Hope Cove Car Park 2024

magpie1894

I have a query. The response by PPS to my appeal included the sentence "You will notice the signage has our telephone number displayed, if you were experiencing a problem and you were unable to authorise your parking, you should have called our office to discuss with a member of staff who would have been able to offer you help and advice." The telephone number referred to is an 0845 number, and it also states "calls cost 7p per minute plus your phone company's access charge". I had typed in my full VRM, paid the correct fee and been issued a ticket: PPS are saying that I should have checked my ticket and noticed that my full VRM had not been recorded. My question is does the phone call they are suggesting I should have made fall under Consumer Contract legislation, which prohibits the use of an 0845 number for customer services?

Fruitcake

From a post by Ian011,

The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from The Department of Business, Innovations, and Skills, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).

Having this premium rate number on a sign is an unfair contract term and therefore possibly breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 para 71.

It also implies that the images of signs provided by the PPC could be over over ten years old and therefore are not the ones that were in place at the time of the alleged event. (I believe that companies were given two years to change all their signs).

Having a premium rate 'phone number on a sign may breach the PPC's trade association's CoP. It used to be a breach of the BPA CoP but I don't know if it still is, or whether it was ever a breach of the IPC CoP.

Coupon-mad

And the bottom line is, having paid & displayed, no driver would think there was any reason to phone anyone as well.  It is absurd and disingenuous to suggest that (and illegal to add a premium rate surcharge for the call).

magpie1894

Fruitcake is right, BPA’s CoP in early 2024 covered this in clause 27.6.

IPC’s CoP in early 2024 was less clearcut, with clause 25.1 saying “Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses”.

The new joint CoP (27/6/24) has: “Signs and surface markings. Commentary on Clause 3. Operators should take notice of relevant best practice guidance and legislation.”

The signage includes the following: "You must enter your exact, full registration of the vehicle you are parking, at the pay and display machine or via RingGo. This registration MUST be fully recorded on your pay and display ticket or RingGo session. Recording a partial registration or the registration of a different vehicle DOES NOT authorise you to park." However, there is nothing about what to do if the machine is faulty, records a partial registration etc.

I suspect the above words came about following the case reported on MSE by g1871 in February 2023, re parking in August 2022. The judge (this is paraphrased) said that the VRM logs could be used to check payments had been made but if any checks then revealed payment had been made then it should be an end to the matter.  He asked the BW Legal representive if he could prove having a full VRM logged was a clear condition of parking and he could not.  As both the defendant and the claimant agreed that payment had been made the claimant's case was dismissed.

The PPS scam is occurring on an industrial scale at Hope Cove. EG There is irrefutable hard-copy evidence (PPS slipped up by sending it to one of the victims!) that on 24/4/24, 45 cars used the car park: 42 no problem, 3 where just the first letter of the VRM recorded. The only credible explanation is faulty machinery: three people acting in isolation of each other do not make the same massive keying error. The affected individual tried appealing through IAS. Part of the response, regarding machine error was: " First, there is little evidence for this other than some anecdotal accounts. The Operator's evidence shows two other drivers out of dozens of drivers recorded a similar one letter. Even if I accept this was a machine fault I am still unable to allow the appeal. The driver must check the registration has recorded before they confirm payment. If the details are not correct they may cancel and start again."

The local MP has witnessed for herself the machinery not recording her registration correctly, and met with Will Hurley.

The subsequent written response she received was: “I [Will Hurley] have taken the time to speak with one of the company’s directors, James Smith, and to review several pieces of information that have been provided to us, and I am confident in my conclusion that the issues raised by your constituents appears to be a case of user error. I have been provided with a number of images that show the signs on display which provide clear instructions to motorists on how to the use the payment machines, including the importance of entering a full and correct vehicle registration number when making payment. James has acquired video footage from the parking attendants on site using the payment machines to ensure that there are no faults, and these machines are checked on a regular basis. PPS have also provided me with several dates’ worth of payment data, which confirms on these dates there were incorrect registration numbers input but the overwhelming majority input the full registration number. “

The conclusion I draw from this is that once PPS decide to issue a PCN, no evidence will alter their decision.

I think the above gives lots of angles to cite PPS not fulfilling their contractual duties and using Unfair Contract Terms. Any thoughts, Fruitcake or Coupon-mad?

Coupon-mad

magpie1894 said:

Fruitcake is right, BPA’s CoP in early 2024 covered this in clause 27.6.

IPC’s CoP in early 2024 was less clearcut, with clause 25.1 saying “Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses”.

The new joint CoP (27/6/24) has: “Signs and surface markings. Commentary on Clause 3. Operators should take notice of relevant best practice guidance and legislation.”

The signage includes the following: "You must enter your exact, full registration of the vehicle you are parking, at the pay and display machine or via RingGo. This registration MUST be fully recorded on your pay and display ticket or RingGo session. Recording a partial registration or the registration of a different vehicle DOES NOT authorise you to park." However, there is nothing about what to do if the machine is faulty, records a partial registration etc.

I suspect the above words came about following the case reported on MSE by g1871 in February 2023, re parking in August 2022. The judge (this is paraphrased) said that the VRM logs could be used to check payments had been made but if any checks then revealed payment had been made then it should be an end to the matter.  He asked the BW Legal representive if he could prove having a full VRM logged was a clear condition of parking and he could not.  As both the defendant and the claimant agreed that payment had been made the claimant's case was dismissed.

The PPS scam is occurring on an industrial scale at Hope Cove. EG There is irrefutable hard-copy evidence (PPS slipped up by sending it to one of the victims!) that on 24/4/24, 45 cars used the car park: 42 no problem, 3 where just the first letter of the VRM recorded. The only credible explanation is faulty machinery: three people acting in isolation of each other do not make the same massive keying error. The affected individual tried appealing through IAS. Part of the response, regarding machine error was: " First, there is little evidence for this other than some anecdotal accounts. The Operator's evidence shows two other drivers out of dozens of drivers recorded a similar one letter. Even if I accept this was a machine fault I am still unable to allow the appeal. The driver must check the registration has recorded before they confirm payment. If the details are not correct they may cancel and start again."

The local MP has witnessed for herself the machinery not recording her registration correctly, and met with Will Hurley.

The subsequent written response she received was: “I [Will Hurley] have taken the time to speak with one of the company’s directors, James Smith, and to review several pieces of information that have been provided to us, and I am confident in my conclusion that the issues raised by your constituents appears to be a case of user error. I have been provided with a number of images that show the signs on display which provide clear instructions to motorists on how to the use the payment machines, including the importance of entering a full and correct vehicle registration number when making payment. James has acquired video footage from the parking attendants on site using the payment machines to ensure that there are no faults, and these machines are checked on a regular basis. PPS have also provided me with several dates’ worth of payment data, which confirms on these dates there were incorrect registration numbers input but the overwhelming majority input the full registration number. “

The conclusion I draw from this is that once PPS decide to issue a PCN, no evidence will alter their decision.

I think the above gives lots of angles to cite PPS not fulfilling their contractual duties and using Unfair Contract Terms. Any thoughts, Fruitcake or Coupon-mad

Jeez - thankyou - yet more evidence that the IPC and IAS are not fit for purpose.

Paraphrasing:

IAS : "even if I accept it was machine error, I will still not allow the appeal and will blame the driver".

Will Hurley: "I blame the drivers".

Classy...

And as i said, the bottom line is, having paid & displayed, no driver would think there was any reason to phone anyone as well.  It is absurd and disingenuous to suggest that (and illegal to add a premium rate surcharge for the call).

Can you show that PPS list of payments that show three out of 45 caught out?

magpie1894

Here is the PPs list of payments on 24/4/24.

Coupon-mad

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/excel-lose-peel-centre-casemotorist-not.html?m=1

magpie1894

Here is part of the IAS dismissal letter

1505grandad

"Fruitcake is right, BPA’s CoP in early 2024 covered this in clause 27.6."

@OP -  just in case of any future reference to BPA CoP be aware that 27.6. is in respect of Scotland & N.I.  -  para 19.6 is the one that refers to England .

Le_Kirk

And, of course, if the PDT or RingO app were tied to the ANPR camera, this sort of issue could not arise ...... but that way lies no profit!