Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Fergie76

So if I am right, the first letter of 26 Apr 11 does mention the original contract, but does not mention APCOA Facilities (Harrow) Ltd, therefore can't be executed by them, so fails on that count and the second letter does not refer to the original contract and also doesn't mention APCOA Facilities (Harrow) Ltd, so that fails on two counts?

Doveling

Brilliant thread. Been reading with interest.
Have you seen the item on the BBC news website about the RAC foundation and their investigation of parking fines? Would it be worth contacting somebody at the RAC for help or would that confuse the issue.
I hope your wife is feeling better.

ampersand

Just posted this on another Thread - on Radio 4 news at 0800h too, immediately before wipe-out report of England by my little countree, 'playing at cricket' apparently:-). Hardly.

Closing comment from BPA spokesperson: 'Park where you should, pay what you should.'
#
Fergie, take care of yourself too, while working away, and continuing care to Mrs Fergie.

ManxRed

Fergie76 wrote: »

Just found this wee snippet in the contract. I think this may put an end to the letter of authorisation !!!!!!...

Do you agree Manx?

I agree 100%.

Unless someone can produce such a variation, dating back to before they started issuing tickets, then they are screwed.

I suspect the DVLA realise that an enormous clanger has been dropped here, you'll be doing well to get them to admit it. Very very interesting about the 15 minute gap between the almost identical ICO and DVLA responses!

Ask the DVLA what the next step up is. It may be MP time.

Fergie76

Reply to the ICO, how does it read:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your reply yesterday, although I must dispute your findings and these are the reasons why:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. You correctly state that Private Parking Companies can only apply for data if a member of the BPA or IPC, however they must also abide by that Trade Associations Code of Practice (COP). I have identified up to 5 breaches of the COP by APU, which the BPA are currently investigating, however the main breach would mean that no ticket should have been issued in the first place and therefore no reasonable cause of obtaining the registered keepers details is:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]16.5[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The car was displaying a blue badge, therefore APU have broken the BPA COP and therefore had no reasonable cause.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. Your conclusion on the validity of the two letters, dated 26 Apr 11 and 7 Jul 14 is flawed. As I have maintained all along these letters cannot and do not supersede the original contract dated 10 Feb 98. As confirmed by the hospital, the contract is:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The contract provided is therefore the correct and sole documentation related to the current operation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The above statement is categorical. The contract is the SOLE DOCUMENTATION related to the current operation, therefore even the hospital does not recognise the validity of these two letters and neither does the contract, which states:[/FONT]

17.3 No variation of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing, refers specifically to this Agreement and is duly executed by each party.

[FONT=&quot]As you will see the first letter dated 26 Apr 11, in addition to not being recognised by the hospital, it is not executed by each party. The second letter, does not refer to the original agreement of 10 Feb 98 and it is not executed by both parties, therefore it cannot superseded the original contract and therefore has no validity in law.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. As I have proved that the original contract is still the ‘correct and sole documentation related to the current operation’ that means that there is no authority given for the collection of parking charges and therefore again, APU had no reasonable cause to obtain the registered keepers details.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I now require the ICO take the appropriate action for a breach of the DPA by the DVLA. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On the second point of breaches to the FOI Act by the Trust, I would like to pursue them to the fullest extent of the ICO’s powers and would like to know what action you have taken.[/FONT]

Thanks.

ManxRed

That's to the ICO, not the DVLA, yes?

Fergie76

ManxRed wrote: »

That's to the ICO, not the DVLA, yes?

Apologies, yes, the ICO, not the DVLA. I am just about to do a similar one to the DVLA.

ampersand

Hello again Fergie -
'[FONT=&quot] I have so far identified [FONT=&quot][STRIKE]up to[/STRIKE] [/FONT]5 breaches of the COP by APU, which the BPA are currently investigating, however the main breach would mean that no ticket should have been issued in the first place and therefore no reasonable cause of obtaining the registered keeper's details is[what? - w[FONT=&quot]o[/FONT]rd missing here? sugges[FONT=&quot]t 'existed'[/FONT]]'
[FONT=&quot]
Just suggestions.
[FONT=&quot]manx red - [FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]ot just 1 M[FONT=&quot]P[/FONT], surely. We can go for a [FONT=&quot]F[/FONT]ull [FONT=&quot]H[/FONT]ouse with things rolling on auntie beeb and beavis in the close offing.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

bazster

The ICO is hand-in-glove with the DVLA and appears to be equally corrupt.

ManxRed

Yeah, why not?