Mr McDonald

nigelbb

I don't know if it applies in this case but in other hospitals the usual way that PE get paid is to keep all the money from their Parking Charge Notices as payment for parking management services & then invoice the Principal for the VAT due on that money. It's also possible that the hospital can get charges cancelled but has to pay as PE is losing money when a charge is cancelled. I am sure that you can think up some extra FOI requests that would throw light on the whole scam using this data.

martmonk

nigelbb wrote: »

I don't know if it applies in this case but in other hospitals the usual way that PE get paid is to keep all the money from their Parking Charge Notices as payment for parking management services & then invoice the Principal for the VAT due on that money. It's also possible that the hospital can get charges cancelled but has to pay as PE is losing money when a charge is cancelled. I am sure that you can think up some extra FOI requests that would throw light on the whole scam using this data.

Thanks, I'll have a think on this one.

My initial FOI request was;

I would be grateful if youcould provide me, under the Freedom of Information Act, with any contractsNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has with Parking Eye and details ofany associated mutually beneficial arrangements - in other words whether theNHS trust is sharing the profits of this despicable organisation.

and the initial response (which I challenged as incomplete - didn't address contract request, subsequently they involked section 43 exemption)

Response:
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust hasreceived no income from Parking Eye. The Parking Eye Automatic Number Plate Recognitionsystem is being provided on a cost neutral basis; as a result no invoices havebeen received or issued.

martmonk

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

Thanks. I have suggested that these are metrics that the Trust should be using to monitor performance - especially as they state (in response to queries and on the website) that there is an appeals process. https://www.northumbria.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/car-parking

So my interpretation is that the Trust are saying that the process is appeal to PE, then to the trust and then to POPLA. I would argue (and will with them depending on the response) that for them to be part of the appeal process they must have visibility of those appeals from the outset, or at least the ability to obtain those appeals on request. Indeed they can complain to the BPA and have the information made available should PE refuse to provide it....

For what it's worth the CoP has this;
22.13 You must keep evidence of all challenges you receive and the action you take to resolve them. You must keep a full audit trail of all actions, which can be manual or generated by a processing system. You must allow us access to this when we are investigating a complaint. You must keep documents (or scanned copies) for at least two years from the date of the challenge.

To be fair to the trust I don't think they have acted wrongly deliberately. They are just misguided in the belief (hopefully all this is dispelling that belief) that PE actually provide some kind of a fairly managed process.

nigelbb

martmonk wrote: »

Response:
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust hasreceived no income from Parking Eye. The Parking Eye Automatic Number Plate Recognitionsystem is being provided on a cost neutral basis; as a result no invoices havebeen received or issued.

Double check that this is true because in the PE contract with Sunderland Hospital there is the following:-

ParkingEye supplies the Services in return for the following Revenues*
ANPR derived Parking Charge revenue: 100%

*VAT shall apply at the standard rate

The Hospital is then invoiced every month for the VAT due on the Parking Charges that PE have levied. It should be the same in this case & they are being disingenuous if they claim that no invoice has been received. If PE are not charging VAT for their parking 'services' then I am sure that HMRC would be very keen to know.

Here is a link to the first page of the Sunderland Hospital contract with a link to an unredacted version in reply #5 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84246

If an FOI request can establish how much PE are invoicing for VAT per month then simply multiplying by five & then dividing by £70 (or whatever the PCN rate is) will yield the number of motorists being fleeced by PE each month.

martmonk

Nigel,

how about this?

In regard to the response received on the FOI request 1938 as far as the financial position of the Trust and Parking Eye is concerned, please can I request that the answer provided is checked?

Specifically is the Trust paying Parking Eye (and therefore being invoiced) the VAT due on the charges that Parking Eye have levied?
And, are Parking Eye paying to the trust the equivalent of the paid parking tariff revenue which ought to have been paid by the alledged 'offender'.

Please advise if this request needs to be submitted as a new one.

martmonk

sent the above.
And emailed the below to the two local authorities which Northumbria Healthcare covers - namely North Tyneside and Northumberland (thanks to Umkomaas for the basis of this which was posted elsewhere).

Good morning,

Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust car parks in Northumberland and North Tyneside are now 'managed' by Parking Eye.

As these car parks are now being used for the purposes of running a business by Parking Eye which is entirely separate from any hospital service, and generates revenue and profit for Parking Eye are you able to check that Parking Eye have declared the running of their business venture at these locations to the Local Valuation offices and Local Authorities for the purpose of paying Business Rates?

martmonk

North Tyneside Council are quick off the mark with this response;

I can confirm that Parking Eye do not appear to have been in touch with North Tyneside Council in relation to this matter and these car parks do not have a separate entry in the rating list. I must assume that they are currently included in the hospital assessments.

Ultimately, it will be a decision for the Valuation Office Agency as to whether or not it is appropriate for these car parks to be separately assessed. Presumably, this will largely depend on the terms of any agreement between Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust and Parking Eye.

I have copied this email to the Valuation Office Agency in case they have specific knowledge of this scenario or wish to make further enquiries.

So I'm thinking yet another FOI request to the Trust but I'm not sure what to specifically ask -

"Details and specific wording of any clause in the contract between the Trust and Parking Eye which sets out the responsibilities for Business Rates applicable on the Car Parks in which Parking Eye now operate."
And;
"Are business rates for the Trusts owned car parks included within the assessments for each of the hospitals"

Anyone have a better question, or additions/alterations to make?

nigelbb

I am not sure that you are going to get very far with regard to business rates.

The fiction is that the parking charges collected from errant motorists are exactly equal to the charges made by PE for providing parking 'management' to the hospital. They then invoice the hospital for VAT on those service charges & presumably pass on the VAT element to HMRC.

The other fiction is that charges rendered are genuine pre-estimates of losses incurred by the landowner (or possibly PE don't forget it's all PPC World fantasy fiction) and they are definitely not actually charges for parking at all & not subject to VAT (which is why the hospital has to pay the VAT).

martmonk

a flurry of activity this afternoon. OK 2 emails maybe isn't a flurry but here's the first, from the local authority on business rates;

Dear Sirs
I have made enquiries of the Northumbria NHS Trust and their response is copied below:

The car parks are owned and operated by the Trust. Parking Eye have provided an ANPR system and pursue non-payment of parking charges on behalf of the Trust. The Trust receives all parking revenue. Parking Eye receive the money generated by parking charge notices (PCNs). No money changes hands between the Trust and Parking Eye but PE do reimburse the Trust unpaid parking charges from the PCNs.
Based on this information there is no justification in separately assessing the car parks for business rates.

martmonk

Then I had a response (which is the result of legal advice) to the EA issue;

Thanks for your patience, I can now provide you with our response

You have raised concerns around how the parking scheme operates in respect of disabled persons and also in respect of other groups protected by equality legislation.

The Trust takes protection of equalities very seriously. You are correct that the Blue Badge scheme run by local Councils does not operate automatically in Trust car parks. However, the Trust has considered the needs of disabled persons and has decided to allow free parking to persons with a disability such that they have travel needs which have entitled them to a Blue Badge.

We appreciate that there may be some disabled persons who do not have a Blue Badge (either because they have not applied for one or because they were not granted one) and yet who may have good cause to be treated as an exception to the general rule of paying for parking at our hospital sites. Such persons can request free parking under the Trust’s concessionary free parking scheme and ward managers will consider their request on a case by case basis.

You have raised concerns about the requirements for Blue Badge holders to display their Blue Badge and also to register with the Trust prior to or on the day of their visit, in order to qualify for the free parking scheme. Persons parking in disabled bays are required to display the Blue Badge, as it is the Trust’s experience that complaints and concerns are raised when other car park users see vehicles parked in disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge. The Parking Eye system used by the Trust operates by reading car registration numbers and checking them against payments received for parking. Therefore, in order to stop penalty notices being sent to Blue Badge holders, they are required to register the vehicle(s) they use and their Blue Badge details, so that the Parking Eye system knows that those car registration numbers are exempt from payment. The Trust has tried to facilitate different means of registration to make the process as simple as possible, and only requires Blue Badge holders to register once for as long as their Blue Badge is valid and they are using the same vehicle(s).

Of course, there are other groups which are protected under the Equality Act and, as you mention, pregnant and breastfeeding women and the elderly fall within these categories. Such persons can apply for concessionary free parking under the Trust’s concessionary scheme, and each application will be dealt with by the appropriate ward manager on a case by case basis. The Trust is always seeking to improve its policies and procedures around equalities and values the comments you have made. We are currently updating the guidance for ward managers on the concessionary parking scheme and aim to have new guidance, referring to the protected groups under the Equality Act, issued shortly.

I hope this allays your concerns.

If you have any questions as to the above, of course please don’t hesitate to contact me.

I'd be very interested in opinions on this from the regulars here and CM in particular.

I fired this off straight away;

thanks for the email which I have read once before penning this response. I will read over and provide a more considered reply but the key issue has not been addressed.

Parking Eye - and therefore the trust are, in my opinion in breach, everytime they do not make reasonable adjustments for those with protected characteristics under the Act. This is regardless of any scheme in place for those individuals to register the vehicle in which they are travelling. I'm not just talking about offering 'free' parking, but providing extra time etc.

Nothing in what you have written below changes that fact and I say again that Parking Eye are not managing the car parks.

Regards

Any contributions welcome so that I can reply to each point made would be great.

EDIT - just noticed that even now they are still calling them 'penalty notices'.