Parkingeye Llandough hospital double dipping

Bookgirl

dart17 said:

Thanks for all your help. I am pleased to report that my wife’s appeal was sent to popla and was successful or at least the PCN was cancelled by parkingeye. Confirmed by POPLA.
I will update the thread with more details later.

Hi. Can you advise what grounds you got your PCN cancelled under, please? I have also received a PCN for the drop off plaza at Llandough. I do not believe I was in the drop off area for the length of time stipulated (14 minutes) but I have no proof of that. I pulled in to the drop off once, realised I was a bit early so drove straight back out, drove up to the multistorey and dawdled there for a few minutes before driving back down to the drop off where I stayed long enough only to go into the hospital, collect my father and for us to walk back out. I noticed on the PCN that the pictures of my car are taken on the road going passed the drop off not from within the drop off, so I suspect my time driving around the multistorey may be counted. I appealed to ParkingEye and asked for time stamped photographic evidence of my car in the drop off area, but just receeived the same generic rejection that you received, with none of my specific points raised. It sounds as though you didn't use the drop off at all so there could well be a flaw with their ANPR cameras?

dart17

Sorry about the very late response. Unfortunately too late for you Bookgirl but perhaps of use to someone else...
Hope you were able to appeal successfully to POPLA.


My appeal was for 'double dipping' i.e they took the start time when I initially drove past the Plaza en route to car park and the end time when I drove past the plaza en route home after leaving the car park. This is a very well know problem with ANPR cameras and why the    Unfortunately I could not 'prove' that I parked in the car park with e.g. photos or tickets (Free parking so no tickets), or with a tracking app to show exactly where I had driven / walked.
However I provided data (screen images) from my I-phone health app which recorded Steps and distances walked and the corresponding time of day. Using the steps data I could demonstrate that I was not walking (and hence driving) until (well) after the first photo timestamp and that the step counts/distances corresponded to walking from the car park to the Plaza toilets and then to the MRI unit, then back to the cafe and back to the car park. etc.
I provided a detailed list of the places visited and could provide timestamps for the MRI appointment, and purchase of drinks at the cafe. for that day. On a subsequent visit on the once bitten twice shy basis took photos of car in car park. I also turned on a tracking app and presented a track of exactly where I walked superimposed on a satellite view of the hospital grounds. I showed the steps and distances from health app and compared the data to the previous visit to show distances/steps were very similar for visit one and two thus we had parked in the car park and not at the plaza.

The result was:-

Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator

Withdrawn on xxxxxxxx

Verification Code

606023xxxx

Withdrawal reasons

POPLA WDL - Internal Request

dart17

The actual submitted document to POPLA is not to hand but these points are taken from a late draft version so is materially as submitted.

I challenge the parking charge primarily on the grounds that the car was not parked when
or where Parkingeye claim.

The Parking charge notice states the car was in the University Hospital Llandough - Plaza drop off for a period of <over 2 hours> from <time1> until <time2> on <date>.

My records show that at <time1> the car was in fact travelling to, and at <time2> from, the Patient/visitor car park designated as car park 1 as shown at the bottom left on the University Hospital Llandough Patient / Visitor Parking map (Appendix 1 Figure 2). https://cavuhb.nhs.wales/files/car-parking/patient-visitor-parking-site-map-university-hospital-llandough/.   Car park numbers are taken from this map.

Car park 1 and its relationship to other hospital buildings is clearer from the map of university Hospital Llandough (Appendix 1 figure 1) copied from https://cavuhb.nhs.wales/patient-advice/getting-here/hospital-maps/map-of-university-hospital-llandough/. Building names and numbers refer to this map.

<snip reasons for car park1 and narrative details of route walked from car park 1 while in hospital grounds> 

Outline of evidence
My wife and I each have iPhones with a health app recording steps and distances walked. When the app detects a period of walking, it creates records showing the start and end times and the number of steps and distance travelled. Gaps between the end of one period and the start of the next occur when no walking is detected.
Appendix 2 has screen shots from my phone of these records and summaries for the relevant period on <date>, and screenshots showing when I purchased the hot drinks.
Appendix 3 has similar step counts and distances screen shots for Chris taken from her phone and a copy of her appointment letter and of the contrast drug information leaflet.
Times of the Parkingeye photos are taken from the Parking charge notice.

Timeline showing what actually happened on <date>.

Time	Steps/Distance source  and other evidence	Details
15:08 - 15:13	147 steps IMG_5410 0.09 km    IMG_5414	Walked to car ready to start journey to Llandough Hospital so my wife could have an MRI scan.
15:13 - 15:26 No steps or distance walked were recorded as not walking while travelling by car	Period end time of IMG_5410 to start time of  IMG_5413	Journey from Penarth to Llandough Hospital car park 1 which is close to the MRI scanner. Route taken past Car park 4, Plaza drop off, buildings 3 and 4 and into car park 1, waiting for parking space to become available and parking in that space.
<time1>	Parking charge notice	Photographed by Parkingeye during the above journey
15:26 to 15:36	417 steps IMG_5418, 0.22km     IMG_5413.	Walked from Car park 1 to Plaza. We located the MRI mobile unit en route, and walked past it to the Plaza for the toilet.
<snip more details>
16:41 to 16:47   Chris 16:45 16:46	289 steps IMG_5435, 0.15km     IMG_5436 Chris ImageS3 end time. Transaction and message IMG_5433 and IMG_5394	Walked from MRI reception to Plaza Coffee shop. I purchased and collected drinks. I sat down. Chris sat down at 16:45.  Evidence of the time I purchased drinks in the Aroma Cafe.
16:47 to 17:22 No steps or distance walked were recorded as not walking while sitting down	end time of       IMG_5435 to start time of IMG_5420	Sat in Aroma Cafe drinking our drinks.
17:22 to 17:26	371 steps, IMG_5420 0.2km        IMG_5437	We walked from the Plaza coffee shop straight back to the car in car park 1.
17:26 to 17:39 No steps or distance walked were recorded as not walking while travelling by car	End time of       IMG_5437 to start time of IMG_5416	Driving from car park 1 past the Plaza and drop off area then left the  hospital site en route to Capital Retail Park Leckwith.
<time2>	Parking charge notice	Photographed by Parkingeye during the above journey

 

Key points that support the above timeline:

1) During the visit to the hospital, the records of distances/steps and times from my phone (appendix 2) are very similar to ones from my wife's phone (appendix 3) indicating that we traveled, walked and waited together. An obvious exception being when she was escorted from the MRI reception to and from the nearby MRI scanner while I remained in the MRI reception area.

2) The Aroma cafe receipt paid using my phone app (authenticated using facial recognition) confirms that I was at the cafe at 16:46.

3) My wife's MRI appointment letter evidences the location of the CAVOC / MRI reception, the time she was due to arrive there and the time of her scan. The contrast medicine information leaflet evidences that she was there and had the scan.

4) The times, steps and distances records and the gaps between records (i.e. showing  periods of not walking) are all consistent with the sequence of events detailed in the timeline above and with us having parked in car park 1.

Key points that refute the Parkingeye claim that we were parked in the Plaza drop off:

1.       Parking eye claim we parked in the drop off zone at <time1> but our health app records show us to still be driving to a car park and/or waiting to park until 15:26 when we parked in car park 1 and started walking to the Plaza.

2.       15:26 - 15:36 the time, distance and steps correspond to the distance from car park 1 to the plaza rather than from the drop off area to the plaza which would have been tens of steps/metres rather than several hundreds.

a.       Proximity of Plaza drop off to Plaza, Aroma cafe and toilets.
IMG_5401 shows the Plaza and a marked parking area which I understand to be the Plaza drop off. The Aroma cafe can be seen to the left of the bay and the toilet facilities are inside the hospital almost immediately behind the Aroma cafe.

3.       17:22 to 17:26 the time, distance and steps correspond to the distance from Aroma cafe to car park 1 rather than to the Plaza drop off area adjacent to the cafe which would have been a few tens of steps/metres at most.

 

Additional Evidence

1.       Further evidence I am attaching includes

a.       a statement from my wife as patient and

b.      the supporting screenshots from the health app on her  phone showing both in steps and distances how far she walked that day.

<more to follow>

dart17

2.       We visited Llandough Hospital again on January 28th 2025 specifically to retrace our steps of <date>, this time taking photos in key locations and using an app, Map my Walk, (which uses GPS fixes to record a walk and displays the start point, end point and the path taken between them, superimposed on a map) to record the route. 

a.       The steps & distances we recorded in the health app that day closely match the data from <date>.

b.      I parked in the same car park (car park 1), though in a parking space further away from the Plaza, and we walked from the car to the plaza, then to the MRI reception, back to the plaza where we had a drink and then back to the car before leaving the hospital.

c.       Appendix 4 shows screen shots from my phone of steps and distance, the path recorded by the map my walk app, the debit card transaction and photos to show locations and times.

d.      On Tuesday January 28th we obtained the following data:

                We arrived and parked in the same car park as before,

                                though further away from the MRI unit and Plaza.

                13:59 to 14:06: 441 steps, 0.28km. We walked to the Plaza.

                14:10 to 14:15: 337 steps, 0.21km.  We walked to the MRI reception, this time we did not
                                detour to the door of the MRI scanner unit.

                14:23 to 14:29: 289 steps, 0.16km. We walked back to the Plaza, stopping to take a photo,
                                 and I ordered a hot drink.

                14:49 to 14:53: 333 steps, 0.24km.  We walked back to the car and drove off.

 

3.    Comparison of the data from <date> and January 28

                Steps & Distances:           <date>                                 January 28th

                Car to Plaza                         417 steps, 0.22km            441 steps, 0.28km

                Plaza to Reception           339 steps, 0.28km            337 steps, 0.21km

                Reception to Plaza           289 steps, 0.15km            289 steps, 0.16km

                Plaza to parked car          371 steps, 0.2km              333 steps, 0.24km

 

The close match between the iPhone data on the two days proves, I submit, that that is what we did on <date>  We could not have been parked in the Plaza drop-off zone and taken all those journeys, we would only have had to walk once to the MRI unit and once back. 

Other Grounds for Appeal

Compliance with POFA 

On the reverse of the Parking Charge Notice issued on 21 December 2024 and dated 21 December 2024 Parkingeye claim Keeper liability under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 subject to complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(f) includes the word 'all'.  It states:

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The law is clear that FULL compliance with POFA is necessary for Keeper liability to apply. Partial or even substantial compliance does not suffice. Any failure to meet ALL the requirements renders the NTK non-compliant and prevents the operator from transferring liability from the driver to the Keeper.  Compliance with SOME provisions of POFA does not equate to compliance with the ENTIRETY of Schedule 4.

Notice to Keeper Issues

POFA

9(1)  A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)  The notice must—

(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d) specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

                (i) specified in the notice; and

                (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

                (i )to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

                (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

                (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

                (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

(g ) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

 

Timing of delivery of notice to keeper

POFA Section 9 (1)  A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met......  The requirements for 9 (4) (b), (5) and (6) were not met

(4)  The notice must be given by—

                (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered
                 to that address  within the relevant period.

(5)  The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)  A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

 

The notice to keeper date of event is 11 December 2024, Day 0.

Day 1 is 12 December, Day 14 is 25 December.

The notice was sent by post and the notice was dated 21 December.

Being dated 21 December cannot be assumed to mean it was posted on 21 December. After being issued it as the notice would at least still require printing and enveloping before it could be passed to Royal Mail. The envelope was not franked, so there is no date, time or the location of where it was posted. The last date for Royal Mail 2nd class post to be delivered before Xmas day was Wednesday 18th December and for 1st class Friday 20th December so even if it was posted on the 21 December, it had already missed the Royal mail last posting dates for Xmas.

 

The notice was waiting for us when we got home late on January 2nd 2025 but had not arrived when we left home on 24th December later than post would normally be delivered.

 

Therefore it is not reasonable to presume that it was delivered on the second working day after the day on which it was posted because of Royal Mail Xmas post deadlines. 

Given that Day 14 was a bank holiday with no postal deliveries, there can be no reasonable presumption that it was delivered by Day 14.

 

I therefore contend that the notice was not delivered within the relevant period and therefore there is no keeper liability.

dart17

Parking  Period

9(1)  A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)  The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

To be a valid notice to keeper this parking notice must specify the parking period as that is one of the applicable conditions.

 

The

- Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions

 (Plymouth Court, on appeal to HHJ Mitchel) ref H6DP632H, 21/8/2023 (finding: no period of parking on a NTK meant that it was a non-compliant notice and a keeper could not be held liable)

 

The Government Private Parking Code of Practice of 7/2/22 defines parking period:
2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

Note in particular that it states that parking time is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

This has been upheld in various court cases including

As Parking has

There may be multiple definitions of parking, in which case civil law states that they should be interpreted in our favour. We therefore use the definition above to challenge this parking notice.

Under this definition 'parking' is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.  To be parked, the vehicle has to have been left stationary because the period of driving has ended.

The Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park.

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no photo of the car standing empty in the Plaza drop off during that entire period (indeed Parkingeye cannot produce such a picture because the car was not there). So there is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a car on a private road, timed hours apart, when all the other evidence we have submitted shows that we were NOT parked where Parkingeye say we were parked at any time that day.

In fact we drove through the area, going in and out, without parking there, on two separate occasions, as already detailed above.

Since there is no evidence as to actual parking times this fails the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states a parking notice must:

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

This parking charge is therefore not a valid claim against the keeper.

 

Compliance with the BPA code of Practice.

As Parkingeye is a member of the BPA all aspects of the Code must be complied with except signage or other related clauses applicable to existing sites by 1st October 2024 for parking notices to be legally valid.

Double Dipping

Paragraph 7.3 Use of photographic evidence states
Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:

a) at least one of the images captured includes a clear record of the vehicle’s VRM to which the parking charge is deemed to apply;
b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;
c) the image(s) show, where appropriate, the pay and display tariff receipt as displayed or not being visible; and
d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.
NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

I assert that Parkingeye have not complied with this part of the code of conduct as follows:

Parkingeye have not undertaken sufficient quality checks to detect this case of double dipping. We passed through this zone twice, but Parkingeye are using only the first of the two entry times and the second of the two leaving times as the basis for issuing this parking ticket.

Both photos show artefacts of digital enhancement in order to show the VRM.  The photo corresponding to the first entry, despite extensive digital enhancement, is still not a clear image of the VRM.   This suggests that any other cameras could easily have missed the car exiting and entering the restricted zone, leading to double dipping.

The records of driving times and walking times already given above evidence that we did pass this zone twice, and we did not park within it.  Therefore the cameras have missed our departure and subsequent re-entry.

Relationship with Landowner

Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator Parkingeye is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details, including exemptions, defines what Parkingeye is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner in fact has a right to cancellation of a charge.

The contract must therefore cover all the following matters as set out in the BPA Code of Practice:

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges

 

In the event that Parkingeye cannot produce a fully compliant contract then the parking notice must fail.

Getting processes right - Timing of notice of rejection

'Operators should send the notice of rejection to the appellant, whether by post or electronically, on the same day as it is dated and the same day indicated within the verification code.' (Greenslade, POPLA Annual Report 2015)

The emailed notice of rejection was received on 24th January 2025.  The verification code date is 23rd January 2025 - 606023xxxx at 11:09 - email attached ref xxx

This was an attempt to reduce the period of time in which we could send an appeal to POPLA in order to avoid appeals and as such is an unfair practice by a business incentivised to issue parking tickets for profit.    Parkingeye have had 9 years to get their processes right and have failed.

 

Parkingeye have not complied with POPLA guidance and therefore the parking notice should not be upheld.

Getting processes right - Profit motive

BPA Code of Practice on Incentive Schemes states that:

16.1. Parking operators may implement incentive scheme(s) to motivate staff or third parties and improve their productivity and quality of their work. Schemes that incentivise the issue of a greater number of parking charges alone (as opposed to the accuracy and efficiency with which they are issued) are not permitted.

 

Welsh Government Guidance https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-06/car-parking-management-guidance-for-nhs-wales.pdf  states that:

Management schemes must be driven by safety and not in terms of profit for the NHS organisation or any management company that have been appointed by the NHS organisation;

 

More specifically, the NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts states, under Contracted-out car parking, that:

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

 

Under their contract with Llandough Hospital Parkingeye receives the revenue from enforcement management in respect of parking tickets issued for illegal parking on site.  (Freedom of Information Act Request – Reference FoI/14/106  Parking in University Hospital Llandough (UHL) )

 

This parking notice is driven by a desire for profit in contravention of all the above guidance.

 

 

SUMMARY

We have produced evidence to show that we were parked in a patient car park, car park 1, for the entire duration of the visit.  This parking notice therefore fails.

We agree that we drove into the hospital and drove out of the hospital at the times Parkingeye assert.  We assert that we also drove out of the Plaza drop off restricted parking zone on our way to car park 1, and drove into it again after leaving car park 1 on our way out of the hospital.  We assert that Parkingeye failed to identify those two events and so are guilty of double dipping.  The parking notice therefore fails.

We were not notified of the failure of my wife's appeal

Attachments:

My iPhone screenshots of steps, km and times, summaries and details screens

My wife’s iPhone screenshots of steps, km and times, summaries and details screens

Debit card statements showing drinks purchases

Contrast drug information leaflet.

MRI appointment letter

Hospital map sent with MRI appointment showing car parks

Screen shot of email showing  the date my wife was notified that her appeal had failed

 

There is not sufficient space to give this level of detail in the limited number of characters allowed by POPLA  so the above plus attachments mentioned were provided in a single PDF attachment to POPLA.

dart17

Since Parkingeye withdrew their appeal, POPLA did not rule on the validity of the PCN nor is there an indication of what point / points caused Parkingeye to withdraw.

Coupon-mad

dart17 said:

Since Parkingeye withdrew their appeal, POPLA did not rule on the validity of the PCN nor is there an indication of what point / points caused Parkingeye to withdraw.

But wow! You really tore them a new one!