Mr McDonald

martmonk

Iceweasel wrote: »

Re item #3

I note that Annie Laverty refers to 'penalty' several times and even calls it a 'fine' at one point.

That show us exactly how much understanding she has of the reality of what the Trust has done.

Keep up the good work - don't let them off the hook.

That's what I meant about terminology and whether that was grounds for upheld appeals - the landowner repeatedly admitting the charges were fines or penalties and therefore punative.

If you look at other threads on the site it is not an isolated incident. She and her team have consistently used the words fine and penalty in relation to the charges.

martmonk

This is the content of the FOI letter I have received this evening. A flat rejection to my request. Any suggestions? I was thinking of specifically asking about title and express permission to pursue charges and take legal action.

The letter content:

Decision Notice:
I would be grateful if you could provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, with any contracts Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has with Parking Eye and details of any associated mutually beneficial arrangements - in other words whether the NHS trust is sharing the profits of this despicable organisation.

Response:

Contracts Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has with Parking Eye

S43 (2)
Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to; prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

The Trust is unable to provide the information in response to your request as this is considered to be commercially sensitive as it is considered that the commercial interests of the contractor would be exposed by the release of the contract data. Under section 43 of the Act a public authority is exempt from the duty to communicate information where disclosure of the requested information would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the organisation or a third party.

Stroma

Well I know a trust has released this information under a foi request previously. I am not 100% sure where you can go from here, but a complaint to the information commissioners office might be an idea.

I would say thinking about it is that if you have a claim from a parking company, you have a legal right to see this document as part of discovery, if they issue a claim from this trust, then you can ask for this document as they are the principle.

Or am I wrong here ?

Coupon-mad

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79773

HTH

martmonk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79773

HTH

Thanks
This thread is concerning section 41. My response quoted section 43. Would the content of post 36 apply?

I'm going to use this paragraph and see where it gets me.

"The Information Tribunal has confirmed that information contained in a contract between a public authority and a third party represents the conclusion of negotiations between the two parties, and as such is jointly created rather than being obtained by the public authority from the contractor. It is therefore not confidential information."

Coupon-mad

Not sure, I just know that Philter knows what he is talking about but only rarely posts. I recalled that he had posted that a while back.

martmonk

Again thanks. I've registered over on pepipoo and will post on there tomorrow.

martmonk

I found a post on pepipoo which related to this trust, they have used this exemption before.

However I have done two things, first I've replied saying that for the second successive time the response is incomplete, this time it made no mention of the public interest test which it must do to reject under section 43. I have made reference to lodging a complaint to the information commissioners office by way of cc'ing that organisation to the email.

Secondly I have submitted a new FOI request which asks:

(1) if the contract gives Parking Eye the right to pursue people to small claims courts; and if so (2) the wording of that section of the contract only

martmonk

so over the weekend a response was posted to the patient opinion site https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/opinions/112873

of particular interest is the answer given to my Q2 which was;
do you believe that the fines being issued in any way represent a fair charge, in that they are £70?

The answer recieved is;
2 Northumberland County Council, Newcastle City Council and North Tyneside Council all issue Penalty Charge Notices with two levels of charges £70 and £50. All three authorities reduce this by 50% if paid within 14 days of issue. The £70 charge issued by ParkingEye (which is reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days) is therefore in line with the penalty charges issued by local councils.

I've just submitted my response to this which includes against item 2 - WOW

I have also commented that whilst they might be incorrect responses to my questions 1 and 2 are at least well written and clear. 3is not and I would suggest provided by Parking Eye.

I've submitted a further, separate comment regard to the EA2010 and will update on here as we progress.

Umkomaas

The PE drafted paragraph quoting from the Somerfield case, conveniently forgot to include this summation from the Judge about their actions:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html

This semi-literate letter was false in a number of respects:
i) It said that the debt was due to ParkingEye. It was not. It was due to Somerfield.

ii) It talked of "their genuine customers" which suggested the letter was sent on behalf of Somerfield. It was not.

iii) It said "ParkingEye will issue proceedings" indicating that ParkingEye had authority to do so. It did not.

iv) In any event neither ParkingEye nor Somerfield actually had any settled intention of issuing legal proceedings if the money was not paid. The contract provided by Schedule 2 that if the registered keeper did not pay after a fourth letter, no further action would be taken but detailed records of non-payers and persistent offenders would be stored. If Somerfield decided to sue ParkingEye was to assist.

v) In the case of any vehicle driven by someone other than the registered keeper the recipient of the letter was not liable at all.

In the event of non-payment there was a fourth letter in the same crude fashion. Its most aggressive passage reads:
You may not have considered also the implications of a judgment being recorded against you. Such as credit becoming more expensive. For you, with a judgment against you, interest rates could become very high, if you are able to obtain credit at all.
The letter ended with: "This is your last chance."

The Judge not only found that the third letter contained falsehoods but that those falsehoods were deliberately made by the relevant ParkingEye executive, albeit without dishonesty. Hence the Judge found ParkingEye was guilty of the tort of deceit on those occasions when the third letter was sent on its behalf. ParkingEye does not challenge this decision.

Apart from the tort of deceit, Somerfield alleged other illegalities springing from the third letter. These were the offence of obtaining a money transfer by deception contrary to the Theft Act 1968 and the Fraud Act 2006 and unlawful harassment of a debtor contrary to s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Somerfield abandoned the first of these allegations during the trial and the judge rejected the s.40 allegation from which there is no cross-appeal. In the result it was not shown that ParkingEye had committed any criminal offence. The third letter amounted only to a breach of civil law.

Is the Trust aware of the type of organisation they have chosen to harass their patients? You might also want to ask, in any subsequent response you make, that the Trust confirms whether they have given authority in their contract for PE to 'issue proceedings' in pursuit vulnerable patients through the courts - now that would make very interesting copy for your local Press.