Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Fergie76

You can't go direct to TS, but went through CAB and got this reply and heard nothing else:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email to Citizens Advice consumer service. Your reference number is XXXXXXXXX.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have referred the details of your complaint about this parking company to Trading Standards for their intelligence.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]They will review your complaint and may contact you if they require any further information. If they do not contact you, we can assure you that all information about businesses is valuable to them and action may be taken by Trading Standards officers where unfair or illegal trading practices are identified.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This company is a member of the British Parking Association who operate a code of conduct and so you may also wish to bring your concerns to their attention.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Contact-us[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With reference to your complaint that the company is breaching Data Protection legislation, you will need to report this to the Information Commissioners Office, who deal with Data Protection issues.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I attach a link to their website below:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]https://ico.org.uk/Global/contact-us[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for bringing this to our attention[/FONT]

Ralph-y

I know this may sound like a stuck needle (to the youngsters ...a repeating action) would a FOI to CAB and TS now not be in order ?

:-0

Ralph :cool:

Fergie76

So last night I sent emails very similar to what Manx wrote above to ICO and DVLA, still awaiting responses.

Also sent an email to my MP:

Just to keep you up to date, I have a received a reply from the NHS Trust to my latest FOI request (see attached), where they clearly state that they have no contract in place with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd and that the document that APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, have informed the DVLA gives them authority does not actually exist.

Point 6. Freedom of Information Requests

“I have received a copy of two letters from the DVLA that APCOA have supplied to them dated 26 Apr 11 and 7 Jul 14. The letter dated 7 Jul 14, references and agreement dated 1 Jan 14, which is valid for 3 years from 1 Jan 14 to 31 Dec 17 (you will notice that this is in fact 4 years not 3). This appears to be an amendment to the contract and you have not supplied a copy of it or any other letters. Therefore as I requested in FOI 309-14, can you supply fully unredacted copies of all documents relating to the contract and amendments to the contract with APCOA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT (HARROW) LIMITED, company number: 03481526 and APCOA Parking (UK) Limited, company number: 02572947?”

• The “agreement” referred to in the letter dated 7th July 2014 does not exist; this is an error on the part of the Trust and all parties will be informed accordingly. All documents relating to the contract with APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd have been provided and no contract exists with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd

Therefore, as I have stated all along, the DVLA breaches the DPA Act, each and every time they release registered keepers details for this site.

They also state that:

“You say the contract does not cover charges for breach of contract and to see response 3. I think response 3 refers to the document entitle ParkingPolicy-April2010v3, it’s not too clear. I have looked at this document and still fail to see where it says APCOA can apply charges; again can you please point me in the direction of the relevant paragraph.”

• Paragraph 5.3 of the Trust’s Car Parking policy sets out that contravention of the parking procedures will lead to enforcement.

So I referred to para 5.3 of the document and that refers to the contract which they have already admitted does not cover charges. So they are making charges that they are not entitled to make in accordance with the contract.

5.3 Contraventions to parking procedures and regulations will result in the application of the Enforcement Policy detailed within each site specific contract.

The Trust also say that they are aware their Parking Policy is out of date and use incorrect terminology, how can they possible rely on such shoddy practices to scam money from the public? Surely this is obtaining money by deception and a criminal offence, especially when there is no contract in place?

“All I can see is a table at Annex 1 which states current tariffs. This relates to penalty charges, which we know you cannot apply. It also states that these penalties are only £15. Nowhere does it explicitly say that APCOA can charge penalty charges.”

• The Trust accepts that the Car Parking Policy is out-of-date and includes incorrect terminology. The policy is under-review and an updated version will be issued in due course. This version will be aligned to the Contract documentation, updated as necessary to meet current legislation requirements.

He was prompt to reply with this, this morning:

I think you could be on to something here.

I will have a close look at this and when I get a response from ministers, suggest we meet

bazster

:T Cause for cautious optimism.

I'm known for being like a dog with a bone when something gets my goat but your stamina puts me to shame.

If every constituency had just one voter like you (or me, my MP has also been educated on the subject far more than she ever expected or wanted) then every MP would understand this malarkey and they would all be baying for a stop to be put to it.

ManxRed

Terrific. Keep going.

I'm really enjoying this.

Fergie76

Had a reply from the BPA today, more verbal diarrhoea:

[FONT=&quot]I have addressed the points below in green that you have made with regard to signage overlays, how the PCN charge is calculated and entrance signs – I believe that we may have to agree to differ on these topics but I can confirm that we will be taking no action against APCOA with regard to them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As far as I can see this leaves the following matters outstanding;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* The FMG (Harrow) Ltd/APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd NHS contract question[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Blue badge authority[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Terms and conditions on certain signs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have chased APCOA again on these points and will write again once I have their response.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First breach – The BPA does regards the use of overlays as appropriate rectification.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Apologies, I wasn’t clear enough in my original email. It was not the fact of the overlay that I was complaining about. It was the fact that they used the word penalty until it was covered over and therefore all the T&C’s must be based on a penalty. As no other bits of the sign were covered over other than word penalty, I must assume that all other T&C’s are extant and therefore the charge must still be based on a penalty. Also as I have said in my 5th breach below, there is no amount stated on the signs, therefore I referred to the hospital website, which also stated this was a penalty and the penalty amount was £30 and not the £60, that APOCA were trying to claim, although the hospital have since updated their website.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As outlined in Clause 6.6 of the Code, we consider when problems are rectified in a suitably urgent way, Sanctions are not necessarily awarded As the signs were covered and the hospital has adjusted their website then rectification of the problem has been appropriately concluded. In this instance we see no reason why the location T&C’s would not continue to apply. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]GPEOL[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Our position on GPEOL and the wording of Clause 19.5 will remain unaltered until the result of the Appeal case is published.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is my belief, that it is not just a number of cases, but the majority of cases that are won at POPLA by registered keepers, where they state that the charge is not a GPEOL.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To simply state that the as long as the amount does not exceed clause 19.5, no breach has occurred is wrong. Clause 19.5 states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I have shown with the GPEOL that I was supplied by the hospital, this is not a GPEOL as it includes normal business costs. It also does not take into account the cost to the Private Parking Company (PPC), should the registered keeper/driver pay without appealing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have also seen a document from a BPA Council Meeting at 1030 on 6 Jun 12, where parking companies discuss this charge and it appears not to be based on GPEOL at all, but what the PPC’s feel they can get away with charging the public. Two quotes from the document that jump out at me are:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The current Code’s recommended maximum charge for a parking ticket of £150 is seen by many as excessive, and whilst only a small percentage of members charge this maximum it is seen by the public as ‘the parking charge’ that is made by all AOS members. It is also £20 higher than the maximum statutory penalty charge made in the London area – currently the highest statutory charge in the country.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Currently only one ticket in every three are paying. This means the pcn has to be high because you have to issue three pcn to get one to pay.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You cannot base your maximum GPEOL on a council’s penalty charge as the council’s charge is just that, a penalty. And as for needing to charge a £100 as only one in three people, is just ludicrous. One person should not and cannot compensate a PPC for other people not paying.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Our position on the amount of the Parking Charge is outlined comprehensively within Clause 19.5 where we state that it should be ‘proportionate and commercially justifiable’ and no more than £100. This position reflects the determination of HHJ Moloney in the Parking Eye vs Beavis case which as you will doubtless be aware will be going to the High Court of Appeal next month – again once this has been concluded, there will be clarity for all. While the Moloney judgment does not set precedent, we contend that it is persuasive enough to support the position within this clause of the Code. Like you we await the Court of Appeal with much interest as it will be a watershed moment for the sector. As the Code is a living document we will seek to make any necessary amendments as soon after the result of the case is published as possible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Entrance Signs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You state that PPC’s have until October 2015 to comply with the COP on this subject, however I visited this site in the summer of 2013 and last summer and in between the two visits, the signs at the site have been replaced, would have not been more prudent and make more economical sense for them to have replaced the signs to conform with the COP then?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We absolutely agree with this position – please let us know if Entrance Signs are not up on October 1st.[/FONT]

ManxRed

He's completely missed the point of the first issue.

Did you copy him the FOI response about the contract not existing?

Marktheshark

Looks like the "trust" is wide open to a class action for fraudulent representation.

Paperbird

I can't see Apcoa updating all their contracts and forgetting just this one so how many more places do they infest without any contract.

Fergie76

ManxRed wrote: »

He's completely missed the point of the first issue.

Did you copy him the FOI response about the contract not existing?

I have not yet forwarded them the latest reply from the hospital.