Some advice please

Zer0

Hi all thanks for looking.

I am an outside contractor and was working at a Hospital site, where we are permitted to park if we phone the onsite parking office (I have followed the process well over 10 times previously). For some reason I got a PCN, I phoned the office they said there was nothing they can do and I would have to follow the appeal procedure. To which I wasn't best pleased....
Anyway I followed indigo's link and appealed and in so many words said a mistake has been made and I do have the correct authorisation from the Hospital to park on site. - This was rejected.

I have now (I believe stupidly) followed some advice to ignore them and told my lease company not to pay any fines.
The date of the incident was back in March, I am now receiving letters (forwarded on from the lease company) from ZZPS etc which from reading the newbie thread is a debt collector?

Is the next stage really going to be court proceedings?

I was struggling to relate by searching through, something similar to my situation so made a new thread, sorry if I just didn't look hard enough.

Thanks you

Redx

you can IGNORE zzps as they are just a debt collector

only INDIGO could take you to court

the lease company should have followed BVRLA guidelines and named the keeper and then the keeper should have received an NTK in their own right, the NEWBIES sticky thread tells you this

this should have been taken to popla so I assume its too late for that now

your best option is to get the trust to cancel it asap

they are jointly liable as they employed INDIGO

there are no fines here , its an invoice , not a fine (yes there is a difference)

tell the lease company to name the keeper and start the process again , as detailed under POFA2012 (they should not be passing this on , but should be naming the keeper/hirer/lessee like they were told by the BVRLA 2.5 years ago !!!!!!!!

Coupon-mad

This lot? (formerly Meteor)

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Indigo_Park_Solutions_UK.html

Or this lot? (formerly Vinci)

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Indigo_Park_Services_UK.html

Not exactly prolific, either version, at court claims! So no, the next stage is unlikely to be court. ZZPS is a debt collector to ignore.

What I am wondering is, if you appealed in your name giving your address, how come Indigo are bothering the lease firm still? They are not allowed to if they know the name & address of the hirer/driver. Did you call yourself 'driver' or 'hirer/lessee'? And gave them your address and got the rejection letter to your address?

If so, then your lease firm has grounds for a complaint under the Data Protection Act to the Information Commissioner (and to the DVLA) that their data was obtained without reasonable cause and contrary to the KADOE contract with the DVLA. They should lodge a complaint because they should not be receiving any letters at all and their data should not be used or processed further at all, if Indigo held YOUR name and address already as driver or hirer.

And you could email a complaint to the BPA and DVLA about this as well. Is this what's happened? You started ignoring them after the rejection and so they got the lease firm's data unlawfully and started bothering them instead? Norty.

Zer0

Thanks for the replies.

To start with it is this lot:
Code summary
Issuing operator: Vinci Park Services UK Ltd (Code: 916)

I appealed via their website https://www.parkindigoappeals.co.uk and due to my naivety at the time, they only had my email address to contact me (how I received the rejection notice.)

As I then stupidly ignored the POPLA window this is when they have started to contact the lease company. They have sent 2 letters to the lease company which have been then forwarded on to me (both addressed to lease).

First one was giving links to Ipaymypcn.net and the other from ZZPS as I said before.

I guess I could try contact the trust directly, just was put off a bit by the parking office.

Thanks again

System

I guess I could try contact the trust directly,

Yes and keep at the parking office too. Ask the parking office for their records of you contacting them to show a history of compliance. Your argument will be that there was never any "intent to enter into legal relations" with the parking company. The parking office records will back this up.

Intent is a cornerstone of any contract. If it is missing as it is in your case, there is no contract.

fisherjim

You should contact the person/department you were contracted by, and who gave you the parking rules and tell them to sort it out.

I suspect that the muppets in the parking hut were more intent on their tea break and forgot to whitelist you on that day, that's why they are avoiding the issue.

Redx

quote some of this from 2014 and amended in oct 2015 at the trust parking office or HR or management

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

especially about the fact they are responsible for their contractors , including you

NHS organisations should work with their patients and staff, local authorities and public transport providers to make sure that users can get to the site (and park if necessary) as safely, conveniently and economically as possible.1
Charges should be reasonable for the area.
Concessions, including free or reduced charges or caps, should be available for the following groups:

• disabled people2
• frequent outpatient attenders
• visitors with relatives who are gravely ill, or carers3 of such people
• visitors to relatives who have an extended stay in hospital, or carers3 of such people
• carers3 of people in the above groups where appropriate
• staff working shifts that mean public transport cannot be used

Other concessions, eg for volunteers or staff who car-share, should be considered locally.
Priority for staff parking should be based on need, eg staff whose daily duties require them to travel by car.4
Trusts should consider installing ‘pay on exit’ or similar schemes so that drivers pay only for the time that they have used. Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable 5and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (eg when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift).
Details of charges, concessions and additional charges should be well publicised including at car park entrances, wherever payment is made and inside the hospital. They should also be included on the hospital website and on patient letters and forms, where appropriate.
NHS trusts should publish:

• their parking policy
• their implementation of the NHS car parking principles
• financial information relating to their car parking
• summarised complaint information on car parking and actions taken in response

Contracted-out car parking

NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.
NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice6where applicable.
Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

its a shame that the POPLA appeal window was missed , hence you need a landowner cancellation now

they should not be chasing the hire company if they have named the lessee

the debt collectors can be ignored, they are powerless

Zer0

Hi just an update and some more advice please...

I asked my lease company to forward on my address to Wright Hassall who are sent the lease company a letter. After the ZZ one.

After my info had been given they sent this letter:

Zer0

Anyone?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

The company should merely reiterate your name and address and say that you are the lessee which makes you the keeper of the car as defined in the POFA 2012. As such, they have discharged any liability they may have had (which is denied).

They should add that they believe their data was obtained without 'reasonable cause' because the operator already had an appeal from the lessee/keeper of the car and had corresponded with you and given you a POPLA code (albeit by email) so they had no reason to obtain the data of the lease firm as owner (but neither keeper nor driver).

An owner company CANNOT be held liable under the POFA where the operator know they are not also the 'keeper' of the car. To revert to the owner is contrary to the KADOE contract and they should have continued to email the appellant and ask for their address but in the interests of progressing the dispute to the right party and for the avoidance of doubt, that individual's name and address is:

xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
xxxx

Zer0

Awesome thank you so much