IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

1282931333467

Comments

  • This is shaping up to be one of the threads of the year for me - and just to pick up on what Redx said above:

    stationEry = paper and pencils etc.
    stationAry = not moving.

    I hope that's not picky - but I agree that you don't want to give them any distractions. Keep up the good work!

    Best Regards,

    ZG.
  • Fergie76
    Fergie76 Posts: 2,293
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    bazster wrote: »
    Your point 9.3 seems to imply that if they can provide evidence that APCOA (UK) is the parent company then you will accept what the Trust says about it being "appropriate to empower the parent company".

    Well it's not appropriate. Regardless of ownership or subsidiarity they are separate and distinct legal entities. One has a contract with the Trust, the other does not, and it seems that the one dishing out the fake fines is not the one that has the contract.

    Companies can be bought, sold, wound up or go bust at the drop of a hat. So the Trust thinks it can empower the parent to do stuff, even though it has no contract with the parent? So what happens if the parent sells or winds up the subsidiary today? What happens then to the "empowerment"?

    Nope, only the company named in the contract has a legal relationship with the Trust, and the Trust might just as well claim it can empower your local newsagent to do something, that would be equally nonsensical.

    Hey Baz, that was because someone over on PEPIPOO suggested that parent companies could, however I have since sent ManxRed over on PEPIPOO a copy of the contract and it explicitly states that they cannot transfer or empower a parent company or any other company, so I will be amending the letter according and will reply to DVLA and tell them that the letters APCOA have are not worth the paper the are written on.
  • Fergie76
    Fergie76 Posts: 2,293
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Redx wrote: »
    not wishing to be picky but dont allow them to dwell on any spelling mistakes like the word tariff in 9.1, so please proof read it and check with spell checker before submission, so not giving them any distractions from the actual content of your letter, taking the moral high ground so to speak with no errors whatsoever on your part and let them make all the errors like they have done up to now :)

    also, I would mention "as according to Jeremy Hunts autumn 2014 statement" at the end of 4)

    keep up the good work as these arrogant so and so`s really need a bonfire lit under their backsides because these problems continue daily until they fix them, to others if not yourself or your wife, plus your wife deserves better than this which I why I 100% agree with an LBC etc , from her (or you writing on her behalf) , due to the fact you are quite right and they acted disgracefully regarding her rights under the EA2010 at the moment or previously

    just trying to help, so not a criticism at all on my part , I like the professional way you are doing this so always stay on your pedestal whilst knocking these overpaid fools off theirs , our local CEO was a fool too and eventually her house of cards came tumbling down and she resigned

    good luck
    This is shaping up to be one of the threads of the year for me - and just to pick up on what Redx said above:

    stationEry = paper and pencils etc.
    stationAry = not moving.

    I hope that's not picky - but I agree that you don't want to give them any distractions. Keep up the good work!

    Best Regards,

    ZG.

    I don't mind at all and is exactly the reasons I have posted the draft copies here. I was tired when I read it yesterday and never proof read it, that was today's job.

    I also have someone, who is not connect with the whole goings on, reading it for me, to take some of the emotion out of it, so it doesn't come across to assy.
  • trisontana
    trisontana Posts: 9,472
    Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 22 December 2014 at 11:09AM

    stationEry = paper and pencils etc.
    stationAry = not moving.

    ZG.

    To make it even easier to remember:-
    a car is stationary, and a letter is stationery .
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • ManxRed
    ManxRed Posts: 3,530 Forumite
    bazster, I don't normally post on this forum, but this particular case has certainly got my interest on Pepipoo.

    Clause 15 of the agreement between APCOA FM and the Trust states:

    "FMGH [defined as APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Limited] shall not be entitled to assign sublet or charge any interest it may have under this Agreement"

    My square brackets.

    So the agreement is exclusively with APCOA FM, and they cannot 'empower' it to any other entity, even a parent or affiliate. And no, there's no 'affiliates' clause or definition anywhere in the agreement at all.

    Hope this clarifies and helps.
    Je Suis Cecil.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 22 December 2014 at 11:13AM
    Fergie76 wrote: »
    Hey Baz, that was because someone over on PEPIPOO suggested that parent companies could, however I have since sent ManxRed over on PEPIPOO a copy of the contract and it explicitly states that they cannot transfer or empower a parent company or any other company, so I will be amending the letter according and will reply to DVLA and tell them that the letters APCOA have are not worth the paper the are written on.

    The discussion on PePiPoo concerned whether the subsidiary company could empower the parent company. What the Trust said to you (my italics) is this:

    "It is wholly appropriate for London North West Healthcare NHS Trust to empower the parent company"

    So they are not claiming the subsidiary company can empower the parent company, they are claiming that they, the Trust, can empower the parent company. Which is utter cobblers, the only way the Trust could empower the parent company is to have a contract with it (either directly or by assignment by the subsidiary) which it evidently does not.

    They really are in such a mess.
    Je suis Charlie.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    ManxRed wrote: »
    bazster, I don't normally post on this forum, but this particular case has certainly got my interest on Pepipoo.

    Clause 15 of the agreement between APCOA FM and the Trust states:

    "FMGH [defined as APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Limited] shall not be entitled to assign sublet or charge any interest it may have under this Agreement"

    My square brackets.

    So the agreement is exclusively with APCOA FM, and they cannot 'empower' it to any other entity, even a parent or affiliate. And no, there's no 'affiliates' clause or definition anywhere in the agreement at all.

    Hope this clarifies and helps.

    Yes, thanks, I'm following it on PePiPoo too!
    Je suis Charlie.
  • Fergie76
    Fergie76 Posts: 2,293
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    bazster wrote: »
    The discussion on PePiPoo concerned whether the subsidiary company could empower the parent company. What the Trust said to you (my italics) is this:

    "It is wholly appropriate for London North West Healthcare NHS Trust to empower the parent company"

    So they are not claiming the subsidiary company can empower the parent company, they are claiming that they, the Trust, can empower the parent company. Which is utter cobblers, the only way the Trust could empower the parent company is to have a contract with it (either directly or by assignment by the subsidiary) which it evidently does not.

    They really are in such a mess.

    Thanks Baz.

    So for the Trust to empower APCOA Parking (UK), it must be written down somewhere, which they then should have provided with the FOI request, however they have said:

    [FONT=&quot]2/. Query on the legal company name[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]I am sorry but in our haste to respond we have provided incorrect information, for which we apologise[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]We used the term novation when this should have been name change[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The transition from FMG (Harrow) Ltd to APCOA FM (Harrow) Ltd is solely by name change; please see attached certificates of incorporation and name change. The contract provided is therefore the correct [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and sole documentation related to the current operation.[/FONT]

    My bold on last line. So must assume that that document doesn't exist?
  • ManxRed
    ManxRed Posts: 3,530 Forumite
    Yes, if the Trust wants to empower the parent company, they must execute a contract amendment which makes APCOA parent company a party to the agreement, either by inserting a clause which makes affiliates inclusive, or by naming the specific APCOA entity it wants to include.

    The former is the easy way of doing it (I do these all the time), but obviously, given their statement that you've bolded, the only assumption you can draw is that this hasn't been done.
    Je Suis Cecil.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 22 December 2014 at 1:57PM
    Looks that way doesn't it?

    I saw your draft follow-up to DVLA on PPP. I suggest there are several points you need to cover:

    The letters supplied to you by APCOA make reference to an agreement dated 1st January 2014. The Trust has provided me, under FOI, a copy of it's contract with APCOA (specifically with APCOA whatever-it-is) and assured me that this is the only contract in existence, therefore I question whether the agreement dated 1st January 2014 actually exists.

    Even if this agreement does exist (and I note you have not had sight of it either) APCOA has been issuing PCN's at this site for years. For them to state that this is based on an agreement dated 1st January 2014 is tantamount to an admission that, prior to 2014, APCOA (UK) Limited had no authority at this site and therefore did access DVLA data many times without reasonable cause.

    I expect you to properly investigate this matter and take action as appropriate, including notifying the ICO and the vehicle keepers concerned if widespread DPA breaches have occurred.


    Plus ManxRed's stuff about contract assignment.
    Je suis Charlie.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards