Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

TDA

bazster wrote: »

It's my opinion that most lawyers have their testicles surgically removed on the day they qualify. It sounds like the same may have happened to you.

Even the females?

keepitlegal

Bazster I was offering the OP the benefit of my experience.
To quote you, "I consider that the 21 days I have specified for a response should be more than adequate and it exceeds the 14 days stipulated in the CPR", this statement is incorrect, and as you rightly say, "You just quoted the rules, which I too have read. Not to difficult too understand." This statement is correct, I did quote the rules, because it's these rules that the court go by, if your going to give the OP advice at the very least make sure it's the correct advice.
As for your childish comment about testicles, that is precisely the attitude taken by the company directors when my wife and I threatened court action, guess the balls in your court now, you may know a lot about parking problems but it seems you know bugga all about our court system.
Now how about we agree to disagree and let the OP get on with this thread.

Keepitlegal

Fergie76

Now that the election is out the way and my MP has been duly re-elected, my has informed me that I have received a letter from him today, with a reply to his letter from the hospital.

I am away with work until Saturday and it is quite a long letter, so she never read it all out, but a few things she did read out were quite alarming.

Aparently, I have either very offensive in my correspondence. I don't think I have and been at pains to try and avoid that.

I have demand answers right away without giving them an opportunity to investigate. The only time that I can remember doing that was when I was wanting information for my POPLA appeal and the deadline was approaching, all other times, I have not hastened until their deadline has passed.

That I have been corresponding directly with senior management. Well is that not what you escalate a complaint, go to the next person?

Also that they offered me a meeting and I refused. Well I never refused, I said giving the distance it was probably a unrealistic solution, however if they were willing to cover my traveling expenses I would accept and that I was also open to a video conference or telephone conference, but they never got back to me.

Look forward to the rest of the letter at the weekend.

Fergie76

Update:

Apologies I have not updated in while, but I have been away with work.

I responded to the letter I received from my MP above and am in fact meeting him today at his London Office to discuss Ombudsman Complaints. Here is my response:

In the meantime, I will pen my thoughts on their letter, below.

I will deal each point in the letter in order:

1. Meeting with Trust – I said I was willing to meet the Trust, if they covered my travelling expenses, I also offered a video conference over Skype or a phone conference, however, they hospital never responded to the meeting request and their person wasn’t available for a phone conference.

With reference to meeting Gary Munn, I would be more than happy to, however I don’t think it is practical, as I live 4 hours away. I will be prepared to travel, if the Trust reimburses all of my expenses, or if Gary is due in the Plymouth area any time soon, again I would be more than happy to meet him. I am also willing to have a telephone conference with him, in which case this Friday afternoon would suit me best or video call over Skype?

I am writing to inform you that Gary Munn is unable to participate in a telephone call with you this afternoon, as he is committed to meetings in the Trust. I understand that a draft response is under review and should be ready to forward to you (email and hard copy) early next week. If you would like to make an alternative arrangement either before or following receipt of the response, please let me know.

2. Communicating with senior members of the Trust – I only did this as the Complaints department wasn't dealing with my complaint in a timely or satisfactory manner, so I escalated the complaint.

3. Expect an immediate response – Only on one occasion have I ever expected an immediate response and that was when I was putting together my POPLA appeal and the deadline was approaching and I urgently need the information as part of my appeal. Other than that it has been only been when they have failed to make their own deadlines or those laid down by the FOI Act.

4. Use of Offensive Language – I have never used offensive language in my correspondence with the Trust and would challenge them to prove this. I may have been direct with them, but never offensive.

5. Valid Contract – The Trust is being economical with the truth here, by stating they have a valid contract with APCOA. As you will probably have seen from my other letters, I don’t dispute they have a valid contract APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Limited, however this is not the version of APCOA that is carrying out parking enforcement at the hospital or the company that requested the keepers details from DVLA. I have written confirmation from the Trust that they don’t have a contract with the company that is carrying out the parking enforcement and I have an FOI request from the DVLA that proves APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Limited have never requested any keepers details.

[FONT=&quot]Letter from the Trust dated 29 Jan 15: 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]

DVLA FOI response dated 16 Dec 14 (attached): No requests for data have been received from APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd.

6. Penalty Charge Notices – I am not the one that called them Penalty Charge Notices, indeed it was the Trust’s own website which did and also their parking signs (see attached picture of illegal sign) and the Trust’s own Car Parking Policy (attached). Unfortunately, I never took a screen shot of the Trust’s website and it has since been updated, however I did copy and paste what it said:

[FONT=&quot]I believe you are discriminating against disabled people and therefore breaching the EA10 against disabled patients and visitors. Your website states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are no charges for disabled drivers parking in designated bays at the hospital, whether in the multi-storey car park (enter via the main entrance/A&E/outpatients) or car parks 2-4. Vehicles must display a valid Blue Badge and time recorder, and must park in designated disabled bays.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The usual pay and display charges are payable by disabled drivers when parking in non-designated bays.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Vehicles [FONT=&quot]not[/FONT] driven by disabled persons, irrespective of whether they display a Blue Badge or time recorder, are not entitled to park in designated blue bays and may be issued with a penalty notice.[/FONT]

The terms of the contract do not allow any company to issue parking charges, as it is so old, it still refers to clamping and this has been confirmed by the Trust:

[FONT=&quot]Please find below a response to FOI request reference 081-14 (LNWH NHS Trust) [/FONT]

[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]

[FONT=&quot]3/ Query on the legal right of APCOA to issue penalty charges without the lawful authority of the land owner[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is wholly appropriate for London North West Healthcare NHS Trust to empower the parent company and for it to receive the keeper details from the DVLA on the Trust’s behalf. APCOA are empowered to deliver the Trust’s Car Parking Policy (please see attached). This has been updated from the version included in the original contract in line with operational changes over time.[/FONT]

The Trust’s Car Parking Policy states: 5.3 Contraventions to parking procedures and regulations will result in the application of the Enforcement Policy detailed within each site specific contract.

As already stated above and confirmed by the Trust, the contract does not allow for the issuing of Parking Charge Notices.

7. Issue refunds – As stated above, there is no authority by contract for any parking company entity to issue Parking Charge Notices, therefore they should reimburse all monies collected.

8. Common Policy For Disabled Parking – As I have previously stated to the Trust, they need to make reasonable adjustment and not to discriminate on grounds of disability. I have already explained why I think charging abled-bodied and disabled people the same is discrimination.

9. Standards – APCOA may well be a member of the BPA, however, they have breached the Approved Operators Scheme Code of Practice on at least 5 occasions in my case, so what hope is there that they will conform to new stricter guidelines?

10. Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss – Most of the costs they list are the cost of running a business and not as a result of parking event. Do their staff really not get paid, if everyone parks correctly? With regard to the cost of the parking charge, is not listed on their signs (see attached sign) and their Parking Policy states that a “penalty” notice is £15 and their website at the time (since updated) stated £30, so where does the £60 figure come from?

I also received a reply from the Trust's Solicitor with regards to the LBA, but as expected the have denied everything. They said I have failed to make a case on why it is discrimination, that the Trust denies breaching the FOIA (which I find strange) and that if I proceed, the will claim full costs, as I am being unreasonable.

Fergie76

Oh forgot to say, wife is back at that hospital for an operation yesterday and they now have wee stickers on their signs saying Parking Charge Notices are £30 if paid within 14 days or else will be £60.

I wonder if the driver will get another PCN...

Herzlos

If you don't make it too obvious you're looking for a new invoice, you can always add that as new evidence that after all the dialog you've had the trust has no interest in fixing things.

Fergie76 wrote: »

I also received a reply from the Trust's Solicitor with regards to the LBA, but as expected the have denied everything. They said I have failed to make a case on why it is discrimination, that the Trust denies breaching the FOIA (which I find strange) and that if I proceed, the will claim full costs, as I am being unreasonable.

They would say that though, but assuming they could win they'd need to convince a judge that you've been unreasonable, and all the correspondence shows otherwise.

I'm assuming this is also through the small claims track, so the costs are limited anyway?

I'm impressed at your tenacity, keep up the good work

Fergie76

I thought it would be within the Small Claims Track, but that legal website linked to earlier in thread, seems to think given the issues at hand, it would be directed to a higher court, where costs aren't limited.

My problem now is, although I want to pursue this, I can't take a risk, of losing and then have full costs awarded against me.

Herzlos

I'm assuming here, but if it starts in the small claims track then the costs are limited regardless of where it goes (as in the Beavis case).

It's obviously up to you, and no-one is going to have any problem with you quitting whilst ahead (that legal response you got will have cost the trust thousands on top of everything else), but I don't think you've got much risk of being hit with huge costs.

You've done everything you can to minimise their costs anyway.

Edit: I think I'm wrong - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14

Claim re-allocated from the small claims track to another track

27.15 Where a claim is allocated to the small claims track and subsequently re-allocated to another track, rule 27.14 (costs on the small claims track) will cease to apply after the claim has been re-allocated and the fast track or multi-track costs rules will apply from the date of re-allocation.

If you feel threatened into dropping it, then there might be some other recourse if you feel they've been inappropriate such as taking it to the SRA.

What's the basis for it being reassigned? Are you able to drop it at that stage?

Fergie76

I'm in London at the moment for wife's operation and letter from their Solicitors is at home. I will post exact wording when I'm home at the weekend.

Umkomaas

Fergie76 wrote: »

I'm in London at the moment for wife's operation and letter from their Solicitors is at home. I will post exact wording when I'm home at the weekend.

Why not revive your parallel thread on Pepipoo as there are quite a number of regulars on there well-versed on the court side of things.