Advice on car park layout

kensiko

Hi all

I have sent the standard first appeal off to ParkingEye for a parking 'offence' horribly committed last year. I am currently writing the POPLA appeal assuming it will go that far.

The first draft of the appeal is in the second post in this thread for critique but nothing has been added yet regarding the questions below..

The driver parked as a patient where they had to input car registration details into a terminal in the reception of the clinic being attended. The query is to do with the car park layout and signs as the driver cannot be 100% certain exactly where they parked.

Attached are 4 images:
An image of the car park from overhead. The red line indicates the entrance and the blue line indicates where a sign is located for 'kidney center' users.
An image showing the signs at the entrance.
An close up of the sign at the entrance (good luck in reading the Ts and Cs)
An image of the 'kidney center' sign which is located halfway down the car park (as shown on the view from above image)

Am I correct in thinking ANPR cannot ascertain exactly where the car was parked as the photos show the car entering and leaving the car park?
Could there possibly be 2 ANPR's meaning the car may possible have gone too far in the car park into the 'forbidden zone'?
Is it worth mentioning a contract can't be formed as it is a forbidding sign if the operator can prove the car was parking in the wrong place in the car park?

There is no barrier between the 2 sections of car park meaning it looks like one continuous car park with just 2 signs forbidding parking if the driver goes in too far. It is possible the driver parked in either areas when the signs were not noticed as they were assumed to be the same signs as at the entrance.

Sorry for all the questions but want to try to put as much information in the POPLA appeal as possible as the driver is aware of an issue at this car park and has already paid 2 of these extortionate charges assuming they had been in the wrong. They are also aware of other people paying.

The clinic have been of no help and just say an appeal has to be made to ParkingEye which is when they can check the records of the terminal that car registration details are input into.

Thanks all

Kidney sign https://i.imgsafe.org/4a6f7ce239.jpg
Car park from above https://i.imgsafe.org/4a72762486.jpg
Car park entrance https://i.imgsafe.org/4a759184d4.jpg
Car park close up https://i.imgsafe.org/4a7912aa27.jpg

kensiko

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye Ltd. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.
The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
1. Genuine patient
2. No keeper liability
3. No ‘driver’ liability
4. Signage
5. Landowner authority
6. ANPR signage

1. Genuine patient

The driver was an outpatient entitled to free parking

As per the requirements at http://www.xxxxxxxx.nhs.uk/ the driver entered full registration details at the terminal in the building reception which qualified the vehicle 1.5 hours free parking. The parking charge ‘time in car park’ shows ‘1 hours 16 minutes’. The signage does not reflect how a patient is entitled to free parking. Without visiting the website mentioned above how does one know how to do this as the signs read “provide your… details to the reception”. Nowhere does it mention a terminal to enter this information. The only reason the driver knew to do this was because they have paid this extortionate charge before, assuming they had done something incorrectly.

As the keeper of this vehicle I have received a notice to keeper when the proper procedure was followed by the driver in giving the vehicle registration details to the reception via a terminal not even mentioned on the car park signs. Thus, you have obtained and used my details unlawfully in breach of the Data Protection Act.

2. No keeper liability
The operator did not deliver the notice to keeper within the relevant period.
The Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper is invalid as the operator failed to adhere to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically Paragraph 9 (4).
The operator is required to deliver the notice to keeper within 14 days beginning on the day after the parking ended. The ‘offence’ was committed on Monday 28th November 2016 so adding 14 days to 29th November 2016 calculates the last day to be Monday 12th December 2016 but the notice was delivered on Wednesday 14th December 2016.
Obviously, this cannot be proved as there is no date on the envelope, but POFA 2012 Paragraph 9 (6) would consider the day of delivery for this parking charge to be Tuesday 13th December 2016 which is already outside of the 14-day period which expired Monday 12th December 2016. A parking charge is considered delivered on the second working day after the day in which it is posted. Even if the charge was posted on the day it was issued (Friday 9th December 2016) it needed to be delivered on Tuesday 13th December 2016, which it wasn’t, but even if it was this is already outside of the 14-day window, which ended on Monday 12th December 2016.
Having contacted the DVLA to ensure my registered keeper details were collected in the correct manner they advised the date of enquiry was Thursday 8th December 2016 meaning the date of issue (9th December 2016) is at least correct and it could be the first possible date of postage.

3. No ‘driver’ liability
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) if the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

4. Signage
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, per the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more like the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

5. Landowner Authority
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

6. ANPR signage
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice for APNR signage.
Paragraph 21 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put the operator to strict proof of full compliance:
“21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”
The operator must prove if signs tell drivers what the data captured will be used for.

Half_way

You should tell the clinic that they are responsible fit the actions of the parking company, and they must now call they're agents to cancel this charge

kensiko

Unfortunately tried and failed.

The driver has spoken (but not written) to the clinic and they advised they look at a spreadsheet once ParkingEye contact them from an appeal to check if the car registration has been input on the day of the offence. They state they do not contact ParkingEye.

On their website they state (this has been edited so the clinic cannot be identified:
"unable to deal with penalty notices" - Yes, PENALTY notices.
"need to contact ParkingEye directly"

Half_way wrote: »

You should tell the clinic that they are responsible fit the actions of the parking company, and they must now call they're agents to cancel this charge

kensiko

I have noticed a 'comments' form on the clinic website so I will send a complaint to them.
How does this read to the people in the know?

**
Hello

I am writing on behalf of a patient of your clinic who wishes to remain anonymous.
The compliant is regarding the parking facilities at your clinic and a parking notice which I would like you to cancel with ParkingEye.

I realise your website states you cannot do this but you are responsible for the actions of the parking company you use and this is within your powers. Your website also states these are 'penalty notices' which they are not as they are usually issued by councils. ParkingEye issue 'Parking Charge Notices' which are completely different.

ParkingEye have sent a notice to keeper in regards to a breach of their terms. Your patient has paid this previously but is not doing so anymore.
They always enter their car registration details into the terminal at your reception even though the signs to not mention to do this.

The car park is very confusing and it has been noticed it is split into 2 sections, one being for 'kidney center' users only.
The car park entrance states free parking is available for patients and then further into the car park there are forbidding signs which have not been mentioned on the entrance signs.

This complaint is also being passed onto the BPA who Parking Eye are a member of.
The layout and signage of the car park seems almost to be entrapment.

I would be grateful if this complaint could be passed to the relevant parties for them to contact me via email. I will then pass the information of the parking charge notice reference we wish to be cancelled.

Thank you.
**

Coupon-mad

You could add that you are aware that ParkingEye always provide a 'User Manual' explaining how genuine patients & patrons can have their PCNs cancelled by landowners and onsite clinics, shops, etc. They always provide a phone number and email address for cancellations so why is the Manager unaware of this? ParkingEye routinely cancel around half of all PCNs they issue and will do so when asked by a client, so why are the Clinic refusing to honour this aspect of the 'contract'?

And why was it signed at all, bearing in mind this regime breaches the Government Memorandum and clear policy on NHS Parking Charges, where sites must not be set up with a private company keeping all monies from fines and thereby being incentivised to issue such 'fines'.

Ask if they are aware that ParkingEye are the most litigious parking company over the past two years and are notorious for suing innocent, ordinary and even elderly/disabled and sick patients of NHS sites. Ask what the Clinic is doing about this and when this ill-advised 'contract' will be cancelled/not renewed.

Could there possibly be 2 ANPR's meaning the car may possible have gone too far in the car park into the 'forbidden zone'?

Yes, I've seen that at a clinic in the South - an extra camera trained on a through road to the staff area. But it would be for PE to prove if this proceeds to a claim.

And with a long POPLA appeal (and yours looks very good) they may well just cancel - and if told to by the clinic, they will.

kensiko

Thanks very much for your advice C-M. The complaint has been altered slightly as follows (hopefully I found the document you were referring to):

**
Hello

I am writing on behalf of a patient of your clinic who wishes to remain anonymous.
The compliant is regarding the parking facilities at your clinic and a parking notice which I would like you to cancel with ParkingEye.

I realise your website states you cannot do this but you are responsible for the actions of the parking company you use and this is within your powers.
Your website also states these are 'penalty notices' which they are not as they are usually issued by councils. ParkingEye issue 'Parking Charge Notices' which are completely different.

I am aware ParkingEye provide a mechanism for shops/clinics to easily cancel parking charge notices for genuine customers/patients.
A staff member at the clinic must have a method of contacting ParkingEye directly as you are their client.

According to Page 1 of the NHS Car Parking management document https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481556/HTM0703NovemberUpdated.pdf
• 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 e.g. ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

Your contract with ParkingEye breaches this Government guidance as they are incentivised by distributing as many parking charge notices as it possibly can to your NHS patients.

In this instance, ParkingEye have sent a notice to keeper in regards to a breach of their terms. Your patient has paid this previously but is not doing so anymore.
They always enter their car registration details into the terminal at your reception even though the signs to not mention to do this.

The car park is very confusing and it has been recently noticed it is split into 2 sections, one being for 'kidney center' users only.
The car park entrance states free parking is available for patients and then further into the car park there are forbidding signs which have not been mentioned on the entrance signs.

This complaint is also being passed onto the BPA who Parking Eye are a member of.
The layout and signage of the car park seems almost to be entrapment.

I would be grateful if this complaint could be passed to the relevant parties for them to contact me via email.
I will then pass the information of the parking charge notice reference I wish to be cancelled.

Thank you.
**

I am not sure whether to add any of the remarks about the layout and confusing signs in the POPLA draft or just leave it as it is. The POPLA appeal should be successful just on the failure of POFA timescales anyway I would think.

Coupon-mad

I agree - and your complaint looks very strong.

Maybe hold off the POPLA appeal submission if you can, to see if the complaint works. It is easier to get cancellations by landowners before POPLA is undertaken to stop PE saying ''waaaahhh, it's too late, we've paid the POPLA fee now...''

Your POPLA code will work for 30 days from the date of rejection so if you can hold that back, I would.

kensiko

Thanks again for the confirmation and checks.

I have contacted the clinic so will report back when I hear back from them.
It will be interesting as their own website does state there is nothing they can do and appeals must be direct.

I haven't got the POPLA code yet and will wait to send anything off before getting the final answer direct from the clinic.

kensiko

Hello again!

I have had a reply from the clinic which reads:
"​We are tenants within (Property name) and the landlord i.e. Assura Properties, has enlisted Parking Eye to undertake monitoring the car park. Unfortunately, this is something that is completely out of our control."

It seems the landlords are https://assura.co.uk/ (I hope it's OK to name them here as they provide hundreds of properties of which this clinic is just one). They provide many buildings for NHS services so you would think they would be in the know about companies such as ParkingEye.

Some questions for people more knowledgeable:
1. Should the clinic not have some kind of control over parking, even if it is a contact to the landlord who in turn should then be able to contact the operator? I think there will be multiple clinics in just this one building but they all should be able to assist there own patients by contacting the landlord.
2. Shall I send the same complaint to the landlord as I did the clinic to request cancellation?
3. Any other points worth mentioning?

EDIT: A new complaint draft has been written for critique below.

Thanks all.

kensiko

An updated compliant draft to be sent to the landlords after receiving the clinic response in the above post:

**
Hello

I am writing on behalf of a patient who attends a clinic in one of your buildings and who wishes to remain anonymous.
The compliant is regarding the parking facilities at the XXXX Medical Center (http://www.XXXX.nhs.uk/) and a parking notice which I would like you to cancel with ParkingEye.

The clinic website states they can do nothing about parking charge notices and have confirmed directly to me via email "Assura Properties, has enlisted Parking Eye to undertake monitoring the car park. Unfortunately, this is something that is completely out of our control." As the client for ParkingEye your company is responsible for the actions of the parking company you use.

The clinic website also states these are 'penalty notices' which they are not as they are usually issued by councils. ParkingEye issue 'Parking Charge Notices' which are completely different.
I have informed the clinic but you may wish to contact them directly to get this text changed as it appears patients would receive a council fine rather than a private parking company invoice.

I am aware ParkingEye provide a mechanism for landowners to easily cancel parking charge notices for genuine customers/patients.
As landlords you have a method of contacting ParkingEye directly being their client to cancel the parking charge notice that has been received.

You should advise your clients that genuine patients who recieve parking charge notices can contact you as landowners and not put up a wall of defense which seems impregnable when reading their website.

According to Page 1 of the NHS Car Parking management document https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481556/HTM0703NovemberUpdated.pdf
• 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 e.g. ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

Your contract with ParkingEye breaches this Government guidance as they are incentivised by distributing as many parking charge notices as it possibly can to NHS patients.
I suggest you look into this ill-advised contract and I hope it will be cancelled or not renewed in the future.

In this instance, ParkingEye have sent a notice to keeper in regards to a breach of their terms. The patient has paid these previously assuming they were in the wrong but is not doing so anymore.
They always enter their car registration details into a terminal at the clinic reception even though the ParkingEye signs do not mention to do this.

The car park is very confusing and it has been recently noticed it is split into 2 sections that are not well signed or seperated, with an area being for 'kidney center' users only.
The car park entrance states free parking is available for patients and then further into the car park there are forbidding signs which have not been mentioned on the entrance signs.

This complaint is also being passed onto the BPA who ParkingEye are a member of.
The layout and signage of the car park seems almost to be entrapment.

There are many vulnerable people who attend the clinics in your buildings and contracting a company such as ParkingEye on even one of your properties needs further investigation.
They are the most litigious parking company over the past two years and are notorious for suing innocent, sick and even elderly/disabled patients of NHS sites.

I would be grateful if this complaint could be passed to the relevant parties for them to contact me via email. I will then pass the information of the parking charge notice reference I wish to be cancelled.

Thank you.
**