Parking Eye Hospital PCN via Leasing company

Carthesis

I looked through the DoH guidance - nowhere does it say (that I could see) that ANPR cannot and should not be used.

It states that enforcement action should only be used as a last resort, and that consideration should be given to matters beyond the control of the driver (i.e. a clinic or appointment running late), but nowhere that I have seen does it bar absolutely the use of ANPR as a means of obtaining Keeper data.

The DPA prevents the ILLEGAL access and use of personal data. Such as in the case of Mr. Owens, when he could demonstrate that his daughter had been double-dipped and that because the PPC hadn't got sufficient safeguards to prevent people being invoiced for such, they had no reasonable cause to access the data, whether POFA was being used or not.

But, generally speaking, POFA allows the RK to be pursued, provided certain criteria are met. By extension, this allows the DVLA to divulge the name and address of the person who is the RK of a VRN. No part of that is illegal, and as I have previously stated, any one of us can have access to the same data given a £2.50 fee, reasonable cause, and a correctly filled-in V888 form.

It's horrible - and had we a choice in the matter, I'm sure none of us here would agree to or approve such a system where the RK is held responsible for the actions of the driver in broaching some scummy private company's random T&Cs - but it is what it is.

salmosalaris

who mentioned the DoH guidance banning ANPR ?;)

dadsma

Thank you all for an interesting discussion about release of information which will form part of a complaint to the hospital. I agree that they are unlikely to instruct the PCN to be cancelled for that reason, whatever the rights and wrongs and even assuming that they understand or want to understand the concepts involved.

Their acceptance of being wrong would undermine the core of their contractural relationship with Parking Eye, as it is clearly in defiance of the Department of Health's NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles:-

"Contracted-out car parking......."Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg 'income from parking charge notices only'."

I understand that at this hospital PE provide, free of charge, the parking signage, payment machines/systems, ANPR systems and maintenance, which provides the hospital with income from pay parking. In return PE get to keep ALL the income from their PCN's. In addition it seems they have the right to charge the hospital when PCN's are cancelled by the hospital.

May I clarify that the leasing company knows the identification of the lessee (my friend) but they were not necessarily the driver or a patient at the hospital.

Thank you nigelbb for advising that the lessee should wait until they receive a PCN in their own name before appealing to to PE. Do other members agree with this strategy?

Carthesis

Entirely agreed. Wait for the NtH - but just be mindful of the appropriate mandatory timescales in POFA2012 they need to comply with.

Also worth having a dig on Google to find the DoH Guidelines document, which quite clearly states that PPCs working for hospitals should take all possible measures to *AVOID* giving out enforcement actions unless it is a course of final resort. It's fairly explicit and I'm willing to bet heavily that most PPCs simply ignore that to carry on pocket-lining.

dadsma

Google digging done. Here is the link to the guidelines published August 2014 with updates for the revised version October 2015. It can be quite educational and probably not difficult to discover where your own hospital fails to comply with or adhere any of the DoH principles.

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

Links sometimes get broken so here is the text of the most recent document:

GOV.UK

. Department of Health

NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles

Updated 29 October 2015

Contents

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 reasonable5 and 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 practice6 where applicable.

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

1. Each site is different and very few will be able to provide spaces for everyone who needs one. Since 2010, national planning policy no longer imposes maximum parking standards on development, and no longer recommends the use of car parking charges as a demand management measure to discourage car use.

2. Consideration should be given to the needs of people with temporary disabilities as well as Blue Badge holders.

3. Carers are those as identified in the following:

(i) Care Act 2014 section 10(3)

(ii) Children and Families Act 2014 section 96

(iii) Children and Families Act 2014 section 97

(iv) Carers (Recognition and Services)Act 1995 ↩2 ↩3

4. Such staff might include nurses or therapists who visit patients at home. Routine travel between hospital sites might more sensibly be managed by providing internal transport.

5. ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances). A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued.

6. There are two trade associations: the British Parking Association and the Independent Parking Committee. If the car park operator is a member of either, their relevant code applies and an appeals service is available to motorists. NHS organisations should consider imposing a requirement for contractors to be members of such an association.

dadsma

May I suggest that these are the main points for checking basic compliance:

"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 reasonable5 and 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 implementation of the NHS car parking principles

. 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."

"Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges,
eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’."

"2. Consideration should be given to the needs of people with temporary disabilities as well as Blue Badge holders."

"5. ‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances)."

"A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued."

. . . . . . . .

I wonder which hospitals and trusts fail to get anywhere near proper implementation?
Answers please to Jeremy Hunt, Department of Health. cc Teresa May, PM

Coupon-mad

I wonder how many hospitals and trusts get anywhere near proper implementation?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hospitals-still-allowing-private-parking-firms-to-prey-on-visitors-with-penalty-fines-10047797.html

And when criticised, the NHS Trusts insist their regime 'is compliant' when clearly it is not.

softwaremad

ParkingEye do not operate data links other than the Paid for one KADOE access point - they are not collecting data on behalf of the trust, they are leasing the car park for a fee, they then get to keep the profits made from the issue of invoices.

Easiest way out of this is to call the PALS department at the hospital and get them to cancel it for you, they can do this for a certain percentage, we all know parkingEye signs suck, however PALS is the quickest and easiest way out, Get email verification that they are getting it cancelled and pass to the Hirer.

fingers crossed the dont as many do charge an admin fee for doing very little x

salmosalaris wrote: »

the data ( the VRN and photo ) is collected for and on behalf of the Trust , and personal data is anything that makes it possible for a person, in this case a patient, to be identified .
Unless data is required for medical reasons a patient must give explicit consent for its release and a sign just doesn't cut the mustard .
POFA most certainly does not overide the Trust's requirement not to disclose personal data of their patients just because ANPR cameras are permitted in a supermarket car park .

Of course it wouldn't apply to visitors but the Trust has a duty to put systems in place to prevent release of potential patients's personal data , and this would easily be achieved as in many NHS sites with barriers . Of course Trusts will come up with endless excuses that allow them to employ the likes of PE with their free parking management that incentivises the issue of penalties and flouts the DoH guidance on the issue .

dadsma

softwaremad wrote: »

ParkingEye.....are leasing the car park for a fee, they then get to keep the profits made from the issue of invoices.

I understand the contract shows PE do not lease the car park for a fee, nor does the hospital pay PE to 'manage' the car park.
PE provide, free of charge, parking signage, on site payment machines, pay by phone facilities, anpr system and maintenance. The hospital keeps all the regular paid parking revenue.

PE's sole income appears to be from the PCN's it issues and it keeps it all. A clear case of a contract which breaches the DoH NHS parking principles:-

"Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivise additional charges, eg 'income from parking charge notices only'."

softwaremad wrote: »

Easiest way out of this is to call the PALS department at the hospital and get them to cancel it for you, they can do this for a certain percentage

That is being done. The 'certain percentage' is apparently a contractual arrangement - once that percentage is exceeded PE can charge the hospital £10 for each cancellation. It sounds like a clear financial incentive for the hospital not to cancel where otherwise they might. There are several threads on here where PALS are reported as not being as helpful as expected. It makes you wonder why.

Coupon-mad

PE's sole income appears to be from the PCN's it issues and it keeps it all. A clear case of a contract which breaches the DoH NHS parking principles:-

"Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivise additional charges, eg 'income from parking charge notices only'."

Agreed.

I would seize the moment while the DCLG are still thinking about private parking, to point out in no uncertain terms to the DCLG what is happening in our hospitals right now (a disregard for the will of Parliament).