Hospital Parking Query.

JS477

Our local hospital uses PE to manage its car parking and as such issues PCNs to the tune of £70 for any infringement of the rules. Am I correct in thinking that as a result of PE charging £70 then (amongst other BPA Code of Practice conditions) the land owner i.e. in this case the hospital has to suffer a loss in income to the tune of £70?

Thanks

Redx

this has been discussed many times and has been reported in the papers and on tv

for a good set of info , read this recent blog

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/parkingeye-employee-reveals-their-rape.html

but no the landowner does not lose £70

if its a pay and display car park, they lose the revenue generated by the meters

if its a "free" car park , they lose nothing at all , but may have to produce tax accounts

more info in the other threads on here if you search through them

JS477

Thanks. So in Sec 19.5 of the BPA C of P it says:-

"If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer."

The 'You' that I've highlighted refers to PE then and not the Hospital Trust? The Hospital Trust concerned charge £3 for 24 hours. So there is no way the Hospital can loose £70 so it must be that PE suffer the £70 loss.

Fruitcake

I think you are looking at an out of date CoP. The current section 19.5 reads,

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.

There is now no mention of GPEOL and it is not normally used in an appeal since the infamous Beavis case in 2015.

Coupon-mad

JS477 wrote: »

Thanks. So in Sec 19.5 of the BPA C of P it says:-

"If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer."

The 'You' that I've highlighted refers to PE then and not the Hospital Trust? The Hospital Trust concerned charge £3 for 24 hours. So there is no way the Hospital can loose £70 so it must be that PE suffer the £70 loss.

Forget loss as an argument. That has been dead and buried since the Supreme Court said so in 2015. You are looking at an old version of the CoP.

JS477

Thanks.

So as this was a 3 year contract the Hospital entered with PE would it be fair to say that PE "convinced" the Hospital that a £70 penalty charge payable to PE was commercially justifiable?

Coupon-mad

No they won't even have had to bother to justify the £70, they will have simply rocked up in suits and convinced the NHS Trust that they 'had a parking problem' and that their wonderful ANPR technology could solve it.

Never mind that it breaches the Government policy published - you guessed it - 3 years ago!

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5577932

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5578182

This chap is interested in Hospital stories...

{Text removed by Forum Team}