Mr McDonald

bod1467

martmonk wrote: »

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.

So is the revenue received from PCNs subject to other taxation then, such as VAT?

And if PE are generating revenue and profit from the site, how does that not change the rateable value of the site?

martmonk

bod1467 wrote: »

So is the revenue received from PCNs subject to other taxation then, such as VAT?

And if PE are generating revenue and profit from the site, how does that not change the rateable value of the site?

Fired that back to the valuaton office.

martmonk

Meanwhile I've agreed to meet the Trust tomorrow after work following these latest emails this afternoon;

Thanks for your reply

My email reply to you, was carefully considered, in fact, as you are aware, we have taken legal advice, and believe we have acted appropriately in considering the needs of those people carrying blue badges. What we haven’t done is as you pointed out was to specifically consider those groups you identified; We are looking to address this via policy and process to ensure we don’t disadvantage anyone who would be equally applicable to be offered free car parking.

This wasn’t done maliciously, and we believe our exemption processes should have covered anyone outside those carrying “blue badges”.
I am prepared to apologise to anyone who believes they have been offered a less than satisfactory experience of our Trust in this regard.

In advance, of your email, could I ask of you a question, to clarify the content of your response ,so I can prepare accordingly.

Perhaps you could explain but what you mean by extra time as I don’t understand what you are asking, or enquiring about.

On another note, and to clarify, we haven’t engaged parking eye to manage the car parks, that responsibility still sits with the trust, so again, please can you expand on what you are trying to draw attention to, and then I can try and provide the most relevant response.

I believe we are close to agreeing a face to face meeting and look forward to that to further understand your concerns

My response being;

I appreciate that the trust are not acting maliciously, free parking for anyone isn't something you must provide on private land and the fact the trust do is great. One issue surrounds blue badges being held up as the only indicator of disability need, which your response attempts to address and I have no doubt that the Trust is taking the issues around the EA seriously.

The problem you have is that Parking Eye are your agent and therefore acting for the Trust and they are invoicing (that's all these parking charge notices actually are - please try to stop calling them penalties) any vehicle that isn't registered on your scheme for either non payment or overstays. It is my belief that the scheme you have in place for registering is irrelevant as far as the EA is concerned.

You yourself quoted the BPA code of Practice in an earlier email - clause 16.5 I believe which stated that Parking Eye should not send a notice to a blue badge holder. I could hold a blue badge and receive a notice simply by not having registered, they are not complying with this clause of their own code of practice let alone the law on the subject.

Overstays - lets use the example I read this week on patient opinions https://www.patientopinion.org.uk/opinions/115350 as way of explanation. Neither of us know the exact details of this case but we will make some assumptions so that I can get the point across. The poster talks of physio appt so let us assume that person has a condition which has lasted more than 12 months and has an adverse impact on life - therefore protected under EA. The poster has paid £3 in total for parking - an allocation of 2 hours 30 minutes. That becomes 2 hours 50 minutes when you take into consideration the 'free' 20 minutes (we could have a separate discussion on whether that 20 minutes applies once any payment has been made). So the 'offence' is an overstay of 15 (or 35) minutes. There is no provision, anywhere in the system for Parking Eye (therefore the Trust) to offer reasonable adjustments for this type of instance - a reasonable adjustment in this type of senario being 15, or 20, or 30 minutes extra to allow for the effects of the protected characteristic.

In regard to managing - your own website homepage includes the Parking Eye logo which includes the words 'car park management', and your own explanation of the system https://www.northumbria.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/car-parking starts with 'A new car park management system, ParkingEye, has been introduced on our three general hospital sites - Hexham, North Tyneside and Wansbeck. This will be a more effective and efficient way for us to manage our car parks'

If they are not managing the car parks then what are they doing?

Stroma

Are there signs there that says people should register with a ward manager for an exemption? If there's not, then how are people supposed to know about this secret clause ? Are they supposed be telepathic ? The bpa says that no blue badge holder should be ticketed in the CoP , how can parking eye do that when it they have no people on foot ?

Umkomaas

Great stuff martmonk, tenacious yet courteous.

trisontana

And, of course, PE should not be earning any "income" from parking charge notices. Contract law states the only amount that can be claimed is for any losses that have been suffered

Guys_Dad

Point out to the trust that disabled drivers' vehicles have a Road Fund licence that identifies that the vehicle belongs to a disabled driver and that it is not rocket science for the PPC to be instructed to train their operatives not to ticket a car that has such an indication on its Road Fund Licence.

Note that a ZERO amount on its own is not an indication of it being a disabled driver's vehicle, just that teh car is ultra-green.

martmonk

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Point out to the trust that disabled drivers' vehicles have a Road Fund licence that identifies that the vehicle belongs to a disabled driver and that it is not rocket science for the PPC to be instructed to train their operatives not to ticket a car that has such an indication on its Road Fund Licence.

Note that a ZERO amount on its own is not an indication of it being a disabled driver's vehicle, just that teh car is ultra-green.

There are no windscreen tickets, only cameras.

martmonk

Stroma wrote: »

Are there signs there that says people should register with a ward manager for an exemption? If there's not, then how are people supposed to know about this secret clause ? Are they supposed be telepathic ? The bpa says that no blue badge holder should be ticketed in the CoP , how can parking eye do that when it they have no people on foot ?

No, these are measures being proposed and implemented as a result of the queries I've been raising.

Guys_Dad

martmonk wrote: »

There are no windscreen tickets, only cameras.

Then the comment about the RFL would apply as a reason to get an exemption from the Trust and an instruction to the staff that if a motorist who hadn't pre-registered came in showing either a blue badge or a relevant RFL, then the PPC should be instructed to cancel the ticket.