Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

bod1467

Ralph-y wrote: »

So perhaps there is a que

What?


Oh! Queue.


(Que is Spanish for What)

Fergie76

Had reply back from the DVLA complaints department this morning; still not prepared to change their position:

Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response to your further email.

The copies of the letters provided to you in my previous email clearly indicate that authorisation is given to APCOA (or APCOA UK Ltd). Both the DVLA and the British Parking Association have assessed the letters and are satisfied that there is sufficient agreement between the landowner and APCOA to conduct parking management activities at the site.

You have been provided with the copies of the agreements in place to allow you confirm for yourself.

I have further reviewed the case and I am content that I have correctly represented the DVLA’s position on this matter and therefore I have nothing further to add to my previous correspondence.

However, I have attached a leaflet (INS101) to allow you to escalate your complaint should you feel your complaint has not been addressed appropriately.

bod1467

What they assess as being sufficient, and what the law actually requires are entirely separate issues. The law trumps their assessment, surely?

Fergie76

Yep, ManxRed makes the same point on PEPIPOO.

However, the difficulty the DVLA have, is that as soon as they agree with me, they will have admitted to breaching the DPA.

Fergie76

Had a reply to me email in post 334 from the BPA:

Thank you for your e mail that has been received.
I have entered an answer in bold red against each entry below.
Some of the replies indicate that I have written to APCOA enquiring with regard to certain items and I will be in further contact when I am in a position to do so.
Thank you for your response, however I still have a few issues…

Firstly, I am disappointed that you failed to contact me to tell me that you had concluded your investigation and of the outcome. Yes, the DVLA did write to me, but that was in regard to my complaint with them and not the one I have raised with you.

Apologies for the delay in replying to you – I have dealt with this in a separate e mail.

Secondly, as I have informed the DVLA these letters hold no weight in law and do not over-rule a legally binding contract. The contract specifically states that FMG (Harrow) Ltd/APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd, cannot assign any interest in the agreement to a third party. As I understand it, the only way APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd can become party to the agreement is via a contract amendment. I have pressed the NHS Trust for this contract amendment, however they have quite categorically stated “The contract provided is therefore the correct and sole documentation related to the current operation.”

So as far as the hospital is concerned and I am concerned these letters hold no legal standing and do not change the original contract. Also there are too many discrepancies in these letters. In the second letter dated 7 Jul 14, it refers to an agreement dated 1 Jan 14, which will run for three years through to 31 Dec 17. If am not mistaken that is 4 years and not three? And why would they need to write this letter, if there were an agreement put in place, just 6 months previous?

I will be contacting APCOA again with regard to your further questions.

I would also like to bring other breaches of the AOS COP by ACPOA Parking (UK) Ltd to your attention. I have not raised these concerns with you previously, as I wanted to concentrate on the lack of a authority, which they clearly do not have.

The 5 breaches are:

First breach – When I visited the same car park in June 14, the signs clearly had the word penalty on them. I reported this breach to you and APCOA were made to change their signs and were awarded penalty points. To change the signs all APCOA did were to cover the sentence containing the word penalty with blue tape.

The BPA does regards the use of overlays as appropriate rectification.

Second breach – Section 16.5 of the BPA AOS COP says:
16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.
The car was clearly displaying a disabled badge, so APCOA should not have issued a parking charge notice as the landowner provides a concession for disabled people. You will note from the above paragraph that it does not state that this is only applicable to the disabled bays.

I am seeking clarity from APCOA with regard to what is actually on the signage.

Third breach – Pretending for a minute that it is not a penalty and that it is a contractual charge the BPA AOS COP states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.

The £60 charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or else you would not be able to offer a 50% discount if paid within 14 days or else APCOA would be losing money on each and every ticket paid within the 14 days.

I have received a copy of their GPEOL from the hospital under a FOI and it quite clearly is a work of fiction that is repeatedly defeated at POPLA, as it contains stuff that is normal business costs and not representative of their actual loss.

Also you cannot generate a cost, where there has been no loss in the first place. And given that the Landowner provides concession to drivers displaying a blue badge, there is no initial loss.

While we are aware of a number of cases at POPLA where the appeal has been upheld on behalf of the motorist on the basis of Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (GPEOL), none have been returned to us by POPLA as we contend that as long as the PCN price does not exceed the amount laid out in Clause 19.5 of the Code of Practice, no breach has occurred. Our position reflects the determination of HHJ Moloney in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case which was heard last autumn.
You may well be aware that this case is going to the High Court of Appeal in February and it is hoped that the decision of the Judges will set precedent and bring clarity to all.
Our position on GPEOL and the wording of Clause 19.5 will remain unaltered until the result of the Appeal case is published.

Fourth Breach – The BPA AOS COP places high importance on Entrance Signs:

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.
There are no entrance signs at the entrance to the hospital, car park 3 or the car park at the St Marks entrance to the hospital.

The situation is that private parking companies have until October 2015 to ensure, where applicable, entrance signs are implemented as per the Code of practice.

Fifth breach – On the parking signs T&C’s, it does not state how much the Parking/Penalty Charge Notice is for breaching the T&C’s. Please see attached signs

The signs must be clear and display all T&C’s and the Parking Company cannot introduce additional T&C’s at later stage.

I am seeking clarity from APCOA with regard to what is actually on the signage.

Regarding first breach, I never made myself clear enough. I should have added that as only the word penalty was removed and no other changes were made, I therefore must assume that all the other T&C's are extant and therefore, the amount claimed is still a penalty.

2nd breach - they won't uphold, as I complained about this last year and they were not interested.

3rd breach - no more needs said.

4th - really...

5th - I'm sure I attached a picture of the T&C's, so not sure why they are wanting APCOA to supply them too.

TDA

Fergie76 wrote: »

Had a reply to me email in post 334 from the BPA:

4th - really...

Yep, see Appendix F. Even then the requirement is subject to the exemptions listed in 18.2.

I doubt we will see many, if any, points awarded at sites where there are no entrance signs come 1st October 2015, the BPA has left too many escape routes in 18.2.

trisontana

The BPA Ltd. still think that as they have set that £100 limit in their COP then it's all right for PPCs to charge that amount. Complete nonsense, as that does not reflect the actual loss suffered by the landowner.

Fergie76

I also like their use of the term 'number of appeals upheld', when in reality the almost every appeal is upheld when GPEOL is mentioned.

They make sound like 10 or something.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

The BPA Ltd. still think that as they have set that £100 limit in their COP then it's all right for PPCs to charge that amount. Complete nonsense, as that does not reflect the actual loss suffered by the landowner.

The £100 upper limit was not scientifically deduced, rather it was decided at a BPA workshop via a cabal of PPC's who threw money numbers around like a farmers' market auction, with £100 seemingly set high enough to eventually appease those shouting for £150+. There's nothing in that figure that resembles any genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I've tried to find the link to the 'minutes' of that meeting - but haven't yet found it. I'll keep looking, but if anyone has a bookmark to them, perhaps they'd be good enough to link please.

Fergie76

Umkomaas wrote: »

The £100 upper limit was not scientifically deduced, rather it was decided at a BPA workshop via a cabal of PPC's who threw money numbers around like a farmers' market auction, with £100 seemingly set high enough to eventually appease those shouting for £150+. There's nothing in that figure that resembles any genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I've tried to find the link to the 'minutes' of that meeting - but haven't yet found it. I'll keep looking, but if anyone has a bookmark to them, perhaps they'd be good enough to link please.

I'm sure someone posted them on here (I mean mse, not this thread) towards the end of last year.