Hospital Car Parking fines Help Help!!

muckybutt

withabix wrote: »

This isn't the same situation as a member of the public ignoring a PCN in a hospital car park.

It is exactly the same, its still unenforceable bull excrement.

mikey72 wrote: »

There was a thread on tailgating out of a carpark to avoid paying, so a similar scenario

Fraud or theft.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4045501

Typical nonsence reply from the forum jester :T that has nothing to do with the current post what so ever

mikey72

Go for it then

Follow the advice.
Keep using the car park and leaving without paying.

It's not fraud, or theft.
I was wrong.

It's nothing like the other thread where it was considered fraud or theft if you left the carpark without paying.

Post back on the tribunal though, as Renegade mentioned
"If they sack you, you've get them by the balls on Wrongful Dismissal"

(If you don't want to go for the unfair dismissal route, try pepipoo, for sensible advice. Unless the posters on here disagree, and would rather you not get a second opinion.)

RENEGADE_2

mikey72 wrote: »

Go for it then

Follow the advice.
Keep using the car park and leaving without paying.

It's not fraud, or theft.
I was wrong.

It's nothing like the other thread where it was considered fraud or theft if you left the carpark without paying.

Post back on the tribunal though, as Renagade mentioned
"If they sack you, you've get them by the balls on Wrongful Dismissal"

I don't follow. My remark was to an employee of a trust who has been accused of fraud and I have known cases where employers have quaffed staff wages to pay off private parking charges without the permission of the individual. People come here because they wish to know their rights and we merely explain these to them. I have led nobody down a dark path.

taffy056

RENEGADE wrote: »

I don't follow. My remark was to an employee of a trust who has been accused of fraud and I have known cases where employers have quaffed staff wages to pay off private parking charges without the permission of the individual. People come here because they wish to know their rights and we merely explain these to them. I have led nobody down a dark path.

Mikey fix it is full of irrelevancy when it comes to this forum, he stays here for a few days then disappears for a week or so, he will come back with some equally vague and distant irrelevant comment about god only knows what, to totally take this thread off track like all the other ones he comments on.

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

Mikey fix it is full of irrelevancy when it comes to this forum, he stays here for a few days then disappears for a week or so, he will come back with some equally vague and distant irrelevant comment about god only knows what, to totally take this thread off track like all the other ones he comments on.

Because most of the time, you will happily spend days insulting PPC's. That doesn't really affect anyone.
You enjoy it, you post a few times patting each others backs.
It's fun for you, and you go to bed with a happy glow.
It's harmless fun.
Occasionally you'll cross into messing with someones job.
Then they need to know the effect your advice will have.
Then they can make thier own choice, knowing both sides.

Or they can go onto pepipoo, and get a balanced answer.
I don't really mind either way. I don't have an axe to grind.
Do you disagree with asking on pepipoo?

HO87

I find this story somewhat unbelievable but that may well be due to the OP's obvious and understandable reluctance to provide detail on the basis that this might lead to their being identified.

Unlike the others I can envisage scenarios in which the OP could be deemed to have acted fraudulently but all of these necessitate adding in detail that the OP has not provided - I am guessing in other words. Based on the thin detail of the process they have provided thusfar I struggle to see what offences could have been commited.

Simply parking in a private car park without paying the fee due does not constitute fraud. There must be other attendant circumstances to provide the necessary element of dishonesty required to prove the offence.

One has to wonder on what grounds the Hospital Trust intend now to take action? The OP's account - thin as it is - strongly suggests that they have not been approached, formally or informally, to date and this may well hamstring the Trust from two separate directions. Firstly, with regard to any claim they may have in relation to the outstanding parking invoices these are simply a civil claim. As far as these are concerned a claimant is under a duty to mitigate his losses and blindly adding charge upon charge and taking no other steps to protect their interest (in the car park) by banning the OP from parking, for example will not go down well in any court. The lack of action suggests intransigence and intransigence may hardly be equated with an earnest desire to protect one's property.

The same intransigence will also apply in respect of any disciplinary matter that is alleged. If a course of conduct is so serious as to warrant disciplinary action then the employer will need to demonstrate that it acted promptly to address it. Allowing 63 parking notices to accumulate, presumably over a period of a minimum of just over two months cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be argued as acting promptly. An argument could be constructed to the effect that the behaviour has been accepted.

The way in which the OP describes what management are looking to do is typical of an organisation that has been caught out and is flailing around to find a target to dump on.

The Trust are on dodgy ground here.

By the same token, if the OP expects anyone to believe that they just "forgot" to sort out their parking issues over such a protracted period with what may well have been daily reminders to deal with it (by way of the invoices) stretches credibility to transparency.

bazster

mikey72 wrote: »

I don't really mind either way. I don't have an axe to grind.

:rotfl::rotfl:

freemason_2

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the advice so far. The trust has handed me a notice requesting a formal interview under caution in respect the possibility that i have being involved in fraud. They have not provided any details, just a generic letter. The interview is voluntary but the the fraud department chap who handed me the letter said that if i ignore it they will get the police to arrest me and interview me. I asked a laywer in a pro bono practice, who said he would attend the interview but as no legal aid is available (as its not a police interview) he would charge me for. I dont have that kind of money.

What are my options??

mikey72

Did you post on pepipoo for advice since last time?

taffy056

Are you in a union at all ? Do you have legal cover under your house insurance ? I still can't see this being a criminal matter at all, this is a civil only, think the police will take one look at this and say its a civil matter, and being that if they think they have a case to bring it to mediation in the small claims, this guy is trying to scare you I believe. HO87 above is a former police officer, wonder what his take is on this?