Mr McDonald

trisontana

That poor deluded woman still thinks that the sums of money demanded by them are some sort of penalty or fine, when they are just a civil parking charge notice. So she can't try and compare them to council parking tickets. I see that she has fallen into Parking Eye's trap when they say that the money spent providing the cameras and maintaining them somehow can be classed as a "loss" caused by a particular parking "event".

martmonk

Umkomaas wrote: »

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.

Thanks.
I should have posted here before responding.
My response is now published though.

However in regard to the above I have emailed both Annie Laverty and Steven Bannister with the above link, text and question and added that if they can't or are unwilling to answer it then I'll send in a FOI request.

trisontana

It would help your case if you stopped referring to these charges as "fines". They are not. To give them that name gives them the legitimacy they don't deserve.

martmonk

trisontana wrote: »

It would help your case if you stopped referring to these charges as "fines". They are not. To give them that name gives them the legitimacy they don't deserve.

It was entirely deliberate in my initial questions. I was using the language that they have already repeatedly used elsewhere on the patient opinions site in response to other queries and I wanted them to be using it here. Earlier on this thread I posed the question that was ultimately the reason for doing it which was along the lines of 'would these responses alone be grounds for upheld appeals given that the landowner believes that they are issuing fines and penalities which are punative?'

I don't think anyone has been able to answer that yet.

You will see from my latest response that I am very clear in stating that 'Neither (Parking Eye or the Trust) have the ability or the legal capability to ‘fine’ or issue ‘penalties’ in relation to parking'

EDIT - I have realised that I further refered to a fine/penalty towards the end of my final response. This was in error.

martmonk

So to summarise I have ongoing email conversations with the director of estates and outstanding FOI requests along with a complaint about the handling of my first request.

I chased a response from the director of estates earlier in the week and wasn't happy with his assertion that I'd see something 'in due course'. I therefore emailed the trust CEO and cc'd my MP and local councillor, along with the director concerned.

This is that email which has had a response from the councillor that he has contacted the CEO for answers.

....Over the course of the last 5 weeks or so I have been in contact with the trust in regard to the employment of Parking Eye at the Trust sites. In particular I have expressed concerns that, as a commercially driven operation they are simply targeting patients and visitors by issuing parking charge notices (designed to be passed off as penalty charge notices) in order to generate revenue.

There are a number of concerns which I have laid out during the course of the correspondence (chiefly with Mr Stephen Bannister), I have previosuly requested that those concerns (or at least some of them) are shared with the board and the executive management team.

I won't overload you on this email but I am more than prepared to send additional information if you require it?

I have bullet pointed the key issues;

1 Parking Eye (and therefore the Trust as you are jointly and severally liable for your agents) are breaching the Equality Act an innumerable number of times when issuing these 'charge notices'. There are several examples on the patient opinions site for example. Mr Bannister has details from me of exactly what these breaches are and I will be happy to share them, suffice to say that the blue badge scheme is not the only indicator of disability and as a Trust you should be aware of that. Those with protected characteristics are being disciminated against by Parking Eye (and therefore the Trust).

2 The Trust 'thinks' that it is able to penalise and fine through Parking Eye as evidenced numerous times on the patient opinions website - specifically responses by Annie Laverty and Jo Macintosh. ONLY courts can fine, ONLY the Police and Local Authorities can issue penalties.

3 Parking Eye relies on breach of contract to issue these charge notices. Therefore each of your car park users MUST be aware of the contract in order to breach it. That means signs etc have to make it clear what the terms of the contract are, they do not. The signs have to be readable from a moving vehicle when entering the car park, they are not. There's more here but you get the drift.

4 Parking Eye as I've said relies on breach of contract. Let us assume that a contract exists (I'd argue it doesn't), the remedies available to Parking Eye (and therefore the trust) are losses arising from the breach, therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Operational costs such as errecting signage, cameras, issuing notices etc are not losses, they would have occurred if there was no use of the car park, if a user stayed for 10 days or for just 30 minutes. The loss incurred in the case of your car parks is the loss of parking revenue, I can't see a way to justifiably say that amounts to £70. I especially cannot see how that loss of parking revenue can be £40 if paid in 14 days but it increases to £70 thereafter - perhaps you can explain as so far neither Parking Eye or your staff have been able to?

5 In order to pursue your users through to the courts (which is what Parking Eye threaten and follow up on) they must have the legal standing to do so. That is to say that they must either have title to the land, or the express contractual right to issue claims through the courts on your behalf. In order to try and establish whether this was the case I requested under FOI a copy of the contract - that was refused on a section 43 exemption (a decision I have challenged - FOI 1938 - as 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.). Therefore a second request is pending (FOI 1968) which expressly asks if this clause exists and the wording of it.

6 The trust believes - as evidenced by responses on the patient opinions website and on your own website, that Parking Eye have a fair appeals process, they do not. Mitigating circumstances - which is what the majority of your users offer are routinely rejected by Parking Eye. The next stage of any appeal would be to go to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals service) where any of the points raised above would see a charge quashed. The issue is that your 'offenders' typically are simply not aware of these points of law and their appeals will be based on mitigating circumstances, examples might be 'my son was really ill and I thought I paid, or we stayed 20 mins over but it took us that long to find a space so we only actually 'parked' for the right amount of time. These appeals are not upheld. I have a further FOI request with the Trust which will hopefully shed some light on these appeals. Mr Bannister has previously mentioned the BPA (British Parking Association), I would point out (in case the tTust are unaware) that this is NOT an independent body, it is simply a trade association paid for by it's members (Parking Eye etc).

I've said previously to Mr Bannister that I have no issue with the Trust charging for the use of the car parks, or for wanting to enure that those car parks are not abused. However Parking Eye do not manage, they penalise and they strive to milk as much revenue as possible from those unfortunate enough to come into contact with them. It's bad enough when it's a retail park or supermarket but to have these parasites operating within a hospital where the majority of car park users are likely to be ill, distressed, elderly, injured, pregnant etc is truly appalling.

I have cc'd to this email both my local councillor for Longbenton and our local MP in the hope that they might take an interest in this issue and I invite them both to contact me if they would like further information on any of the points I raise above.

Mr Mackey I have nothing but praise for the staff inside North Tyneside General (I have no experience of the other sites) and I can assure you I'm not just stirring up trouble for the sake of it. I truly belive that the Trust has made a monumental error in getting into bed with these parasites and I want the Trust board to consider its position in regard to Parking Eye asap. Vulnerable people are being targeted by these cowboys and simply paying these exorbitant charges when in fact there is no legal need to do so.

Should you share this with Parking Eye they will point to some cases, as they have on patient opinions but I urge you be very careful with what they suggest (there's more evidence of them being wrong than there is right - go and look at POPLA decisions where the 'offender' has mentioned pre-estimate of loss).

Recently they suggested to Mr Bannister (https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/opinions/112873) that he quote Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011) in regard to the justification of the £70 charge. They failed to mention what the judge actually said in summation 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.

I'm extremely keen to hear your thoughts on any and all of the above and would dearly love answers to questions such as what the Trust indends to do in regard to Parking Eye and the unenforceable charges they are levying on Trust users?

It has been said that the decision to work with parking eye was the subject of a 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. I can see no mention of parking in the Estates and Facilities Strategic Report https://www.northumbria.nhs.uk/uploads/media_items/estates-and-facilities-strategic-report.original.pdf and no mention either in any of the meeting notes or agenda's in the early part of the year (Jan - Mar). Therefore I would ask whether minutes of these rigorous debates are available and if so where can they be found? If they are not readily available I'll be happy to raise a Freedom of Information request for them.

Finally I note in the minutes of the meeting 28th February that a pateint was invited to share their experience - I would happily volunteer to attend the next meeting so that the full board can hear and comment on the above.

Many thanks and best regards

... I want to say thanks to all the regulars on here who will no doubt recognise their own contributions in what I've written.
I'll keep this thread updated.

Umkomaas

Super job MM.

martmonk

For completeness the FOI request I have in regard to appeals is below - the trust claim that there is a proper appeals process in place.

This request, my complaint on the original and the one specifically on the contract clause should all be responded to by Oct 31st.

1 - details showing the number of charge notices issued by Parking Eye onbehalf of the trust since they were introduced in May this year.
2 - the number of appeals to those notices received by parking eye
3 - the number of those appeals that were upheld; and the number that wererejected
4 - the number of times the trust has handled appeals directly from recipientsof these notices
5 - the number of those (trust handled) appeals that have been upheld
6 - the number of times that parking eye (as evidenced by appeal contenteither to Parking Eye or to the Trust directly) has sent a charge notice to ablue badge holder

Umkomaas

Really interested in seeing how they [STRIKE]squirm[/STRIKE] work their way around those questions MM

Guys_Dad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Really interested in seeing how they [STRIKE]squirm[/STRIKE] work their way around those questions MM

I expect that the Trust will claim that any questions relating to PE's facts and figures round their tickets and charges are outside FOI as PE is a private company and not subject to FOI and the Trust do not hold this information .

That's my guess to answer your question not my informed interpretation of the law

Umkomaas

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I expect that the Trust will claim that any questions relating to PE's facts and figures round their tickets and charges are outside FOI as PE is a private company and not subject to FOI and the Trust do not hold this information .

That's my guess to answer your question not my informed interpretation of the law

Principal/Agent?