Popla Appeal Rejected (Hospital Ticket) - Letter Before County Court Claim - ParkingEye

Coupon-mad

Well done!

nosferatu1001

well done - but i would still press them on how they will ensure yo uare not a victim of indirect discriminaton in the future. 

bestfootie

Thank you @nosferatu1001 and @Coupon-mad for all your assistance. I will do as you say Nos and continue to press on this.
The MP wrote back now and attached their message together with their reply.
This email is the email from ParkingEye to the MP after the MP contacted them to deal with it:-

From: Mark Anfield  
Sent: 08 July 2020 16:26
To: []
Subject: RE: []
Sent: 08 July 2020 16:26
To: []
Subject: RE: []
Hi []

However, on the occasion without prejudice and as a gesture of goodwill I will cancel this charge to bring an end to the matter.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Mark
 
Mark Anfield
Operations Director

The forwarded email itself from the MP looks like they've redacted whatever was before 'however...'.

Including this as info like who is the Ops Director may be useful to others 

bestfootie

Latest response in relation to my pressing per @nosferatu1001...

-----

Thank you for your email.

 

Please note that ParkingEye disputes your assertions that the car park management solution in place at ****** Hospital is either unlawful or in breach of the Equality Act (2010).

 

With regard to your comments concerning the amount of the Parking Charge, we would refer you to the precedent set out in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC67, in which Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption found that: “deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” They then conclude within paragraph 99 that, “while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.”

 

In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, the Supreme Court Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye. Within this Judgment, Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice” and Lord Hodge finds that, “…the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”

 

It is ParkingEye’s position that the Parking Charge of £100 is reasonable in its amount and sufficient to act as a deterrent to motorists that might breach the terms and conditions of parking. Hospital parking facilities are a scarce and valuable resource. Without proper car park management in place (including a sufficient deterrent to those that might breach the terms and conditions) the hospital parking facilities would not be as readily available to be used fairly and correctly by those that need them most. 

 

The car park management operation in place offers four hours’ free parking to blue badge holders, who only need to register their full, correct vehicle registration details at the main reception. Your vehicle registration details were not registered as those of a blue badge holder on the date in question, nor did you state that a blue badge holder was either the driver or a passenger within the vehicle on the date in question in any of your correspondence when appealing the Parking Charge. As such, ParkingEye refutes any and all allegations of direct or indirect discrimination.

 

Regarding your assertions in relation to unforeseen overstays of paid parking time, please note that payment for parking can be made retrospectively at any time prior to exiting the car park. This is clearly stated on the signage located throughout the hospital site.

 

Finally, we can confirm receipt of your request that we restrict processing and erase your personal data. As you have indicated that you intend to commence legal proceedings in relation to this matter, we would be required to retain personal data pertaining to the above referenced Parking Charge and any additional email correspondence for the defence of any legal claim. We will retain copies of inbound and outbound correspondence relating to your appeal of the above referenced Parking Charge. All other personal data pertaining to the same will be removed as per your request.

 

Please note, in order to comply with our DVLA audit requirements, the ANPR images and the vehicle registration details captured in respect of the parking event will also remain available. This is in line with our data retention policy and this data will be subject to anonymisation once our obligations to the DVLA have been met, 2 years after the date of the parking event.

 

We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request that we remove all data from our system and cease processing in this instance. Please note you have the right to make a complaint to the ICO in respect of this response, should you wish to do so. You may also seek a judicial remedy.

 

Kind Regards,

ParkingEye Team

-----

Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Please note, in order to comply with our DVLA audit requirements, the ANPR images and the vehicle registration details captured in respect of the parking event will also remain available. This is in line with our data retention policy and this data will be subject to anonymisation once our obligations to the DVLA have been met, 2 years after the date of the parking event.

Make a complaint to the ICO about them, not least their assertion that they can retain ANPR images for TWO YEARS.

bestfootie

Anything else?

Coupon-mad

If this is true, that you appealed but never mentioned the blue badge holder, then they have a point:

Your vehicle registration details were not registered as those of a blue badge holder on the date in question, nor did you state that a blue badge holder was either the driver or a passenger within the vehicle on the date in question in any of your correspondence when appealing the Parking Charge. As such, ParkingEye refutes any and all allegations of direct or indirect discrimination.

I would have appealed with that straight away.

There is such a thing as indirect discrimination (where the trader needs to account for the needs of the disabled population 'at large') but they've cancelled the PCN now they know about the issue.  So they have addressed it for you.

I am not saying the PCN was fair or that £100 is OK - because IMHO it's extortionate.

The best difference you can make, is tell the MHCLG about your experience and thoughts, when the new CoP specification draft is released for public comment in August.  Be heard, in the right ears!

bestfootie

Coupon-mad said:

If this is true, that you appealed but never mentioned the blue badge holder, then they have a point:

Your vehicle registration details were not registered as those of a blue badge holder on the date in question, nor did you state that a blue badge holder was either the driver or a passenger within the vehicle on the date in question in any of your correspondence when appealing the Parking Charge. As such, ParkingEye refutes any and all allegations of direct or indirect discrimination.

I would have appealed with that straight away.

Obviously!!
They're thick as !!!!!!.
I specifically brought up blue badge as not being a defence to indirect discrimination. I'm not a blue badge holder.


Also what's 'MHCLG'?

Coupon-mad

Google it. 

It's really important this year that victims of unfair PCNs have their say.

KeithP

...what's 'MHCLG'?

As always, google has the answer.