For anyone with PE PCN at South Tyneside Hospitals

Coupon-mad

I wondered!

bazster

These documents demonstrate yet again how utterly clueless these NHS trusts are. Like lambs to the slaughter when it comes to a cynical predator such as ParkingEye.

martmonk

So I received a reply to the latest FOI on VAT invoices received and as a result complied this to Lorraine Lambert (CEO) earlier today. I'll update on what, if any responses are received and progress there is.

However anyone who comes across this thread and has a PCN from march should note that there was no signed contract until April 7th.

Dear Lorraine
Over the course of the last few weeks I have made 2 requests to the Trust in regard to the employment of Parking Eye at the Trust sites.

You can see those requests here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_contract_2
And here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vat_invoices_from_parking_eye?nocache=incoming-570827#incoming-570827

Whilst there are numerous issues with Parking Eye which I would be delighted to explain I'll simply point you to one of the recent articles you may(should) have already seen in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2710175/Hospitals-send-parking-bully-boys-hound-sick-grieving-NHS-spends-cash-dodgy-debt-collectors.html
There are many more like that one.

The crux of the matter is that this company and others like them exist to make profits by taking money from your vulnerable patients and visitors. They do this by issuing invoices (for alleged breach if contract), dressed up to look like parking fines and which claim a disproportionately high figure for the alleged 'offence'. As I say, I could go on and will happily engage in a discussion but I'll get to the point of this note. (I've added some notes to the end of this email by way of further explanation)

The FOI requests I pointed you to show us a couple of things:

1 - the contract between the Trust and Parking Eye was signed by the Trust on April 7th,
(Direct link for ease https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/215656/response/565259/attach/6/04%20STFT%20letter%20to%20parking%20Eye%2016.10.13%20Signed%20Contract%20and%20amendment%20document.pdf)

2 - that Parking Eye have been issuing their Parking Charge Notices since March, and

3 - that the total amount taken from the South Tyneside economy by this deplorable organisation stands at over £75,000 in 6 months.

In respect of 1 and 2 above - Parking Eye claim their PCN's for breach of contract. That contract is between the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle and themselves. They cannot and should not have been allowed by the trust to issue these invoices when they have no contract in place with the trust and therefore no authority over the land (the car parks). I would like to know what action you are going to take to remedy this? As a minimum I would expect anyone who paid these charges for alleged contraventions in March to be refunded in full.
I have cc'd the local paper Shields Gazette as I'm sure they would be willing to run an article on this subject and perhaps call for those affected to get in touch with you.

As for 3 above I would like to understand from the Trust what it's response is to the fact that it is responsible for (at current levels) over £150,000 per annum is being removed from the local economy?

You will, I would hope, be aware that Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust made the mistake of employing Parking Eye before you did. If so you will also know that they cancelled that contract for a variety of reasons, you can see some of the details here: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/northumbria-nhs-stiffs-patients-for.html and
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/northumbria-nhs-change-parking-strategy.html

I want to make it clear that I have no issue with the Trust charging for the use of the car parks, or for wanting to enure that those car parks are not abused. However Parking Eye do not manage, they penalise and they strive to milk as much revenue as possible from those unfortunate enough to come into contact with them. It's bad enough when it's a retail park or supermarket but to have these parasites operating within a hospital where the majority of car park users are likely to be ill, distressed, elderly, injured, pregnant etc is truly appalling.

I have cc'd to this email to Mr Mike Robson who's signature appears on the contract, my local councillor (Norman !!!!!!) for West Park, councillor Iain Malcolm as he is councillor for the ward where my parents have lived for more than 30 years and he's also a director of the trust, my local MP Emma Lewell-Buck, and as mentioned earlier the local paper - Shields Gazette, in the hope that they might take an interest in this issue and I invite anyone cc'd to contact me if they would like further information on any of the points I raise above.

Many thanks and best regards

My name
And my number.

Further information on breach of contract......

Parking Eye relies on breach of contract to issue these charge notices. Therefore each of your car park users MUST be aware of the contract in order to breach it. That means signs etc have to make it clear what the terms of the contract are, they do not. The signs have to be readable from a moving vehicle when entering the car park, they are not. There's more here but you get the drift.

Parking Eye as I've said relies on breach of contract. Let us assume that a contract exists (I'd argue it doesn't), the remedies available to Parking Eye (and therefore the trust) are losses arising from the breach, therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Operational costs such as errecting signage, cameras, issuing notices etc are not losses, they would have occurred if there was no use of the car park, if a user stayed for 10 days or for just 30 minutes. The loss incurred in the case of your car parks is the loss of parking revenue, I can't see a way to justifiably say that amounts to £70. I especially cannot see how that loss of parking revenue can be £40 if paid in 14 days but it increases to £70?

In order to pursue your users through to the courts (which is what Parking Eye threaten and follow up on) they must have the legal standing to do so. That is to say that they must either have title to the land, or the express contractual right to issue claims through the courts on your behalf. They did not have this for March of this year.

trisontana

Is it also worth mentioning the question of patient confidentiality where the RK is not the driver? The latter may not want the former to know they have been to the hospital.