"ParkingEye sue parent of seriously ill child " Parking prankster blog -any followup?

Half_way

With the recent press and media attention, and out of curiosity does
Anyone know what happened next, in the "Parking eye Sue parent of seriously ill child" as reported by the parking prankster just over a year ago?
If anything it would / could make a good social justice type story in the media/press

Burton -upon Trent Queens hospital is overseen by its Chief Executive Helen Ashley ( source http://www.burtonhospitals.nhs.uk/departments-and-services/helen-ashley.htm ) who, I wold assume has overall responsibility for the site, including any contractors appointed, such as Parking eye.

Back in November of 2014 The Parking Prankster reported on this case, however there has been no follow up , yet as to date, even if the case was dropped it shouldn't have even been started, and in my opinion is yet another one of many examples of how the parasitic private parking industry is out of control.
The parking prankster article can be found here
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/parkingeye-sue-parent-of-seriously-ill.html
and for convenience is quoted as is below

Monday, 3 November 2014

ParkingEye sue parent of seriously ill child


ParkingEye have commenced action against the parent of a seriously ill child. As if the family do not have enough to worry about, they are being pursued for a substantial amount by the heartless money grabbers at ParkingEye.

In this latest case, the child was diagnosed with a serious illness and was undergoing treatment. However, she can become unwell quickly and require emergency help. On the day in question this happened and she was rushed to hospital on the advice of her doctor. The driver remained with the child throughout as she was distressed and was unaware that the parking rules had been transgressed until a postal notice was sent.

The hospital in question was Queens Hospital, Burton on Trent. This hospital has been previously reported as having misleading and confusing signage, plus a complex parking system designed to maximise income from transgressions.

ParkingEye do not get paid to manage the site and their only income comes from motorists who inadvertently break the rules. To their credit and the delight of their investors, ParkingEye have managed to devise a wonderfully complicated scheme which is very easy to fall foul of and which allows them to trouser huge amounts of cash from vulnerable people. Although the system is unfit for purpose, and directly against government directives, the hospital have so far refused to replace the system with one which is fair to both the hospital and the motorist.

The action was taken by the head of their legal services, Rachel Ledson, There have been a number of complaints to the Solicitor Regulator Association about Ms Ledson regarding her predatory tactics, She has been known to provide false information to the courts and incorrectly redact information in her quest to win at all costs. In addition, she often tries to mislead the court that documents cannot be provided as they are 'commercially sensitive' when they have already been made available elsewhere through Freedom of Information requests.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

Also of interest at the same site in Burton Upon Trent, the Plain language commission published a pretty damning report on the state of the car park, combined with misleading signs and information here:
http://www.clearest.co.uk/pages/publications/articlesbyourteam/parking-language/ParkingEyes_unclear_signs_plague_hospital_patients_and_visitors

All of which lies at the door of Helen Ashley ( Burton Hospitals NHS foundations Trust, Queens hospital, Burton upon Trent ) who as Chief Executive has overall responsibility of the state of affairs at the Hospital, and its contractors, such as Parking eye.

Marktheshark

No but I would have thought the revelation that hospital trusts exist in "name only" have no assets and have no capacity to form contracts, that was on a radio show, think it was radio 4, they were talking about a supplier losing a court case on that basis. would offer a real digging point for defence.

If this revelation was true, how could they claim Locus Standi when the trust have no stake or ownership of any assets which are a separate PFI company usually.
It would take some digging to get to the bottom, but I would have thought if the contract is with a trust that is just a figure head and the assets such as car park are only managed then they could not form a contract with the parking firm.
Someone has to own it in the chain of contract.

A second case of this was the stafford deaths, that was found to exist in name only, everything else was PFI owned