Parking Eye - PCN -Hospital Car Park -advice sought

bazster

Right, let's take this reductio to its absurd (but logical) conclusion.

Let's suppose that, for reasons known only to them, a hospital's management engages a freelance photographer to photograph everyone who passes through the hospital's main door on a given day, and to take out an advert in a local paper to publish a random selection of those photos.

According to Nigel that is not a breach of confidentiality because (i) the photographer doesn't know who the people in the photos are and (ii) he doesn't know why they were at the hospital.

According to Antrobus it's not a breach of confidentiality because the photographer doesn't owe a duty of confidentiality.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

ParkingEye doesn't have a duty confidentiality, the hospital does. ParkingEye is the hospital's agent.

Total misinterpretation of Data Protection confidentiality legislation. If the hospital used its patient records to confirm the driver that day, you would be correct, but they didn't, so you aren't.

As far as OP's appeal, PE say that they make numerous checks to see if any input errors have been made.

I have a copy of a PE document submitted to court this year that has the following

Subsequently, ParkingEye received the defendant's defence. The defendant reiterated that he had paid the charge, and that he had been required to enter his registration number. It should be noted that the terms and conditions state that the full and correct
vehicle registration number should be entered. ParkingEye does check to ensure that we do not issue charges to motorists if it appears as though a slightly incorrect registration has been
entered. However in this case there is no similar registration recorded on our system.

This was signed by their Jonathan Langham.

I suggest that you quote this and ask that PE check their records again.

nigelbb

bazster wrote: »

Utter, utter rot. Your penchant for pointless pedantry has really run away with you this time.

If my missus used my car to go to a hospital appointment without telling me, and ParkingEye subsequently wrote to me effectively telling me where she'd been, I imagine she would rightly be very, very upset and angry. The breach of confidentiality couldn't be clearer.

I suppose she could lie and tell me that she'd lent the car to someone else, and in any case if it had been her driving then she was doing a bit of moonlighting as a hospital cleaner. I suppose you think it's acceptable for the NHS to put people in that sort of position?

It's not pedantry. I am all for kicking the PPCs for their antics when the opportunity arises but I just don't think that in this case you can make the charge of breaching patient confidentiality stick.

I am all for legitimate complaints against the PPCS but think that it just dilutes our case to go off on unsupported flights of fancy.

salmosalaris

nigelbb wrote: »

I appreciate the potential for beating up PPCs over a potential breach of patient confidentiality but I'm afraid that the charge doesn't stand up. PE haven't told the RK who used the car or who attended the hospital for an outpatient appointment. The car could have been at the hospital for any number of reasons e.g. visiting, dropping off etc.

IMO this is wrong
Patient identifiable information has been given to a third party with the authorisation of the NHS body that engaged PE . That is quite clear , a photograph and detailed timings of a hospital visit are such information .
Letter to the CEO and legal department of the trust from the patient making the visit that their identifiable information has been released to a third party . Ask for copies of any data protection policy that cover this aspect and their rationale that justifies release

salmosalaris

I will post again a letter from the DoH in response to the problems with such a scenario . Make your own minds up.

---

Thank you for your email of Xxxx to the Department of Health about cameras in NHS car parks and patient confidentiality. I have been asked to reply.

Car parking can be provided directly by the NHS organisations themselves or, as you know, by private providers. Specific local contracts will determine the operation of each scheme.
There are strict laws and regulations to ensure that patient identifiable information is kept confidential. These laws and regulations cover contractors and voluntary workers as well as NHS staff. The standards that are required to be followed in the NHS are set out in the Department of Health publication ‘Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice’, which is available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200146/Confidentiality_-_NHS_Code_of_Practice.pdf
The duty of confidence referred to in the Code of Practice is a legal obligation derived from case law. It is likely that the scenario you describe, where a person who is not the registered owner of a vehicle takes it to an NHS car park and misuses the facility in such a way as to attract a fine, may have acted in a way that falls outside the organisation’s duty of confidence to protect information about their actions being passed to the third party. The duty of confidence only arises where reasonable to expect that the information will be held in confidence. However, this would be a matter for interpretation by a court of law.
I hope this reply is helpful.
Yours
......
Department of Health

nigelbb

If anything that reply from the DoH supports my view. They don't acknowledge that it is a breach of patient confidentiality. Their basic argument seems to be that if the driver wants to keep their hospital visit secret from the registered keeper then they shouldn't have contravened the parking regulations in the first place.

Frankly while it might be nice to get ANPR cameras removed from hospital car parks on the grounds of patient confidentiality it isn't going to happen any more than the likelihood of banning ANPR in all car park on the grounds that it violates the the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

salmosalaris

On the contrary I think it acknowledges that patient identifiable information has been disclosed . It then hinges on whether their justification to disclose outweighs the requirement not to disclose .

salmosalaris

Part of the duty of confidentiality involves exploring all avenues to minimise release of information unless absolutely necessary. This is why I suggest requesting policies . Has this issue even been considered ? Have other parking enforcement models been considered from this viewpoint and not just a financial one ?
Unless the questions are asked of the IG lead of the trust it may not even be considered .

Guys_Dad

Data Protection Act relates to personal data. The PPC writes to the registered keeper asking who the driver was at the time, so clearly they do not know who the actual driver was. The Registered Keeper is available from the DVLA based upon the vehicle registration number.

If the vehicle was being driven by someone who did not have the RK's permission, then it is an option to declare the vehicle stolen at the time.

The PPC does not have access to who the driver was and if the driver didn't want the RK to know they were driving, then the driver should make sure they cover their tracks better!!!

I am all for fighting excessive parking charges, but this particular point just shows how, in my lifetime, silly, ridiculous laws and interpretations have virtually declared common sense to be an unwelcome commodity.

salmosalaris

The justification seems to be that it is the behaviour of the motorist attracting the "fine" that negates the requirement to maintain confidentiality . This is hogwash , PE have been given Carte Blanche authority to disclose when the trust have no idea what each individual circumstance is . No examination of each case is undertaken.
Does incorrectly inputting a reg no for example justify releasing details of a hospital visit to a family member , employer or any other RK ?
There are other hospitals that use far more suitable methods eg barrier entry where no disclosure is required orP&D with warden patrols that at least inform the actual driver .
I feel those responsible for IG would have some difficult questions to answer if pushed on this