Parking Eye - PCN -Hospital Car Park -advice sought

salmosalaris

Patient identifiable information is anything that either identifies or allows the identity of a patient to be deduced.

Guys_Dad

salmosalaris wrote: »

Patient identifiable information is anything that either identifies or allows the identity of a patient to be deduced.

When a test case on this basis is won in any court, remind me and I will be the first to apologise. :beer:

salmosalaris

It's not about that , it's about making NHS bodies fulfil their obligations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldicott_Report

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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.

Complete red herring, I never mentioned legislation. Hospitals and health care professionals have a common law duty of confidence, just as they did for decades (centuries!) before the DPA was enacted.

Your apology is accepted.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

Well unless you have an answer to the reductio ad absurdum I set out in post #12 I don't consider your opinion worth listening to.

bazster

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

Their basic argument is utter cobblers based on sheer ignorance, as demonstrated by their use of the word "fine" and their ludicrous assumption that anyone who is "outed" by a PPC must necessarily have "misused the facility". If you agree with that then you are further disappearing up your own backside on this one.

antrobus

bazster wrote: »

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

Antrobus has said nothing of the sort. Antrobus has merely asked for references to be cited in support of the contention that PE/the hospital owe a duty of confidentiality to users of a car park.

You know, a reference, something like; see s28 of the All Embracing Privacy Act 1938 or see Clint v Eastwood (1852), or whatever. Otherwise people might suspect you are just making stuff up on a whim.:)

bazster

antrobus wrote: »

Antrobus has said nothing of the sort. Antrobus has merely asked for references to be cited in support of the contention that PE/the hospital owe a duty of confidentiality to users of a car park.

You know, a reference, something like; see s28 of the All Embracing Privacy Act 1938 or see Clint v Eastwood (1852), or whatever. Otherwise people might suspect you are just making stuff up on a whim.:)

I note your moving of the goalposts now. Previously you were demanding evidence that PE had a duty of confidentiality. Now you have not-very-subtly amended that to "PE/the hospital".

Do you seriously doubt that hospitals have a duty of confidence towards their patients? And that this duty extends to their agents and contractors?

Do you have a response to the reductio at post #12?

antrobus

bazster wrote: »

I take it you've never heard of the concept of agency then, with the duties and liabilities it implies? Understandable I suppose, after all as a legal concept it's only a few hundred years old.

I am well aware of the concept of agency, but I'm confused as to why you've failed to respond to the request for cited references.

Simply saying 'this is the law' again and again, won't get you a pass in your legal exams. You have to be able to cite either statute or case law. Otherwise it's not really all that helpful to the OP, who only wants to know how to word their appeal, and appears to have expressed no desire to fight some test case all the way through to the Supreme Court.

antrobus

bazster wrote: »

I note your moving of the goalposts now. Previously you were demanding evidence that PE had a duty of confidentiality. Now you have not-very-subtly amended that to "PE/the hospital".

Well that might have been because that you originally wrote;

bazster wrote: »

...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.....

bazster wrote: »

....Do you seriously doubt that hospitals have a duty of confidence towards their patients? And that this duty extends to their agents and contractors?...

No, but I'm not certain that they owe a duty of confidence to car park users.

bazster wrote: »

...Do you have a response to the reductio at post #12?

Not particularly. I was genuinely curious as to whether you actually had any legal basis for the argument that you were making, which is why I asked the question.