Parking Eye HELP!!!

pappa_golf

I winder why ghey olffered to reduce it ? possably because it was not valid ? never ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Coupon-mad

Cassfrow wrote: »

Will do. Weirdly though the second ticket is the one they agreed to reduce to £100 if paid by 18/01/2017. The first one remains £160 right now.

Cassie can we just make it clear NOT to pay these and not to make an offer, this is disability discrimination and the enforcement regime disregards the Government policy for NHS car parks.

The Clinic are liable for allowing PE to harass you like this.

If your MP thinks this is a 'parking ticket' that you are liable for (if they are misinformed enough to think that you 'should' make an offer to pay) because of the Beavis case, point the MP to this thread and we can state categorically that in your case it is wholly different:

- the parking regime is disallowed by Government and has been since 2013.
- PE should never have been allowed by the Clinic, to issue PCNs at all.
- PE should never have been enabled by the Clinic to have an excuse to get your data.
- your car should very clearly be on a white-list.
- the Clinic have completely and unreasonably missed the point that patients also:
(a) arrive early for appointments if possible
(b) have appointments with more than one person
(c) might need to use the rest room or merely sit down to recuperate after an appointment, before driving
(d) very obviously need to also visit the Pharmacy and wait for their prescribed medication which can take half an hour in itself at busy times
(e) are legally entitled to 'reasonable adjustments' and your request to PE to be added to the 'White List' is a cry for help that should have been done by the Clinic on your behalf, a year ago, when they SHOULD HAVE cancelled the PCN (they did not need your 'authority' to cancel the damn PCN - you are not at fault for 'failing' to reply!).


I hope the Clinic staff are reading this thread - if so, read this:

You should be ashamed for your treatment of this patient, why should she pay for a Solicitor because YOU have signed a contract disallowed in NHS car parks?

You are breaching the Equality Act 2010 by harassing and allowing your agents to harass a person with mental health issues who meets the definition of disability.

You have breached the Data Protection Act and DPA Principles, by allowing this unsuitable third party to operate a disallowed enforcement regime which enables them to get the data of your patients.

We know that The contract is between ParkingEye and NHS Property Services Ltd (i.e. the NHS body that owns approx. 10% of the whole of the NHS property portfolio across England). The contract was signed by the Health Centre Practice Manager (how dare they impose this on patients, how dare they!). It's safe to say that he / she will not be an employee of NHS Property Services Ltd. There is no evidence to indicate that he / she had the authority to act for and on behalf of NHS Property Services Ltd.


If you don't think you are liable at the Clinic, think again, Practice Manager:

(thanks to Edna Basher for this, which is worth repeating):

In conjunction with the NHS Patient, Visitor and Staff Car Parking Principles there is additional information in the Department of Health’s publication Health Technical Memorandum 07-03 - NHS car-parking management: environment and sustainability.

This can be downloaded at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481556/HTM0703NovemberUpdated.pdf

This makes it clear that additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (for example, when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift); this is particularly relevant in your case.

A (redacted) copy of the contract was received directly from ParkingEye. It covers two car parks:

• Car Park 1: Montpelier Health Centre Visitors’ Car Park, Montpelier Surgery, Bath Buildings, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5PT.

• Car Park 2: Montpelier Health Centre Staff and Blue Badge Car Park, Montpelier Surgery, Bath Buildings, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5PT.

It has an effective date of 2nd April 2015. Crucially this is after the introduction of the NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles and after the Independent’s article.

The Practice Manager has no excuse. If they want to avoid patients suing them, they need to extricate themselves from this unsuitable contract asap.

Cassfrow

pappa_golf wrote: »

I winder why ghey olffered to reduce it ? possably because it was not valid ? never ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

They offered because the manager at the surgery asked them if they could. They said as it was from 2015 that is all they could lower it to.... I will attach the email too for future reference.

..........

From: Sophia
Sent: 05 December 2016 15:18
To: Parking Eye
Subject: Montpelier

Hi XXXX,


I have an unusual one for you to look into here.

The patient contacted our surgery today and spoke to a receptionist but I have never dealt with a query from them before.
The patients details are .........95207.
She has received a fine letter today with the reference .............54.

She was here on 29.5.15 for an appointment and says she received a letter at the time but that her support worker wrote a letter to yourselves on her behalf.
She believed the fine was cancelled but only started to receive letters again recently which concerned her so she called us.

The patient says she has just spoken to the debt recovery agency and they have informed her that I need to write to you.
Can you please tell me what you have on record and if this fine can be cancelled at this stage?
Can you also let me know when and how the patient has contacted you as she says she has had several phone conversations where she thought the fine had been dealt with.


Kind regards,

Sophia

.......

From: Parking Eye
Sent: 05 December 2016 15:48
To: Sophia....
Subject: RE: Montpelier

Hi Sophia,

This case can’t be cancelled due to the stage this is at however we could look at possibly reducing this.

We received an appeal back in June 2015 which we asked for consent to contact yourselves to confirm the visit. We didn’t receive a response. We then sent a letter in August 2015 asking again for consent – no response was received.

We then passed the case over to DRPL in June this year, we still received no response so as a result the case was passed onto a 2nd Debt Recovery company. The case amount is now £160.

The motorist has called today (which is the only time from what I can see) to say they wouldn’t be paying this and ParkingEye can take them to court.

Kind regards,

XXXX

.....




Sent: 30 December 2016 09:31
To: Parking Eye
Subject: RE: Montpelier

Hi XXXX,

Can you please give me the name of the person that this fine belongs to as I only have their number written down but this seems to be disconnected.
I will then contact them and discuss the possibility of reducing this fine but will get this confirmed through you.
What fee would you be prepared to reduce this down to?

Thanks, Sophia

.....
From: Parking Eye
Sent: 03 January 2017 10:11
To: Sophia....
Subject: RE: Montpelier

Morning Sophia,

Due to Data Protection I would be unable to provide a name as I do not have access to this information.

As this is from over 18months ago, we may only be able to reduce this to £100.

Kind regards,

XXXX

..,..

Sent: 04 January 2017 13:16
To: Parking Eye
Subject: RE: Montpelier

HI XXXX,

In this case, I will not be able to contact the person as I do not know who they are.
Can you please contact them and say that I have been in touch and mention to them that you can reduce the fine to £100 but that this is all that can be done now?

If they do not accept this offer then you can continue as you usually would.

Thanks, Sophia

.........

From: Parking Eye
Sent: 04 January 2017 13:36
To: Sophia Earle
Subject: RE: Montpelier

Not a problem, I will liaise with our Enforcement Team and they will issue a letter.

Kind regards,

XXXX

........

On 9 Jan 2017, at 17:26, Sophia k> wrote:

Hi ....,.

Please find below the email trail between 5.12.16 and today 9.1.17. I have redacted the Parking Eye contacts name for confidentiality reasons and I hope you can understand the importance of this.

I hope my response below covers all of the points that you asked of me. I cannot give details for what I cannot prove such as appointments when I do not know the dates. I am happy to confirm your appointments here once I have these dates however and I will try to assist you with this issue as best I can.

We have an agreement with Parking Eye that we will ask for the first fine for each vehicle/patient to be cancelled and I believe this has already been the case for yourself. Any further fines are for the patient to contest in writing through Parking Eye and that we usually no longer get involved. I believe that Parking Eye contacted you by letter and that you then wrote to them to contest one fine. Parking Eye then wrote back again with a consent form which they say they never received back. Perhaps this was a postal error? Parking Eye than sent 2 further letters and received no further response from yourself. Perhaps another postal error? So this is why they then passed these on to the 2nd debt recovery agency and potentially now to court.

In future if you receive a parking fine letter for the carpark outside Montpelier Health Centre, you must write to Parking Eye immediately to contest the fine and then also complete the consent form they send to you in response and send this back to. Parking Eye then contact me to confirm the appointment and are happy to cancel further fines in this way.

Kind regards,

pappa_golf

We have an agreement with Parking Eye that we will ask for the first fine for each vehicle/patient to be cancelled and I believe this has already been the case for yourself.







mmm , no it has not!

Coupon-mad

That is diabolical. PE are also lying because they can cancel ANY PCN at any time, and they do when people robustly fight them, even a year or more later.

IMHO the Clinic deserve to be sued. I would start with an ICO and a EHRC complaint; we can help with those.

I have redacted the Parking Eye contacts name for confidentiality reasons and I hope you can understand the importance of this.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

DPA issues so she protected the PE employee but not you, they let PE get your data from the DVLA when this 'fines' income only regime is not allowed by Government.

...OMG, what is wrong with this person.

pappa_golf

stinks dunnit , and in the second case I do not believe they exceeded the 90 mins , as per the "surgery" notes

7.9.15 Her partner arrived at 10.59 and left at 12.08.'= 69 mins

much as I agree about a pharmacy visit , 19 mins does seem a bit long

PE can either put up (and produce photograpic evidence) or shut up and admit fault

Cassfrow

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That is diabolical. PE are also lying because they can cancel ANY PCN at any time, and they do when people robustly fight them, even a year or more later.

IMHO the Clinic deserve to be sued. I would start with an ICO and a EHRC complaint; we can help with those.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

DPA issues so she protected the PE employee but not you, they let PE get your data from the DVLA when this 'fines' income only regime is not allowed by Government.

...OMG, what is wrong with this person.

I honestly don't think she knows what she's talking about and is just going by what she's been told. She told me over the phone she has only been working there since February 2016.

Do you think I should send her the link to this forum and to the Mirror link?

Cassfrow

pappa_golf wrote: »

stinks dunnit , and in the second case I do not believe they exceeded the 90 mins , as per the "surgery" notes

7.9.15 Her partner arrived at 10.59 and left at 12.08.'= 69 mins

much as I agree about a pharmacy visit , 19 mins does seem a bit long

PE can either put up (and produce photograpic evidence) or shut up and admit fault

It could have been that I arrived 10 mins early and had 10 mins in chemist. Could have been that my children needed the toilet. Could have been many things. I could have even been arguing with the reception over yet another parking letter :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Cassfrow wrote: »

I honestly don't think she knows what she's talking about and is just going by what she's been told. She told me over the phone she has only been working there since February 2016.

Do you think I should send her the link to this forum and to the Mirror link?

I would indeed, they need to read this and weep.

Their polite and friendly emails to their mates at PE about 'an unusual one' (must be common for them to contact PE then) make me SICK.

What is the matter with the Practice Manager that he/she can't read DFH Policy before allowing this firm in & agreeing to something NOT ALLOWED?

Tell the Clinic by email (no phone calls) you have been advised that the parking regime is against Government Policy. As such, they have allowed a third party to obtain your data without 'reasonable cause' which is unlawful & aggravated by the fact that these are NHS patients being pursued contrary to (well known since 2013) Dept for Health policy about car parking enforcement, a matter for which the NHS signatory remains liable at all times, including liability for the conduct of the company they use.

They have breached the DPA Principles and you will be complaining to the Information Commissioner this week, as well as seeking help from the EHRC.

To expect you to pay for a Solicitor is wholly unreasonable and by the way, you have now complained to your MP and they will be hearing from them.

pappa_golf

7.9.15 Her partner arrived at 10.59 and left at 12.08.'


note that wording , the car park seems to be within 20 ft of reception , PE have cameras at the enterance and exit recording time you pass those NOT the time you parked for , also the BPA stipulate a 10 min grace period on entry and "sufficient time" to leave ,, so that could easily take the PE (accepted time) + the BPA reccomendations to a figure exceeding 105-110 mins , do you think on that date (second occassion ) that it took you 25-30 mins to leave the docs surgury and leave the site?

only when you have sight of a copy NTK can you see the "timed" entry/exit of the car park


PE have fluffed this , they wont back down they will not do court , just send letters in a hope you will give in

let them show thier evidence