PALS/ Barnet Hospital / Parking Eye

bod1467

I don't know if it still does, but the old POPLA website used to specifically state that mitigating circumstances would not be considered ... which by inference means only points of law would be considered.

mnkut

Hi all,

Have put this together for PALs complaint based on all your advice and keen to hear your feedback. I'm hoping a good mix between dramatic and little waffling on.
Much appreciated.


Dear sirs,

PCN no: xxxxx

As keeper of the car, I have received what I believe to be a very unfair parking charge from Parking Eye at Barnet Hospital A&E when seeking urgent medical attention for a genuine child meningitis scare.

Upon GP diagnosis of potentially contracted meningitis, the child occupant was urgently advised to visit A&E for emergency medical attention. With this horrific news, as you can imagine it was a mad dash and emotionally taxing trip to and from A&E.

Furthermore, by the time the ordeal was over (approximately 20:25 - passed sunset), the lack of lighting around signage rendered it nearly impossible to read the terms and conditions outlined by Parking Eye.

I am deeply saddened that the NHS Trust is breaching Government policy by allowing a private firm like Parking Eye to profit from PCNs particularly in instances where patients are seeking vital treatment or urgent medical care. Firms like ParkingEye are clearly incentivised to issue charges as their earnings are little other than penalty income. Which is wrong and against the will of Parliament, please reference the below. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

I understand as per the terms between the NHS Trust and Parking Eye, Parking Eye is required to consider genuine emergency cases like this. Based on the reasonings outlined above, I respectfully request your support in cancelling the charges in this instance.
 

Coupon-mad

Looks good. I would suggest a change to the first paragraph because the PCN followed the event (not on the same day) and this keeps the driver's identity vague:

As keeper of the car, I have received what I believe to be a very unfair parking charge from Parking Eye. This unexpected demand followed a very stressful day for our family at Barnet Hospital A&E, seeking urgent medical attention for a child meningitis scare.

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks good. I would suggest a change to the first paragraph because the PCN followed the event (not on the same day) and this keeps the driver's identity vague:

Great spot. Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated. :j
Will send off to PALS.

mnkut

Result!!
PCN got cancelled at informal stage, not sure if it was PALS (they never responded to me) or whether Parking Eye gave up.

Thanks so much everyone!

Coupon-mad

Nice one - thanks for the update!

I saw a POPLA case nicely won this week for a contact of mine v ParkingEye where they did not contest it and gave the excuse to POPLA: 'CLIENT REQUEST' (i.e. pretending the retailer had ordered it cancelled).

But I handled the appeal. No complaint to the retailer had been made! So you never know the truth but a cancellation is a cancellation.