Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Fergie76

Fergie76 wrote: »

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]As far as I can see this leaves the following matters outstanding;[/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]I have chased APCOA again on these points and will write again once I have their response.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]First breach – The BPA does regards the use of overlays as appropriate rectification.[/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]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]GPEOL[/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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]Entrance Signs[/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]We absolutely agree with this position – please let us know if Entrance Signs are not up on October 1st.[/FONT]

Just drafted this in response to the BPA (as ever, all constructive comments welcome):

Thank you for your response. However, I am disappointed that you have not been able to provide a full answer, despite me writing to you on 8 Jan 15.

I will deal with the issue of the contract first and then respond to the rest of your points.

Contract

I have had further contact with the NHS Truat and APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd have misled both the BPA and DVLA. There is definitely no contract in place and the agreement that APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd claim gives them authority does not exist.

[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]

I think that emphatically puts to bed the issue of the contract and APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd have no authority to issue parking charges at the site in question and therefore, each and every time the request registered keeper details from DVLA, they are breaching the DPA.

To make matters even worse, even if it was ACPOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd that was conducting the parking management at this site, they have no authority to issue charges either. The Trust have a Car Parking Policy, which is meant to deal with the issue of charges however, that says to refer to the contract and they hospital have already confirmed that the contract does not deal with parking charges, as it all relates to clamping.

[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 5.3 of the Trust’s Car Parking policy sets out that contravention of the parking procedures will lead to enforcement[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Para 5.3:

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

The Contract (response to a FOI):

[FONT=&quot]1/ Where in the contract does it state that APCOA is allowed to make parking charges for breaches?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The contract does not cover parking charged for breaches, see question 3 below.[/FONT]

Blue Badge Authority

I fail to see what the issue is here? To me it is black and white. Your AOS COP states:

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.

To me that is definitive. If a blue badge is on display then you MUST NOT issue a parking charge. There are no caveats to that, no room to manoeuvre, so I fail to see why you are waiting on a response from APCOA.

T&C’s

I await your observations on this.

GPEOL

I totally disagree with your assessment of GPEOL and reference to the Beavis case. Although I am not fully conversant with this case, it is my understanding that HHJ Maloney allowed the charges as commercially justified and that Parking Eye produce a heavily redacted copy of the contract, with some very important bits redacted that might have persuaded the Judge to deliver a different verdict.

Also I believe the BPA has received guidance from the OfT on this, specifically:

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirement of being a genuine pre estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of contract. The OFT’s view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc., this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.

Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for parking beyond hours permitted under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

As I have already pointed out, a lot of the charges in the GPEOL are not as a direct result of the parking incident, but are normal business costs. Also, as blue badges must not be issued with parking charges, there is no loss to begin with and therefore IAW the above paragraph, you cannot create a loss where none exists.

Signs

I will concede on the issue of signs, not because I agree, but given the other breaches and lack of contract, there are bigger issues at play here.

First Breach

Again you are still not understanding the situation here:

[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]

What I am saying is, the parking sign clearly said penalty charges, until the word was covered. If that penalty charge was £60, by covering the word penalty, then does not automatically make the sum claimed no longer a penalty. If £60 is still claimed, it is still a penalty. To put it another way, if I have a bike and I put a bike cover over it, it is still a bike.

Umkomaas

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.

Well, you can throw this one back at them. They are quoting v5 of the CoP in which they conveniently slid out the mandatory GPEOL part of the paragraph to replace it with 'proportionate and commercially justifiable'. This version applied only from 30/10/14

But - at the date of your parking event it was v4 in play and that said the following:

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.

(My bold).

They cannot apply the current CoP retrospectively!

Here are your links:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-compliance-monitoring

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_Code_of_Practice_-_February_2014_-_Version_4.pdf

Pants on fire again at the BPA.

HTH Fergie! Keep up the pressure.

Fergie76

Excellent point Umkomaas.

Thanks.

Fergie76

Amended to take in Umkomass' points:

Thank you for your response. However, I am disappointed that you have not been able to provide a full answer, despite me writing to you on 8 Jan 15.

I will deal with the issue of the contract first and then respond to the rest of your points.

Contract

I have had further contact with the NHS Truat and APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd have misled both the BPA and DVLA. There is definitely no contract in place and the agreement that APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd claim gives them authority does not exist.

[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]

I think that emphatically puts to bed the issue of the contract and APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd have no authority to issue parking charges at the site in question and therefore, each and every time the request registered keeper details from DVLA, they are breaching the DPA.

To make matters even worse, even if it was ACPOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd that was conducting the parking management at this site, they have no authority to issue charges either. The Trust have a Car Parking Policy, which is meant to deal with the issue of charges however, that says to refer to the contract and they hospital have already confirmed that the contract does not deal with parking charges, as it all relates to clamping.

[FONT=&quot]Paragraph 5.3 of the Trust’s Car Parking policy sets out that contravention of the parking procedures will lead to enforcement[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Para 5.3:

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

The Contract (response to a FOI):

[FONT=&quot]1/ Where in the contract does it state that APCOA is allowed to make parking charges for breaches?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The contract does not cover parking charged for breaches, see question 3 below.[/FONT]

Blue Badge Authority

I fail to see what the issue is here? To me it is black and white. Your AOS COP states:

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.

To me that is definitive. If a blue badge is on display then you MUST NOT issue a parking charge. There are no caveats to that, no room to manoeuvre, so I fail to see why you are waiting on a response from APCOA.

T&C’s

I await your observations on this.

GPEOL

[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]

I totally disagree with your assessment of GPEOL and reference to the Beavis case. Although I am not fully conversant with this case, it is my understanding that HHJ Maloney allowed the charges as commercially justified and that Parking Eye produce a heavily redacted copy of the contract, with some very important bits redacted that might have persuaded the Judge to deliver a different verdict.

I also contend that you are being economical with the truth here. You have quoted clause 19.5 from version 5 of the AOS COP, which was published in Oct 14. My parking event occurred in Jul 14, when version 4 was in play and that categorically states:

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.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

You cannot back date you AOS COP to suit your own agenda. APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, were clearly in breach of the published clause 19.5 that was in use at the time of the parking event.

Also I believe the BPA has received guidance from the OfT on this, specifically:

The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirement of being a genuine pre estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of contract. The OFT’s view was that if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc., this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are the costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach.

Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for parking beyond hours permitted under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

As I have already pointed out, a lot of the charges in the GPEOL are not as a direct result of the parking incident, but are normal business costs. Also, as blue badges must not be issued with parking charges, there is no loss to begin with and therefore IAW the above paragraph, you cannot create a loss where none exists.

Entrance Signs

I will concede on the issue of signs, not because I agree, but given the other breaches and lack of contract, there are bigger issues at play here.

First Breach

Again you are still not understanding the situation here:

[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]

What I am saying is, the parking sign clearly said penalty charges, until the word was covered. If that penalty charge was £60, by covering the word penalty, then does not automatically make the sum claimed no longer a penalty. If £60 is still claimed, it is still a penalty. To put it another way, if I have a bike and I put a bike cover over it, it is still a bike.

Half_way

This whole thing makes you think just how widespread this could be?
how many other Hospitals?
what about other State owned places that are FOI'able?
what about the private sector?

Fergie76

I'm gonna replace the bit about entrance signs. What was I thinking of, conceding that point? Must be going soft in my old age...

Anyway, gonna replace concede with this:

[FONT=&quot]We absolutely agree with this position – please let us know if Entrance Signs are not up on October 1st.[/FONT]

Your AOS COP V.3 dated Jun 14, states:

In essence, entrance signs are designed to tell the motorist that they are entering managed land and that terms and conditions of use will apply. The details of these terms and conditions are not put on entrance signs: they are contained on notices displayed elsewhere within and about the land. We recommend that you introduce this new arrangement to any newly managed sites immediately and other (existing) sites when re-signing takes place.

Therefore, APCOA should have erected compliant signs when they replaced them sometime between summer 13 and summer 14.

Umkomaas

I'd be a bit circumspect on the signage point. You're now quoting from v3 of the BPA CoP from June 2013 and which expired 6/2/14. If your parking event was after that date, then quoting v3 has no value and has the potential affect of diminishing your point re v5/v4 on the GPEOL issue.

The other point that the BPA might respond with is that AOS members have been given until October 2015 to get all there signage in order. Whilst that might be somewhat moot in terms of an absence of entry signage, I just think you're stepping into marshy ground on this.

Personally I'd be dealing with the rapier points than the more nugatory ones where the best you might get is an agreement to disagree. Fight on dry land, not in the swamp!

ampersand

Hello Fergie - just beginning to deep-read. Suggestions/typo's/style only:

'That emphatically puts to bed any issue of an alleged contract with APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd:
they do not have one. Therefore, they have no authority to issue parking charges at the site in question. Even you must realise and accept that each and every time...blah '
#
'....issue of charges. However, that says to refer... '[new sentence]
Stowaway 'y', 2 lines above bold para. 5.3:
'and the[STRIKE]y[/STRIKE] hospital [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE]has already confirmed ...
#
'I fail to see what the issue is here.' Statement, not question.
#
'[STRIKE]To me t[/STRIKE]That is definitive.' - Incontrovertible fact, not opinion.

#
[FONT=&quot]'...we contend that it is persuasive enough to support the position within this clause of the Code.'
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]I know these are not your weasel words,Fergie, but the [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]simplistic incomprehension[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] that[FONT=&quot] spawned them [/FONT]really annoys me[/FONT].
[FONT=&quot]Were it [FONT=&quot]'[/FONT]persuasive'...',let alone[FONT=&quot] '[/FONT]persuasive enough'][FONT=&quot]...[FONT=&quot]L[/FONT]eave to appeal would NEVER have been granted.[FONT=&quot] O[FONT=&quot]BVIOUS.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This: '[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]As the Code is a living document[FONT=&quot]' [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]seems to preclude any understanding of the difference between E[FONT=&quot]nglish jurisprudence and the Napoleonic Code.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
#
[STRIKE][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="]'[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="][FONT="]Although I am not fully conversant with this case'[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/STRIKE][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] -

Start straight in with:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
'[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] It is my understanding that HHJ Moloney allowed the charges as commercially justified [STRIKE]and [/STRIKE]that Parking Eye produced a heavily redacted copy of their alleged contract. . Were those redacted elements revealed, His Honour might have been persuaded to [STRIKE]very important bits redacted that might have persuaded the Judge to[/STRIKE] deliver a different verdict.
Rather than contend that you are being economical with the truth , I must assume you have again failed to read , note and understand yet another vital point here:. My parking event....'
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][n.b.Judge's name- Moloney. Both spellings on various forums, but go with the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary list: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
His Honour Judge Moloney QC South Eastern 17/12/2007[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
#
'You cannot back date your AOS COP
#
How do you feel about word change? '[STRIKE]a lot [/STRIKE]most of the charges
#
Sorry I'm being dim, Fergie - what does IAW mean?
'therefore IAW the above paragraph
'#
'We must agree to disagree on the issue of signs at this time - I maintain my rebuttal - because the other breaches and lack of contract are much more important.'
#
'Again you do not understand the situation or legal obligation you have here:'
#
'What I am saying is the parking sign clearly said 'penalty charges', until those two pivotal words were covered. If that 'penalty charge' was £60, conveniently oovering the word 'penalty' does not mean, can not mean the sum claimed is, magically, no longer a 'penalty'.

However that £60 is still claimed, it remains a ' penalty'. You know this is against the Law..'
#
For me, the bike analogy as written doesn't quite score. Something else will.:D.
You are doing fantastic work on this, Fergie - thankyou, on behalf of thousands, not just msers.
[and I'm quite sure I'll see some typo's of my own when I hit 'send': they hide up until that nano-second too late:D.]

Fergie76

Thanks ampersand.

IAW, in accordance with...

Fergie76

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'd be a bit circumspect on the signage point. You're now quoting from v3 of the BPA CoP from June 2013 and which expired 6/2/14. If your parking event was after that date, then quoting v3 has no value and has the potential affect of diminishing your point re v5/v4 on the GPEOL issue.

The other point that the BPA might respond with is that AOS members have been given until October 2015 to get all there signage in order. Whilst that might be somewhat moot in terms of an absence of entry signage, I just think you're stepping into marshy ground on this.

Personally I'd be dealing with the rapier points than the more nugatory ones where the best you might get is an agreement to disagree. Fight on dry land, not in the swamp!

I agree that I probably should leave the signage alone as per original draft. The reason I quoted version 3 is that I received a parking ticket for the same "offence" at the same hospital in 2013, so I know that between summer 13 and summer 14 the signs have changed, so IAW AOS they should have complied.