Parked longer than the maximum period allowed

Castle

Brucella wrote: »

I notified yourself this morning and alerted the operator to the fact that I was going to reassess the appeal.

The operator contacted us shortly after to inform us that it had withdrawn the appeal.

This means that you are no longer liable for the charge as the operator has accepted that the PCN was not issued correctly.

I have fed this back to the assessor’s team leader for coaching purposes.

How exactly does the operator withdraw the appeal; it's not their appeal, it's the RK!

Brucella

For those of you who have been following my sorry tale which has yet again exposed the broken system overseeing parking, particularly the shocking quality of POPLA, there is a minor victory to briefly lift your spirits.

Whilst repeated complaints to the BPA citing various breaches of their code has not resulted in any sanction, it has elicited a rather satisfying apology from Euro Car parks:

Dear ***,
Thank you for your letter/email regarding the Parking Charge Notice as below:

Parking Charge Notice Number: *** Date of Issue: ***
Vehicle Registration Mark: *** Time of Issue: ***
Car Park: ***
Breach of Terms and Conditions: Your vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed

Please accept our sincere apologies for the human error and for any inconvenience that this has caused you. The Parking Charge Notice was cancelled and of course your details have been removed from our system.

Unfortunately even with strict checking procedures in place some very small errors can occur. Euro Car Parks strive to attain the highest standards and occasions such as this are rare.

However I can confirm staff are fully trained and monitored, and camera’s and back office equipment are checked regularly, and parking charge notices are spot checked at intervals. We follow
procedures and strive to ensure that errors are not made, and when and if an error is made our aim is to act swiftly and apologise. I can confirm that the percentage of errors is very low but with the human
element cannot be totally eradicated.

Once again our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Yours sincerely

Parking Charge Notice Department

Redx

well done so far

even without the human element and machine only element there is still room for errors, it happens all the time , but we always thought they used humans to double check the triple checked machine elements with say 21 point or 99 point human checks

hopefully when the government CoP comes in the percentage will drop even further, as will spurious pcn,s


again , well done , keep at these par@sites

Umkomaas

Unfortunately even with strict checking procedures in place some very small errors can occur.

and when and if an error is made our aim is to act swiftly and apologise. I can confirm that the percentage of errors is very low but with the human element cannot be totally eradicated.

However ...... should a motorist so err, no amount of swift apology or explanation will avoid them facing your wrath and venal pursuit of penalty. How can you justify that? Perhaps you should similarly compensate me; a swift payment within 14 days will qualify for a 40% reduction. Please send a cheque for £60 to ......

cc BPA, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3AH

I'm really enjoying reading your thread Brucella and I'm blown over by your resilience and ability to word polite, yet rapier-like correspondence to make your point and get things actioned.

More power to your typing finger(s).

Castle

Umkomaas wrote: »

However ...... should a motorist so err, no amount of swift apology or explanation will avoid them facing your wrath and venal pursuit of penalty. How can you justify that? Perhaps you should similarly compensate me; a swift payment within 14 days will qualify for a 40% reduction. Please send a cheque for £60 to ......

cc BPA, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3AH

If anybody should be paying compensation it should be POPLA for negligence; for failure to provide their service with reasonable care and skill.

Le_Kirk

However I can confirm staff are fully trained and monitored, and camera’s and back office equipment are checked regularly

Did they really put that? If so, it is not just their cameras that need checking, it their use of English grammar. If it is an accidental typo by you, then ignore my comment.

Brucella

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Did they really put that? If so, it is not just their cameras that need checking, it their use of English grammar. If it is an accidental typo by you, then ignore my comment.

No, I copy/pasted the response - it's their error