Managed NHS car park: can ppc inform hospital of my details?

gasman101

so if they contract out parking services, would this entitle CP Parking to share my data with the trust?

gasman101

Trebor16 wrote: »

This seems to echo the recent case involving Aintree NHS Trust, where they tried to claim £1600 from a person who I recall was an employee. If the member of staff is paying for a permit then I don't see how the NHS can bar a member of staff from the site on the basis of unlawful demands by a PPC.

did anything ever come of this?

does anyone have a link to the story?

Ich_2

I suppose in some ways there could be an issue, if it is a condition of employment that staff must pay for parking etc. it could become a discliplinary issue. Similarly what is to stop the PPC just passing on the reg. No. of cars to the trust and them getting the details themselves from the DVLA?
The one in this area uses it's own staff to keep a check on parking, it has also just increased the staff parking charge by 50%

Coupon-mad

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

I would be interested in thoughts on this too. Once or twice work colleagues at the hospital site where I work (on the site, but for a non-NHS company) have received tickets and have been told by the boss "You must pay them or the NHS Trust can bar you from the site".

You haven't paid them surely? This is a scam. Always ignore a fake PCN as many hospital employees already know.

Coupon-mad

Ich wrote: »

I suppose in some ways there could be an issue, if it is a condition of employment that staff must pay for parking etc. it could become a discliplinary issue. Similarly what is to stop the PPC just passing on the reg. No. of cars to the trust and them getting the details themselves from the DVLA?
The one in this area uses it's own staff to keep a check on parking, it has also just increased the staff parking charge by 50%

But paying for parking is one thing (and of course they are entitled to charge for it).

Being expected to pay an inflated, unlawful PENALTY is quite another thing and should be ignored. The idea of complaining via the Union is a good one as long as the Union understand that these fake 'fines' are a joke and unenforceable.

Oldfatgrumpy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You haven't paid them surely? This is a scam. Always ignore a fake PCN as many hospital employees already know.

The implied threat of site access denial has worked in the past, collleagues have paid. I haven't got a ticket yet but as the parking enforcement here is run by (insert 5-letter name of major PPC starting and ending with "A") I wouldn't pay on principle.

Unfortunately the last guy who paid had to do so in order to make a disciplinary procedure go away: as the A**** guy took a picture of him removing the ticket from his car, and our guy told him in Old English what he'd do to the A**** guy with his own camera! A complaint to our employer via the Trust ensued...

taffy056

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

Unfortunately the last guy who paid had to do so in order to make a disciplinary procedure go away: as the A**** guy took a picture of him removing the ticket from his car, and our guy told him in Old English what he'd do to the A**** guy with his own camera! A complaint to our employer via the Trust ensued...

Well its nothing to do with the NHS trust or any other company for third party alleged debts, its akin to you having a debt with say HSBC, and your employers giving you a discipline because if it, sorry I am almost certain that this is illegal. And if I was your friend I would pursue the issue. And as for words discussed its one person's word against another.

esmerobbo

gasman101 wrote: »

did anything ever come of this?

does anyone have a link to the story?

Aintree lost!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3672741

Details from Pepipoo!

Some more detail on the case - I was working in Aintree at the time (from Oct '10 to August '11) and after having read information on this forum I realised there was little risk in parking on double yellow lines if there was no significant loss to the Trust. Also I had a valid parking permit as staff which I had displayed on my dashboard. I happily collected many tickets and displayed them on my fridge door (until I ran out of space and my wife said it was looking messy). The usual threats of legal action started to trickle through from January. They finally made an application to the small claims court in May which was when I got in touch with Alexis. Not long after this I spoke to someone in the Trust to ask if they'd drop the case to save costs but they refused (I have a recording of the conversation somewhere). The claim forms refer to an "unpaid breach parking reg. notice" and particulars of claim simply "unpaid breach parking reg. notice" followed by a list of ticket numbers, dates and amounts. Later on, an application form (to consolidate 3 claims into 1) refers to "outstanding parking fines". Shortly before the court date I contacted Aintree again and was told they would settle if I agreed to pay their legal costs - approximately £1450! (I declined their kind offer)

The District Judge Thomas explained which of the cases quoted he would acknowledge and take into account, in particular the OBServices vs Thurlow and Dunlop vs New Garage Motor. Mr John Reaney acted as the legal agent for Trethowans. The usual arguments were made, apparently £50 is a "pre-estimate" of the damages and not a penalty but the judge pointed out that the words penalty and fine were used several times in their own documentation. Mr Reaney referred to Vine vs. Waltham Forest and quoted something along the lines of the judge saying that there has to be a means to enforcing legitimate parking on private land. In the judgement the DJ dismissed this, implying it was not the role of the court to manage car parks. Mr Reaney also referred to this case to explain that a reduced fine of £60 increasing to £85 was explained by reduced costs in having the matter dealt with more quickly. The DJ also dismissed this and agreed with the OBServices judgement, i.e. the very fact that a so-called estimate of damages can change from one week to the next indicates that it is a threat and a deterrent. Combined Parking Solutions vs Rees was also mentioned and also dismissed as it bore no relation to my case (I admitted reading the signs).

Mr Reaney also wanted to quote from a more recent case, MacDonald vs Aintree, heard in Liverpool CC about 2 weeks ago but there were no papers so the DJ could not admit this as evidence. I briefly summarised what I understood of the case - I said I didnt want to waste the court's time and admitted I had read the signs and entered into the contract. I had parked on DYLs knowing this was a breach but with the understanding that in not causing an obstruction in any way I was not likely to be liable for damages. Fortunately Trethowans's own photos of my car clearly demonstrated this point. I added that I had a valid permit thus the car park was not missing out on my £2 for each ticket. I questioned whether the £50 was indeed an estimate of damages or a penalty/fine which they had no legal right to impose. Thinking about it now, I could have possibly argued that by not parking in an "authorised space" I was freeing up a space for a ticket-paying punter to use!

In summing up the DJ said that Vine vs Waltham and CPS vs Rees did not apply because I admitted to having read the signs and entered into a contract. He stated that the main issue was the charge. He felt there had been an attempt to fix damages by the claimant and said the test was the same as in OBServices vs Thurlow - enforceable claim for damages or unenforceable claim for a penalty charge, a genuine loss or a deterrent against breach of contract. He again mentioned the issue of 2 different "pre-estimates", £25 and £50. My parking did not appear to cause any loss to the claimant thus he held the view that this was an unenforceable penalty charge. He added that it was a shame that the case reached the court given that the NHS Trust would be picking up the bill, to which Mr Reaney and I readily agreed. Its pretty clear to me now that for the Trust, taking people to court is a matter of reputation since they make a lot of money from their car parks but spend a large chunk of that on legal fees.

lucym212_2

I've read this thread but I'm still unsure what to do...

I work for an NHS trust and the staff car park is managed by CP Plus Ltd. 14 months ago a third of the staff car park was closed off as they are building on it. Even though the amount of parking bays has significantly reduced they still 'sell' permits to staff for £200 per annum and parking is on a first come first served basis. My shifts are 9-5 but I have to be in the car park by 8am in order to get a space and even then its pot luck, so effectively the trust get another hours work out of me just so that I can park my car! There have been a couple of times when I have (and many others have) parked in unmarked areas as there are no spaces available. My car has never been parked obstructively and there are no signs within the car park that indicate that cars should be parked in bays only. Since this reduction in spaces I have had and paid 2 parking fines to CP Plus Limited and I got another yesterday. I'm reluctant this time to pay after reading the section on parking fines but I'm also worried on not responding and it going beyond the 14 days for reduced payment.

Has anyone ignored these CP Plus letters before and if so, what come of it?

gasman101

lucym212 wrote: »

I've read this thread but I'm still unsure what to do...

I work for an NHS trust and the staff car park is managed by CP Plus Ltd. 14 months ago a third of the staff car park was closed off as they are building on it. Even though the amount of parking bays has significantly reduced they still 'sell' permits to staff for £200 per annum and parking is on a first come first served basis. My shifts are 9-5 but I have to be in the car park by 8am in order to get a space and even then its pot luck, so effectively the trust get another hours work out of me just so that I can park my car! There have been a couple of times when I have (and many others have) parked in unmarked areas as there are no spaces available. My car has never been parked obstructively and there are no signs within the car park that indicate that cars should be parked in bays only. Since this reduction in spaces I have had and paid 2 parking fines to CP Plus Limited and I got another yesterday. I'm reluctant this time to pay after reading the section on parking fines but I'm also worried on not responding and it going beyond the 14 days for reduced payment.

Has anyone ignored these CP Plus letters before and if so, what come of it?

hi lucy,

if its a CP plus parking car park you get the following letters from them

Letter 1) mostly (green in colour) demanding payment

Letter 2) from debt collection plus (red stripe down Left side) demanding payment

Letter 3) notice of intended litigation (red stripe)

Letter 4) offer of reduced payment (red stripe)

then nothing. its a standard chain letter.

throw them all in the bin and never reply.

End of.

hope this helps

Gasman