Port Boundary, as show on page 9 of the Port of Southampton Master Plan:-

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/cont...%20Plan/SMP.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 11:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,085
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Send a letter to your MP showing that, and pointing out that ABP are lying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingmadmick
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 15:11
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



Yep all ready done and Lord Denham MP had this reported in 2014 so PE are still operating all this time with ABP in full knowledge
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peter4321
post Tue, 19 Nov 2019 - 23:35
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Member No.: 88,063



As much as I admire The Right Honourable John Denham (and he was an excellent MP) he has not been elevated to the peerage!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingmadmick
post Tue, 26 Nov 2019 - 15:53
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



Well, I had a conversation with the BPA the other day regarding the set up of the pay machine side and the ANPR cameras operated by ParkingEye at Southampton Town Quay as previously reported there is no recognition of your vehicle reg number when you input it on leaving the car park so its open to guess and PE make money if you get it wrong. On the Whitelist that PE provide in the case papers, users are regularly are paying more than required for the tariff and time spent, one person paid £25 instead of £10 many paid £3.60 instead of £2.50 etc etc, so I queried this on CRA 2015 grounds and the general way that PE are operating and have been operating since 2014 at this location.

I have now sent an information pack and complaint to the BPA
will update when possible
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
parkingmadmick
post Today, 10:25
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,446



As expected BPA have completed esquires and say that no breach of codes of practice have taken place. I submitted Subject Access Requests of PE to discover what info they hold of my details on ANPR and they came back with a spread sheet of my vehicle reg number shown on cameras back to 30th May so why do they need to keep this data, no offences or breaches what purposes is there retention policy, think of how many vehicles details are held on ANPR systems every day which could breach GDPR.



This post has been edited by parkingmadmick: Today, 10:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 15th December 2019 - 12:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.