Mr McDonald

Stroma

The October figure is out by the way

Edit
In fact all the figures are out

martmonk

Stroma wrote: »

The October figure is out by the way

Edit
In fact all the figures are out

In what way?

Stroma

Issued - 3651, Paid 1192, Cancelled 1185

That figure for cancelled and paid comes to 2377, what has happened to the other 1274 ?

bod1467

The balance are tickets that have been ignored/pending payment?

martmonk

bod1467 wrote: »

The balance are tickets that have been ignored/pending payment?

^^^^ that's my interpretation too

nigelbb

Normally as health is outside the scope of VAT there could be no reclamation of the VAT paid but I understand that the VAT rules allow the Trust to reclaim VAT paid for a service that has been outsourced. So the result is fiscally neutral but the VAT is actually paid then reclaimed not just ignored. Finding out exactly how much VAT the trust paid should reflect exactly 20% of the money that PE has obtained from motorists.

martmonk

Way back on page 3 (post #46) I emailed the CEO and copied the local MP and councillor.

That prompted a meeting with the Estates Mgr and the Communications Mgr. After that meeting I summarised what was outstanding and had no response other than the one where the Comms Mgr claimed I was putting them under a barrage of requests and that they were close to a solution (that was Nov 13th).

In the meantime I've had FOI responses as mentioned in previous posts, one of which I've complained to the Information Commissioners Office on.

I've decided here to link the redacted contract https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jXc1Lz6E7eSlpOSjZyNktZNFU/edit?usp=sharing

and the response which shows the clause giving authority https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jXc1Lz6E7eRmo5RlJqTUgzTzA/edit?usp=sharing

Today I've sent another missive to the CEO, MP, Cllr and local paper which I'll post below. If I receive any response I'll share it here.

martmonk

Mr XXX,

Further to the below your XXXX and I met in the last week of October and discussed some of the points raised along with XXX. I sent a thank you note following the meeting (I'll be happy to share that with you if requested), which summarised what was discussed and outlined outstanding items from the initial email I sent you below.

Since that time I have also had responses to FOI requests which I would be glad of your comment on.

Firstly the items which remain unanswered from my initial email to you and conversation with Steven;

1 – Pre-Estimate of Loss

As yet no answer has been forthcoming which addresses the question I set out below – namely for the Trust to explain the £70 (£40 in 14 days) charge levied by Parking Eye on behalf of the trust for each alleged contravention.

When I met Mr Bannister he advised that Parking Eye had said this was ‘industry standard’ - I would point out that there can be no industry standard – each private car park in the country would have its own consequential loss flowing from any breach of contract (if we assume one exists – as stated I would argue it doesn’t). In the case of the Trust, as I previously mentioned, this ‘loss’ would be the parking revenue available if the ‘contravention’ had not occurred. This is £4 for 24 hours parking, or if taken to extremes 24 x individual £1.20 and therefore £28.80.

I have, in an email to Mr Bannister, referred the trust to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) service decisions where ‘Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss’ is raised by the motorist. This is Parking Eye’s record at POPLA (up to Dec 9th) when costs are called into question;

(Parking Pranksters Table inserted)

That’s 67 appeals upheld and 0 ‘wins’ for Parking Eye so again I ask – how is the figure of £70 arrived at?

2 – Evidence of the ‘rigorous debates’

I asked what, if any information was available that documented the “rigorous debate, held at all levels of the trust, from the estates committee through to the executive management team and full trust board before any decision to proceed was agreed.” Please can you advise whether this is available or whether I need to raise an FOI request for it?

I mentioned originally and above the FOI requests I had placed on the trust, the answers to which have raised further concerns which I would appreciate your thoughts on;

1 – Contract

The contract with Parking Eye includes what I interpret as contradictory clauses and I’d be grateful if you could explain which takes precedent in the view of the trust. These are;

(2.1)The Authority appoints the contractor to provide the services;

(2.1.6) as agent, to pursue the outstanding parking charges by any method up to and including by way of legal proceedings to recover these sums due from motorists for unauthorised parking.

And;

(39) Relationship of the parties

(39.1) The Contractor shall not incur any liabilities on behalf of the Authority or, as the case may be, any Beneficiary: or, make any representations or give any warranty on behalf of the Authority or, as the case may be, any Beneficiary: or, enter into any contract or obligation on behalf of the authority or, as the case may be, any beneficiary.
(my bold)

It would be my interpretation that clause 39.1 says that Parking Eye cannot enter a contract with a motorist on behalf of the trust and therefore there are no terms and conditions to 'breach', which makes 2.1.6 void as no contract can be formed in the first place. Please provide your comment.

2- Revenue generated

My FOI request (1981) shows that in the period Aug – Oct 2013 there were 11,179 (yes that’s eleven thousand, one hundred and seventy nine) Parking Charge Notices issued by Parking Eye in relation to the three trust sites. Of those (to the date of the report) 3,854 had been paid.

If we make the unlikely assumption that all those who paid did so within 14 days then that’s £154,160(£40 x 3854) that the trust have facilitated is removed from users pockets in order to line those of Parking Eye. That’s over £600,000 per year! Change the assumption on the number who pay in 14 days and that figure will rise to closer to £1m.

£1m from trust users in just one year in order to save the trust the £70,000* it would have cost to upgrade the existing barrier system!!!!!

*as quoted by trust staff numerous times on the Patient Opinion website - here is one example - https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/opinions/102814

Is it clear now why the tender from Parking Eye was them offering their services at 'no cost' to the trust? I would have thought 'rigourous debate' would have included board level individuals realising that a third party company were highly unlikely to be offering something for nothing.

I'm guessing the offer failed to mention that it would be the general public paying close to 10 times the amount the trust would have outlayed without the 'help' of Parking Eye!

I would be delighted to hear what the trust thinks about this?

Do you for example believe that users of the trust are getting £1m worth of annual value from a system which simply aims to generate profits for a third party by relying on contract law where no contract exists and doesn't actually manage the car parks - how can a set of cameras manage anything?

These revenues are not even staying in the North East so the Trust is actually draining the local economy unnecessarily.

I would appreciate answers to the questions set out above, which for clarity are;

1 - how is the figure of £70 arrived at?

2- whether evidence of the ‘rigorous’ debates is available or whether I need to raise an FOI request?

3 – Interpretation on the contract - specifically which clause takes precedent.

Most importantly

4 – Does the Trust believe that users of the trust are getting £1m worth of annual value from Parking Eye?

Again I welcome comment and involvement from both Councillor XXXX and XXXX MP, both of whom are cc’d to this email.

Best Regards

bod1467

Since this is a public forum it may be wise to avoid naming individuals in your post.

martmonk

OK I have removed names just to keep anyone who may read it happy, BUT, nobody named in that email is not identifiable with a simple search of the internet, or in most cases this thread and forum.