Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Fergie76

Just reading Section 56 to Schedule 4 to POFA 12, as you do on a Sunday night...

Paragraph 4.1 says:

4.1 The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public high ways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws
applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.

Given that hospital land is owned by the Trust, which is ultimately owned by the Department of Health, which is a governement body, should keeper liability be allowed at hospital's iaw the above paragraph?

Umkomaas

I think it's rather tenuous, but you could add that as another line of attack. Let them prove otherwise. They'll need to see a Doctor to get shot of the Fergie headache!

Serves them right. Keep fighting the good fight!

Fergie76

Anymore tenuous than some the straws they are grasping at? lol

Umkomaas

Fergie76 wrote: »

Anymore tenuous than some the straws they are grasping at? lol

Perhaps not as tenuous a straw as Jack is grasping at!

The pleasure of the '£5k daily rate'

nigelbb

Fergie76 wrote: »

Just reading Section 56 to Schedule 4 to POFA 12, as you do on a Sunday night...

Paragraph 4.1 says:

Given that hospital land is owned by the Trust, which is ultimately owned by the Department of Health, which is a governement body, should keeper liability be allowed at hospital's iaw the above paragraph?

As I already commented over on PPP it would be nice to have such a stick to beat them with but unfortunately that paragraph you quoted is from the DfT guidance on POFA2012 & is not what the Act actually says. POFA 2012 very carefully specifies what is relevant land & a 'traffic authority' has a precise meaning (basically it's a council) & not just any old 'government body'.

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Fergie76

Had another reply from ICO from the one that has been dealing with my complaint against :

Thank you for your email of 24 February 2015. I have passed your FOIA request to our Information Access Team who should contact you shortly if they have not done so already.

You have also raised a service complaint about the ICO. The matters you raise will be passed to a manager in who should send you a detailed response within 28 days. If for some reason the manager is unable to send a full response within that timeframe, he or she will let you know what is happening and when you will receive a full response.

You will notice that there are two reference numbers at the top of this page. To explain why, XXXXXX relates to the complaint you sent us about DVLA and London North West Healthcare Trust. XXXXXX is a new reference number, which relates to the correspondence you sent us in relation to the way we have handled XXXXXX.

A manager will contact you shortly about this matter.

With regard to your request of 22 December 2014, thank you for highlighting the specific request. I can proceed with this aspect of your complaint. Your request relating to GPEOL is still under consideration.

Finally, you have asked me to explain my reasoning and why I “think these two letters can over-ride the legally binding contract”. As I explained in previous correspondence the Commissioner’s role is to consider if a public authority has complied with the FOIA and DPA. I sought advice from colleagues who have more relevant expertise and this is what my decision is based on.

The assessment is that the DVLA is likely to have complied with the DPA on the basis that it considered there was reasonable cause to disclose your details, based on the information it had i.e. the letter from the Trust dated 7 July 2014.

I note that the Trust has stated the contract does not exist, but it would be unlikely DVLA were aware of this. Consequently it considered that the letter from the Trust provided authorisation to APUK. The issue therefore is not whether DVLA has breached the DPA but whether the Trust has got any contract in place with APUK. The Commissioner has therefore fulfilled his statutory obligation with regard to section 42 of the DPA.

As advised previously, the Commissioner can only assess compliance with the legislation he oversees. In this instance the only option available is to ask the Trust what searches it carried out in order to determine whether information was held or not at the time of your request. As the Trust has already stated that the contract does not exist there appears to be little value in pursuing the issue.

ManxRed

wriggle wriggle wriggle wriggle wriggle, yeah.

The assessment is that the DVLA is likely to have complied with the DPA on the basis that it considered there was reasonable cause to disclose your details, based on the information it had i.e. the letter from the Trust dated 7 July 2014.

Sadly, it has now been demonstrated that they DIDN'T have reasonable cause.

Ralph-y

and

"I note that the Trust has stated the contract does not exist, but it would be unlikely DVLA were aware of this"

it would be funny if it was not so jaw dropping!

Ralph:cool:

The_Slithy_Tove

Ralph-y wrote: »

"I note that the Trust has stated the contract does not exist, but it would be unlikely DVLA were aware of this"

If the DVLA actually undertook their LEGAL OBLIGATION, which is to verify the request has reasonable cause, then they would be aware of the lack of contract. But as the DVLA unlawfully ignore their obligation by pretending that membership of an ATA fulfils that obligation, then this happens. When will the Chief Exec of the DVLA face criminal charges for his/her behaviour, rather than walking off with a fat pension and a gong once his/her work is done?

enfield_freddy

however , the DVLA have been passing info to Proserve parking , for a long time knowing that they were NOT a member of a ATA, then said "sorry"