Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

ManxRed

Dear ICO/DVLA,

Further to my original complaint ref[xxxx], I write to inform you that the NHS Trust involved have now responded to a FOI request (reference....) and confirmed that no contract exists between themselves and Apcoa Parking UK Ltd. This means that Apcoa Parking UK Ltd have never had 'reasonable cause' to request Registered Keeper data in relation to Parking Charges at this site.

I dispute your finding that Apcoa Facilities Management Ltd or the Trust could simply 'empower' Apcoa Parking UK Ltd on the following grounds.

1. In the contract that exists between Apcoa Facilities Management Ltd and the Trust, the contract does not contain any clauses allowing affiliates to be conjoined to the contract.
2. The contract specifically states that Apcoa Facilities Management Ltd cannot transfer any rights under the Agreement.

Therefore, the simple fact remains that Apcoa Parking UK Ltd, the legal entity accessing Registered Keeper data from the DVLA database under KADOE, are not, and never have been a party to any existing or historical contract with the NHS Trust.

It also follows that all RK data obtained by them at this site, has been done so outwith the Data Protection Act, and I would like you to take appropriate action.

Yours,

bazster

Fergie76 wrote: »

Thanks Manx and I realise that, but how do I get the ICO and DVLA to realise that. They seem to be happy with this empowering thing, despite no evidence of it.

But they are relying on a letter which refers to a contract which they are presuming exists. They now need to be apprised of the Trust's admission that there is no such contract.

They also need to be asked what they intend to do about all the data requests APCOA Parking UK Ltd. made in the years before any letter was written or any contract (fictional or otherwise) was alleged to exist.

Half_way

If theres no proper contract in place then you would have thought that they wont be entitled to any money made on that site, including any of their ill gotten parking charge notice income, and if they have been emptying the P&D machines possibly even that should be re funded.

Shouldn't APCOA also be facing a lengthy ban from accessing the DVLA database?

ManxRed

I wonder if the Daily Mail would be interested in this?

Fergie76

Was thinking the same Manx. I tried the local rag, but not even so much as a response.

ampersand

Daily Mail must be, esp. after today's piece on the miscarriage suffered by lady in Kent.

As if you need more of their ignorant muck on your plate.

All caring wishes for your wife.

Redx

well done m8

these responses still dont seem to have addressed the following (if I have kept up)

the £60 is not a gpeol , so is an unlawful penalty

the BB scheme should apply to all car park spaces or some special "extras" be given for the non-BB spaces for a BB holder

they are still breaking the EA 2010 by discriminating against those who are disabled but DO NOT OWN a BB due to not qualifying for one , so clearly they havent addressed those "legislation requirements"

its clear they have no contract with the PPC dispensing the tickets due to mismanagement of the contract itself

their policy on this is years out of date

their current policy does not conform to Jeremy Hunt`s autumn 2014 guidelines for trusts , so no 2014 guidelines policy never mind any new legislation policy (post sept 2012 we assume ?)

when you sent them a letter, they used apcoa to decide what apcoa wanted to do, you didnt ask them for apcoas version of the policy, you asked them for their own policy and they had no right to refer it to apcoa as you already knew the apcoa policy and wanted the trusts policy so you could compare the two

if I ask you what colour your eyes are, I dont expect you to ask Clarkson and then give me his opinion, I expect you to check your own eyes in your own mirror and give me your opinion , lol if ya catch ma drift ?

well done getting this far, I bet they really hate you now though , lol

keep it up

and I echo the sentiment to your wife, hope she gets better and comes back home again , ready for the EA2010 letter to go out

Fergie76

Redx wrote: »

well done m8

these responses still dont seem to have addressed the following (if I have kept up)

the £60 is not a gpeol , so is an unlawful penalty

the BB scheme should apply to all car park spaces or some special "extras" be given for the non-BB spaces for a BB holder

they are still breaking the EA 2010 by discriminating against those who are disabled but DO NOT OWN a BB due to not qualifying for one , so clearly they havent addressed those "legislation requirements"

its clear they have no contract with the PPC dispensing the tickets due to mismanagement of the contract itself

their policy on this is years out of date

their current policy does not conform to Jeremy Hunt`s autumn 2014 guidelines for trusts , so no guiline policy never mind any new legislation policy (post sept 2012 we assume ?)

when you sent them a letter, they used apcoa to decide what apcoa wanted to do, you didnt ask them for apcoas version of the policy, you asked them for their own policy and they had no right to refer it to apcoa as you already knew the apcoa policy and wanted the trusts policy so you could compare the two

if I ask you what colour your eyes are, I dont expect you to ask Clarkson and then give me his opinion, I expect you to check your own eyes in your own mirror and give me your opinion , lol if ya catch ma drift ?

well done getting this far, I bet they really hate you now though , lol

keep it up

and I echo the sentiment to your wife, hope she gets better and comes back home again , ready for the EA2010 letter to go out

That's it in a nutshell.

Paperbird

And don't forget about the agreement that the ICO and DVLA say makes it all ok.

[FONT=&quot]• The “agreement” referred to in the letter dated 7th July 2014 does not exist[/FONT]

Fruitcake

Company A has a contract with the hospital that allows them to issue PCNs, but don't.

Compony B doesn't have a contract with the hospital that allows them to issue PCNs but does.

Have you taken this to Trading Standards and the Police? It sounds like obtaining money by deception to me.