NHS Trust PCN

Redx

TB2013 wrote: »

1) Is it true hospitals don't need to be part of an ATA?

2) Am I right in thinking that as POFA isn't mentioned, they cannot take the keeper to court?

3) So it may just be a case of getting spam for 6 years if the hospital don't cancel it?

1) Landowners dont need to be a part of an ATA, unfortunately

Aintree is an infamous one that use Solicitors called Trethowans I believe , in other words they do their own appeals and employ third parties to enforce, I agree this should not be allowed and there should be one single trade body that they are a part of and has an independent ADR service, like the Ombudsman Service for example , the DVLA have fudged that one and may be incorrect

2) no you are not right , sorry

yes they could try a court case, anyone can do so , the problem they have is they didnt follow POFA2012 so cannot use it, therefore one of your defence points would be POFA2012, no keeper liability (meaning they are chasing the wrong entity , so the judge should throw it out on the basis that they have brought the wrong person to court)

dont confuse your rights here, it doesnt stop them , but their case is flawed and they stand on quicksand, if they stand at all !! many a case gets thrown out of court because the claimant takes the wrong entity to court

3) yes

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

What a load of fudge from the DVLA.

I believe that it is NOT ALLOWED for a non-ATA member simply to pass the vehicle details to an ATA member for them to get the keeper details. The original body also needs to be a member, else any unscrupulous so-and-so can use a third party (like they could get more unscrupulous!).

Sorry to be a wet blanket but see here http://www.datainterchange.com/en/Solutions/DVLA

pappa_golf

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Sorry to be a wet blanket but see here http://www.datainterchange.com/en/Solutions/DVLA

yes , another variant of ranger services , HOWEVER the hospital is not authorised to collect data for use in parking operations , ONLY members of the 2 recognised ATAs are allowed this




Cue "trev" and joining the credit services assoc to glean info .

Guys_Dad

pappa_golf wrote: »

yes , another variant of ranger services , HOWEVER the hospital is not authorised to collect data for use in parking operations , ONLY members of the 2 recognised ATAs are allowed this

What is to prevent them engaging an ATA approved agent to collect data for them and then pursue miscreants in their own name?

And, for my own education, why are they not allowed to collect parking data themselves?

pappa_golf

A ATA member is not allowed to get info for a non ATA member , however we are in a bit of a pickle here as the hospital (like Aintree) are not registered as parking Co,s , so must go at this from a trespass aspect


read the Aintree link on pepipoo , where trets are involved http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102748

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

What is to prevent them engaging an ATA approved agent to collect data for them and then pursue miscreants in their own name?

I also understand that an ATA member can only get data for another ATA member. Something for the OP to ask the DVLA about specifically, to hear it from them. May as well up the ante with this complaint and raise more questions to flush this out.

...why are they not allowed to collect parking data themselves?

A landowner could make a paper application as long as they show reasonable cause. But I recall NHS Trusts have been flagged up recently in discussions 'in another place' as perhaps not even being a legal entity, let alone a landowner in their own right.

pappa_golf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I also understand that an ATA member can only get data for another ATA member. Something for the OP to ask the DVLA about specifically, to hear it from them. May as well up the ante with this complaint and raise more questions to flush this out.




A landowner could make a paper application as long as they show reasonable cause. But I recall NHS Trusts have been flagged up recently in discussions 'in another place' as perhaps not even being a legal entity, let alone a landowner in their own right.

correct ,,,,,

TB2013

Hi all,

back to this again - i did reply to the DVLA and they basically said they can do what they want!

So I sent a complaint to the hospital, and this is what I got back:

Thank you for your email dated 29 February 2016 in relation to the penalty charge parking letter you received. I am sorry that you have had cause to raise concerns.

Upon receipt of your email your concerns were passed to Lynn Taylor, Head of Performance and Statutory Compliance, to investigate. I am aware that Mrs Taylor would have preferred to discuss your concerns directly with you on the telephone, however, we do not have a contact telephone number for you therefore her response has been incorporated into this email.

Mrs Taylor has confirmed that the reason the car was issued a parking charge notice was for not paying and displaying a valid ticket having parked in one of the car parks at the hospital. Please see attached photographs.

The hospital are not in breach of Data Protection Legislation regarding patient or visitors identity, as car parking management is provided by a third party contractor that uses Ultimate Customer Solutions, for their management of parking charge notices and for payment and enforcement arrangements. They have the right to deal with the DVLA to find the registered keeper of any vehicle that has been issued a parking notice. The Trust does not have the power or the right to obtain information from DVLA and therefore we did not pass on any patient data to the company.

On all Ultimate Customer Solutions parking charge notices there are clear guidelines and information about the reduced rate of £30.00 and that this rate is only valid for 14 days and thereafter the price of the ticket reverts back to the original charge. There is also listed an appeals procedure and how the fine can be paid.
Ultimate Customer Solutions will write to the registered keeper after the “reduced” date period has passed and payment has not been received, explaining that the keeper could be liable for the charge if they fail to either pay or seek payment from the driver at the time of issue.

If the ticket has been issued in accordance with PoFA 2012 guidelines, the registered keeper is liable for the charge, or if they fail to disclose who the driver was at the time, this could lead to them being pursued accordingly for the cost of the ticket and any subsequent cost such as court fees.
If you feel that the ticket was issued incorrectly e.g. there was a valid ticket on the car, then there is an appeal process, where the Trusts Car Parking Appeals Panel will look at the case in line with your evidence and make a decision to either cancel or enforce the ticket. Please refer to the letter from UCS for further information on the appeal process.

I hope that this email helps to clarify the situation for you and that you are reassured that the hospital has not breached any patient confidentiality. If, however, you should have any queries or would like to discuss this matter in more detail please do not hesitate to contact me using the details shown below.

Ideally I'd like it cancelled, but if it ever came to court then the registered keeper can happily say in front of the judge they were not the driver (as the NtK does not claim to use PoFA).

Can anyone advise any types of phrases/sentences that will make them see sense, in particular they have multiple times referred to it as "penalty" and "fines"?

I took a little advice from another thread and said they had breached patient confidentiality for informing a 3rd party (the registered keeper) of the patient's (the driver's) visit to the hospital. They just said they didn't as they didn't pass on the exact patient details. Not sure if it's worth going back and saying regardless of not giving exact details, the registered keeper was still made aware of the driver's confidential visit to the hospital!

Any further help is appreciated - otherwise I will ignore.

Thanks!

Redx

this still seems like an attempt by this trust to not follow the NHS guidelines that were updated only 5 months ago , plus subversion by the trust using a debt collector to obtain keeper details from a VRN and not a parking company (as anpr tried last year)

plus they seem to think they can fine people and issue penalty charges , yet they are not responsible ? its a cop out and should be exposed

perhaps parking prankster would take a look at your replies ? as he posted on page 1 so is clearly interest in this sc@m

I would also involve your mp and ask them to write to greg clark and to jeremy hunt etc about this matter , plus they could write to the trust to get things clarified as to how they think they can get away with this mish mash and incorrect wording and this release of confidential data to the keeper of a drivers visit to a hospital on medical grounds

a few FOI requests should also make them do some work that they dont wish to do

pappa_golf

"The hospital are not in breach of Data Protection Legislation regarding patient or visitors identity, as car parking management is provided by a third party contractor that uses Ultimate Customer Solutions, for their management of parking charge notices and for payment and enforcement arrangements


WHO IS THE CONTRACTOR?


iss facility services ltd are not listed with the DVLA as a member of an approved ATA for the collection of data for parking offences., they are however members of at least 1 Plus of the other groups that are allowed access to the DVLA (credit services assoc etc) .


however after incidents with ANPR ltd using this method , BRIAN Dodd of the DVLA has stated that this is NOT acceptable , and action will be taken if spotted