Received Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice - From xxx NHS Polyclinic

Half_way

Hi thanks for the heads up. However previous folks who have had problems or experience with this clinic know as soon as they try and speak to anybody with authority they hit a brick wall

The clinic have contracted parking eye to act as their agents, therefore the clinic are responsible for the actions of their agents, I would also suggest that you send the challenge (to parking eyes demands ) to the clinic as well, together with the text quoted below, modified so it aimed at the clinic ( as principal) to let the clinic know you mean business.
It is the clinics responsibility to cancel this, and if they refuse and it goes to POPLA then you will hold the clinic liable for any costs. You should also demand that they - the clinic give assurances that this will never happen again.
Go back speak to someone outlining the above, hand them the letter, and if you get no resposne then post the letter to the clinic as well.

My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail. ''

jackel430

I have sent my appeal today via the post and have certificate of posting acknowleding this. I hope all goes well

The_Deep

Firstly, is NHS land private, and secondly, as we own the NHS, should we be making a rod for our own backs by appointing PPCs to torment us. I would suggest a letter to the CEO of the trust along the following lines,



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I was surprised to see that you employ former clampers, xxxxxx to manage the car park at xxxxxx.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You may or may not be aware that this company is one of a number of similar private parking companies who use underhand, threatening, and often unlawful methods to bully, threaten and lie to extract extortionate sums of money from people, many of whom can ill afford it, for minor alleged breaches of non existent contracts..[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fora few minutes overstay in a free car park, where there has been no loss to anyone, they will demand up to a hundred pounds in penalties,contrary to the Law of Contract. They use legalise, threats ,and scary letters from dodgy solicitors, debt collectors and fake Bailiffs. They try to pass themselves off as police or councils, send out fake court summonses. Produce false statements from witnesses and take people to the County Court. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Parking Eye have issued over 10,000 summonses in the last 12 months, although they rarely actually reach court as they know that they will probsbly lose nearly all of them . [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Tos ee the havoc and distress that these companies cause, (many areex-clampers), visit the Parking on Private Land sections of fora as Consumer Action Group, Money Saving Expert, and pepipioo. They also feature from time to time on BBC Watchdog.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]To sum up[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]These companies are vultures, preying on the ignorant and vulnerable . As a public body, owned by the taxpayer, you should not be an accomplice in their near criminal activities. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Their so called Parking charges are merely speculative invoices[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Having read this, I am sure that you will not wish to have your patients, many ofwhom do not have a great deal of money, and many of whom are not in good health, treated so shamefully and immediately take steps to disassociate yourself from this avaricious company. [/FONT]

nigelbb

Parking Eye may be many things but former clampers they are not so I am afraid that rant rather loses its edge.

The_Deep

A RANT nigel, a rant, you over reach yourself Sir. I will have you know that I have drafted letters for some of the highest in the land.

How do you know that none of the shareholders/ directors/owners were not clampers?

nigelbb

PE's USP has always been that they don't have boots on the ground but that it's all done by the miracles of technology. In the war against unauthorised parking the clampers were the poor bloody infantrymen whereas PE are the drone pilots.

The_Deep

That may well be, but a minor factual error does not turn an otherwise polite and well crafted letter into a rant, I think that an apology is due.

Half_way

nigelbb wrote: »

PE's USP has always been that they don't have boots on the ground but that it's all done by the miracles of technology. In the war against unauthorised parking the clampers were the poor bloody infantrymen whereas PE are the drone pilots.

And those who let them onot their car pakr are the commanding officers ( in theory)
It may also be worth an FOI (freedom of information request ) to the clinic as well, asking them for a full un-redacted contract, including the site/user handbook

nigelbb

Sorry I thought that your joke rant was meant to be humorous.

BTW Another factual inaccuracy is that in the last 12 months PE have commenced just over 8000 court cases.

The_Deep

Oh dear, does it come across as humourous? It is a part of a draft that I am preparing as an opening shot in a war I plan to start with my new landlords, a charitable housing association to get our "Parking Manager" UKPC, who are ex clampers, expelled from the complex.

Please tell me where I have descended into humour. It is a piece which I would have been happy to submit to my Minister.