Parking Eye HELP!!!

Cassfrow

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This is why ParkingEye should not be let loose near vulnerable patients.

The point is, how would you know you could complain to the Clinic and get these cancelled, no sign tells anyone that and indeed they had on their website some old pack of lies saying they could not intervene. OF COURSE THEY CAN!

But at the end of the day the clinic should NEVER have signed that contract and - I have to say - I hope you sue them. If you do, we will help with your particulars of claim. We are only armchair lawyers but we do know what is and is not allowed in NHS Car parks, in terms of parking enforcement (not this regime) and we know what is allowed under the KADOE contract with the DVLA.

How do I go about this? I would need all the help I can get as I have no clue where to even begin!

pappa_golf

Cassfrow wrote: »

It's all because I didn't follow the proper procedures and timeframes. They fail to understand that when I am unwell I don't care about my own life never mind threats from a parking company when I'm visiting my surgery in crisis. It's hard to get out of bed when I'm unwell but I was expected to fill out letters and go post them at the post box? Not very practical if you act me. It should take simple confirmation from the surgery that I had permission to be there and that should have been it'no matter when I responded

no its becausec they are greedy %%^&*ASds , the website says it will be cancelled , the receptionist sad it had and PE confirmed it , PE (AKA paid by our goverment) are greedy , had bevis taken on any other company he would have won ,

they have annoyed me that much ,I,m not going to renew my TV licence now!

Coupon-mad

OK, firstly you need to report this to the Information Commissioner:

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/handling/

You would be complaining about two parties - ParkingEye and the Clinic (name them) and say that:

This Clinic has allowed a third party parking agent to obtain DVLA data of yourself as a patient, but the entire business model used at this location is one that allows the parking firm to make all their money from 'fines'. This is precisely the type of incentivised charging regime that is specifically disallowed under Government NHS Car Parking Policy announced as far back as 2013, yet the Clinic signed a contract with ParkingEye in 2015. The Dept for Health reminded NHS sites in Official Health Memorandums that this sort of regime is not allowed in NHS car parks, so the Clinic should never have allowed this contract to be signed.

The result is that your data was obtained at least twice by ParkingEye without reasonable cause (under the KADOE contract, data can only be supplied for particular purposes and not where a parking operator is acting outside of any law or applicable rule or Code). The data was supplied and the resulting unwarranted harassment and demands has caused you significant distress. Subsequently, both the Clinic and ParkingEye have exchanged emails about you and your partner (not consented to) and the data was shared with Equita, who have harassed you for payment. Despite the fact this regime is not allowed in an NHS car park, so no data should have been requested at all, let alone processed and shared for the purpose of harassing a person with mental health issues, who is a protected patient under the Equality Act 2010.

Further, the NHS Car Parking Guidelines state that parking charges are to be waived where any delay is no fault of the patient. And in this case, the Clinic has failed to hold and inform ParkingEye correctly and fairly about the length of a visit. They have erroneously told ParkingEye that your partner's appointment (who in fact was not party to the parking charge and whose appointments should never have been discussed at all) was for only 69 minutes, giving the impression that a patient should have been out and off site within seconds of that.

That data is wrong and unfair/misleading because it takes no account of the fact patients arrive early, in good time for appointments, spending on average, a good 15 minutes in the waiting room even on a good day, and it takes no account at all of the time the patient then spends in the pharmacy, waiting for their prescription to be dealt with and to collect their medication.

The Clinic should never have allowed PE on site but having done so, they should never have allowed the data to be further processed and both PE and the Clinic should have cancelled these PCNs in accordance with DFHealth published policy and should have ceased using the data from the DVLA. It should never have been shared with Equita.

State that the complaint is about ParkingEye and the Clinic.

You can also send links and attached emails. You need to show the ICO the NHS Memorandum and the NHS Policy too.

Cassfrow

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, firstly you need to report this to the Information Commissioner:

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/handling/

You would be complaining about two parties - ParkingEye and the Clinic (name them) and say that:

This Clinic has allowed a third party parking agent to obtain DVLA data of yourself as a patient, but the entire business model used at this location is one that allows the parking firm to make all their money from 'fines'. This is precisely the type of incentivised charging regime that is specifically disallowed under Government NHS Car Parking Policy announced as far back as 2013, yet the Clinic signed a contract with ParkingEye in 2015. The Dept for Health reminded NHS sites in Official Health Memorandums that this sort of regime is not allowed in NHS car parks, so the Clinic should never have allowed this contract to be signed.

The result is that your data was obtained at least twice by ParkingEye without reasonable cause (under the KADOE contract, data can only be supplied for particular purposes and not where a parking operator is acting outside of any law or applicable rule or Code). The data was supplied and the resulting unwarranted harassment and demands has caused you significant distress. Subsequently, both the Clinic and ParkingEye have exchanged emails about you and your partner (not consented to) and the data was shared with Equita, who have harassed you for payment. Despite the fact this regime is not allowed in an NHS car park, so no data should have been requested at all, let alone processed and shared for the purpose of harassing a person with mental health issues, who is a protected patient under the Equality Act 2010.

Further, the NHS Car Parking Guidelines state that parking charges are to be waived where any delay is no fault of the patient. And in this case, the Clinic has failed to hold and inform ParkingEye correctly and fairly about the length of a visit. They have erroneously told ParkingEye that your partner's appointment (who in fact was not party to the parking charge and whose appointments should never have been discussed at all) was for only 69 minutes, giving the impression that a patient should have been out and off site within seconds of that.

That data is wrong and unfair/misleading because it takes no account of the fact patients arrive early, in good time for appointments, spending on average, a good 15 minutes in the waiting room even on a good day, and it takes no account at all of the time the patient then spends in the pharmacy, waiting for their prescription to be dealt with and to collect their medication.

The Clinic should never have allowed PE on site but having done so, they should never have allowed the data to be further processed and both PE and the Clinic should have cancelled these PCNs in accordance with DFHealth published policy and should have ceased using the data from the DVLA. It should never have been shared with Equita.

State that the complaint is about ParkingEye and the Clinic.

You can also send links and attached emails. You need to show the ICO the NHS Memorandum and the NHS Policy too.

Ok I'm on it now!!!

pappa_golf

show it first , revenge is sweet , but must be done correctly


I would await the copy on NTK first , that way you know the charges and can write letters accordingly

Cassfrow

pappa_golf wrote: »

show it first , revenge is sweet , but must be done correctly


I would await the copy on NTK first , that way you know the charges and can write letters accordingly

Have PM'd you. Tried to PM CM also but won't allow me

pappa_golf

replied , CM will allow when spotted

Cassfrow

Basically just tweeted what CM said. Is this ok? Havnt sent it yet


ParkingEye and the Montpelier health centre have been exchanging my personal details and my health care provider has disclosed information about me without my consent

This Clinic has allowed a third party parking agent to obtain DVLA data of myself as a patient, but the entire business model used at this location is one that allows the parking firm to make all their money from 'fines'. This is precisely the type of incentivised charging regime that is specifically disallowed under Government NHS Car Parking Policy announced as far back as 2013, yet the Clinic signed a contract with ParkingEye in 2015. The Dept for Health reminded NHS sites in Official Health Memorandums that this sort of regime is not allowed in NHS car parks, so the Clinic should never have allowed this contract to be signed.

The result is that my data was obtained at least twice by ParkingEye without reasonable cause (under the KADOE contract, data can only be supplied for particular purposes and not where a parking operator is acting outside of any law or applicable rule or Code). The data was supplied and the resulting unwarranted harassment and demands has caused me significant distress. Subsequently, both the Clinic and ParkingEye have exchanged emails about me and my partner (not consented to) and the data was shared with Equita, who have harassed me for payment. Despite the fact this regime is not allowed in an NHS car park, so no data should have been requested at all, let alone processed and shared for the purpose of harassing me when I suffer from mental health issues with mental health issues and am protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Furthermore, the NHS Car Parking Guidelines state that parking charges are to be waived where any delay is no fault of the patient. And in this case, the Clinic has failed to hold and inform ParkingEye correctly and fairly about the length of a visit. They have erroneously told ParkingEye that my partner's appointment (who in fact was not party to the parking charge and whose appointments should never have been discussed at all) was for only 69 minutes, giving the impression that a patient should have been out and off site within seconds of that.

That data is wrong and unfair/misleading because it takes no account of the fact patients arrive early, in good time for appointments, spending on average, a good 15 minutes in the waiting room even on a good day, and it takes no account at all of the time the patient then spends in the pharmacy, waiting for their prescription to be dealt with and to collect their medication.

The Clinic should never have allowed PE on site but having done so, they should never have allowed the data to be further processed and both PE and the Clinic should have cancelled these PCNs in accordance with DFHealth published policy and should have ceased using the data from the DVLA. It should never have been shared with Equita.
Please see the information provided in the link below for government guidelines for NHS car parks.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481556/HTM0703NovemberUpdated.pdf

pappa_golf

tweet , good , royal mail on paper is better ,

Coupon-mad

I would add this:



This sort of 'fine' imposed in any NHS car park disregards the NHS 'Car Parking Principles' first put forward by the Department for Health in 2014 and subsequently updated and established as clear Government Guidance, in 2015:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-car-parking-management-htm-07-03

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

''Charges should be reasonable for the area.''

''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 and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control.''

''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 practice where applicable.

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges.''

''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.''