Hospital parking charge

tonirhiann13

Hi all,

I received a parking charge from an appointment at my local hospital. I've been reading through the threads and guides but thought it would be best to start my own thread as my experience is slightly different.

In short:
My partner was severely ill with a spine injury that resulted in multiple ambulance trips to the nearest A&E. He got reffered to physio at the local hospital.On our first appointment, we paid for a ticket (£3 for 12 hours) Due to the nature of his injury, the appointments only lasted 5-10 minutes.We were in and out of the hospital grounds in 15 minutes on the first appointment

On the second visit, the driver didn't get a ticket because a free 20 minute parking grace period was operating. My partner struggles to walk/stand for even short periods of time. Due to this, we arrived at the hospital early to compensate for the time it would take him to walk to the ward.
It also took the driver longer than usual to find a space that was close the entrance as the car park was overly busy.
We were unable to enter the hospital as there was staff and a film crew blocking the entrance filming a scene.Went to the appointment, which lasted 5 minutes, and went to leave.
Again, film crew were filming and we were unable to walk through the scene and had to wait to leave.At this point, he was in a lot of pain, there was no seating area and the physio session had drained him. When were allowed to leave, he had to sit on the bench outside to try and manage the pain, before walking to the car.
In the car, the driver set off, but I got a phone call from the pharmacy to say his medication was ready, and we had to pull over to take the call. Finished and left the hospital grounds.
Received a parking charge address to the registered keeper. The car park operated VPR.
Entered the car park at 18:20:15 and departed at 18:51:07,
We parked the car at 18:25, had the appointment at 18:30, got back at 18:40, took the call at 18:43 and left the car park at 18:51. Total time in the car park was 31 minutes, 11 minutes over the 20 minute grace period. Time parked was only 15 minutes.

I've appealed to ParkingEye, got the appeal rejected. I've also sent an email to the Patient Experience Team at the hospital. I'm also trying to find the contact details for the facilities manager. I have a POPLA code.

Obviously I need to appeal to POPLA. I'm concerned whether the mitigating circumstances (the staff and film crew blocking the exit) would be a justified reason for the alleged overstaying? Seems like the driver is being asked to pay for overstaying when it is the hospitals fault the driver was unable to leave. I'll be including other points within my appeal, such as the signage being unclear (unaware the time started when entering and leaving the car park, and not the time spent actually parking, carpark being pitch black and sign not lit or illuminated etc).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Fruitcake

Complain to PALS.

Generate a PoPLA appeal using the template appeal points from post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Did you reveal the driver's identity when you appealed to parking lie? (You did in your post.) If you didn't tell parking lie who was driving then you need to edit your post immediately and only refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

You should include frustration of contract (driver delayed getting from and to the car by an obstruction - film crew) as well as lack of grace periods. Refer to the BPA CoP for information about grace periods, of which there are two.

Post your draft here for the experts to check over before you submit it.

Contact your MP and local press about this disgrace.

Half_way

What Hospital was this?
It may be possible to dig up some dirt on PE, and the Hospital, if yu could state what hospital this is/was that could put the Hospital in breach of the NHS Patient, Visitor, and Staff parking principles.

As for the TV crew, who was it, if it was the BBC then an outlet like the daily mail would love this story, not only have you got a Hospital in possible breach of NHS parking principles, combined with a parking ticket, but you have a film crew making someone's situation worse, if its a BBC crew or someone filming for/on behalf of the BBC then something like the mail would be all over it.

Again what was the Hospital?

tonirhiann13

Thanks Fruitcake, edited the post.
The driver was not named in the appeal to ParkingEye. I've also sent an email to PALS.
I'll have a look at the BPA CoP and include the frustration of contracts, thanks for that!

Fairly small town, so I'll definitely contact the MP and local press.

Half_way, it was the University Hospital of Hartlepool. Worst part is that I've paid an arm and a leg in parking tickets for Hartlepool hospital and North Tees hospital over the past month with the amount of visits and appointments my partner has had.

I'm trying to find out what company the film crew was working for, I have an inkling that it might be the BBC, but we were preoccupied with trying to leave as quick as possible to get his medication to ask. We know staff at the hospital and are trying to find out though. Thanks for your help!

Half_way

Here are the NHS Pakring principles

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

in particular

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 practice6where applicable.
Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

This article in the gazette http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/cheaper-parking-north-tees-hospital-7284046 has this interesting line

The trust's associate director of estates, Peter Mitchell said: “While they have served us well, the barriers at our hospitals are at the end of their useful lives and we were faced with considerable investment to replace them.
“We’re pleased that ParkingEye is installing the system at no cost to us.

This is another article, about Parking eye at another Hospital site
http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/hospital-trust-keeps-parking-fines-lichfield-s/story-29065210-detail/story.html

The trust said it could not reveal, however, the amount of money generated over the same period in "fines" (Parking Charge Notices) issued to people parking at Samuel Johnson Community Hospital by the operator Parking Eye.
It also said it receives none of the revenue from the Parking Charge Notices (PCN) – that money goes to Parking Eye.

Again check that against the NHS parking principles


In most responses you get a response from the Hospital along the lines of those below, which if complaining to PALs/the NHS trust/ chair CEO./whatever overpaid position is at the top you need to pull apart

“We operate an audited appeals process and encourage people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.
“Parking Eye is a member of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme. Members of the BPA are required to follow a code of practice supported by motoring organisations and the DVLA.”

Who audits the appeals service? odds on its the British Parking Association limited, which is a private members trade association set up to protect its members and further their aims - that is the parking companies who want to make as much money as possible.


Likewise the so called Code of practice, which if breached it can be a useful tool to getting a parking charge notice cancelled, ultimately its not worth the bog roll its written on , the Code of Practice is written by the very same British parking association limited, and can ( and has) been changed whenever the need has suited.


There is also the question of Patient confidentiality, where a private parking company operating out of a Hospital will contact the registered keeper (RK) of a vehicle, and not the driver in effect letting the registered keeper, who may very well know the driver know that the driver visited the Hospital on such and such a date, opening up the question as to why were you at the Hospital? which could be something that the driver would not wish the RK to know for all sorts of reasons.
There was a recent case over on pepipoo that involved a hospital , an overstay, a PPC writing to the vehicles registered keeper and a victim of a horrific event ( rape) If the young victim was older and drove to the hospital, and the Registered keeper was a Parent/Guardian/relative from whom the victim didnt want to know about what had happened ( or until the time is/was right) the overall outcome could have been much worse, especially if you throw some cultural aspects into this, as in some communities regardless of ethnic origin, rape victims still may attract some negative attitudes.

AS you can see there is plenty of ammo to hit the hospital with, or to be more precise whatever individual though it was a good idea to get parking eye involved.
Again , keep the NHS parking principles in mind, and if possible bring up this from Parking prankster
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/parkingeye-sue-parent-of-seriously-ill.html

NHS sites are no fit place for PPCs to operate out of, not that anywhere is, but operating out of Hospitals preying on vulnerable people whose last thoughts will be on some poxy parking system is about as low as PPC land goes.

tonirhiann13

Thanks Half_way!
I'll definitely be putting them into the appeal.
I'm just drafting it now so I'll post it when I'm done.

Half_way

If this is for a POPLA appeal it wont get anywhere, they are not interested, and will disregard any mitigating circumstances ( ie all of whats above)
Parking eye will not give a toss, as far as they are concerned you can say in your appeal to parking eye that you were abducted by aliens and had to attend hospital to have you alien mind control chips removed as you were concerned they might turn you into mindless drones under the control of Rachel Ledson and Rosanna Breaks forced to submit endless MCOL's to Northampton.

All of the above is designed top fire at the Hospital/NHS trust/Management and/or any media outlets, you are not appealing to them, as you would if it was a legitimate penalty charge, you are telling them to stop it, and never do it again.

tonirhiann13

Very quick draft as I'm up for work at 5am.
Think I may have mixed in bits to be sent to the hospital itself in with this, I'll review it in the morning and take those bits out.
First draft of the POPLA appeal below, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Also, I have o legal expertise so please inform me if I've used the incorrect terminology or mentioned a case that has be over-ruled etc.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to make a formal appeal in regards to the above parking charge invoice. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (***). However, I am under no obligation to name the driver of the alleged offence.
This appeal is in reference to the alleged incident on the 16th February 2017 at 18:20:15. The reasons I, nor the driver, is liable to pay this invoice are listed below,
1. Exceptional circumstances
a. We (the registered keeper, my partner and the driver) were visiting the hospital for a physiotherapist appointment. My partner suffered from a severe spinal injury earlier that week, and endured multiple ambulance trips to the A&E at North Tees Hospital. Due to the scale of his injury, his physiotherapist appointments only lasted between 5-10 minutes. Previously we (the registered keeper, my partner and the driver) paid for a parking ticket on 13/02/2017 for 12 hours. (reference numbers: 003794, PE0748, VAT 654969774). However, since we only spent a total of 15 minutes on the hospital grounds, we did not pay to park on 16/02/2017 as we were within the allotted 20 free minute period.
b. The carpark was unusually busy and a lot of time was spent trying to find a parking space. Especially one that was close to the hospital entrance, as my partner was struggling to walk and stand for short periods of time. It is unfair to expect a patient of the hospital (who is suffering from ill health and/or injury) to only be allocated the same amount of time as an able-bodied and healthy visitor would.
c. Upon arriving at the hospital entrance, we were unable to physically enter the hospital as there was a crowd of staff and film crew. We were told to wait until they had finished that scene before we were allowed to enter.
d. Upon leaving the hospital (roughly 5-7 minutes after entering), we faced the same dilemma – we were unable to leave the hospital until the film crew had finished filming that scene.
e. Due to this constant standing and waiting around, combined with the strenuous physiotherapist appointment, my partner needed a few minutes to sit and recuperate before walking to the car. The only available seating was the bus stop outside, where we waited for approximately 2 minutes.
f. Upon leaving the carpark, the driver received a phone call from the pharmacy, to confirm that my partners medication was ready for collection. Obviously, the driver had to pull over to take this phone call.
2. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
a. ParkingEye have clearly failed to inform drivers what the data collected will be used for, how it will be used and how and where it will be stored. I see no evidence that they have complies with the other requirements in that secition of the code.
b. This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.
c. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
d. in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.
e. The AVPN cameras operating within the carpark and not transparent. They recorded how long the vehicle was in the car park, and not how long it was actually parked within a marked bay.
f. The signage (although unreadable at the time of the visit, we have since returned to check the terms and conditions) states that there is ‘Free parking for the first 20 minutes’. It does not state that this free parking begins when entering the car park. The signage does not state that the timing begins and ends upon entry and exit of the car park. There is no clear or defined physical line which shows the entrance to the car park, where these charges begin and therefore is not transparent.
g. This parking charge is not valid, as the registered keeper has been invoiced for the amount of time it took the vehicle to enter and exit the carpark. The ANPR does not record how long the vehicle was parked for, and therefore cannot issue a charge for overstaying the parking limit.
h. The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice requires parking companies to allow a minimum of 10 minutes to exit the car park at the end of the parking period. This means that if the allocated free period for parking is 20 minutes, then the total time spent in the car park can be 30 minutes without a valid parking charge being applied.
i. If the BPA states that this 10 period must be allocated for the period after parking, then it can equally be applied to the period before parking – for example finding a space to park in.
j. . Given that the Code of Practice acknowledges the need for a grace period, it is also worth mentioning that the 10 minutes is an arbitrary figure estimated by the BPA.
k. Given that the vehicle allegedly spent 30 minutes within the car park, (and 12 minutes within a valid parking space) this parking charge is invalid when applying the regulations. 20 minutes free parking, which should be applied to the time the car spent in a parking space, plus 10 minutes grace period either side of the actual parking, amounts to 40 minutes in total.
3. Unclear, non-visible signage
a. In order to establish a breach of a contract, one must first be formed. A contract cannot be formed when the signs are unclear and not visible to an average person. The signs are too high, the print too small and the signs unilluminated. Therefore, there was no breach of contract.
b. The signs do not meet the minimum requirements of the BPA code of practice in part 18. The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:
“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.
c. They were not clear or intelligible. When the alleged offence took place, at 18:20, the car park was pitch black. The signs and cark park are not lit nor illuminated in such a way that makes visibility easy. No signs are present between the car park and the entrance to the hospital. The sign displaying the terms and conditions is on the other side other car park. The signs are unreasonably high, and impossible to read the small print even when standing below them, especially in darkness. The only light near a sign at all is so far above the actual sign, that the glare from the bulb in contract to the white of the sign produces a glare that makes the sign too obstructed to read.
d. The signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £70 in a carpark where they could have paid £3 had they seen the signs which they did not. It was not
e. As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.
f. This hospital has been previously reported as having misleading and confusing signage, plus a complex parking system designed to maximise income from transgressions.
4. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
a. The parking charge amounts to £70, which is unreasonable and unjustifiable. It is a disproportionate charge for a car park wherein a vehicle is allowed to be in for a minimum of £3, nor is it commercially justified. The £70 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss of the loss of revenue. Nor is it a genuine offer to park. It is also not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss.
b. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
c. I request ParkingEye to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Parking Eye cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.
d. The car park has a free allocated time period. There was no damage or obstruction caused by the vehicle being parked and therefore no genuine reasoning behind an invoice as there is no loss arising from the incident. The ParkingEye notice alleges a “breach of terms and conditions set out in the signage” and as such, only the landowner (not their agent) can pursue damages directly coming from the parking event. ParkingEye charges the same lump sum for a 2 minute overstay, as they would for a 120 minute overstay. The same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious, damaging or trifling). It is clear that no regard has been paid to establish that this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If any investigation had went into this matter, the invoice amounted to £0.04. (Given that £3 is charged for 12 hours, and the alleged overstay was for 11 minutes).
e. The charge from ParkingEye, as a third party agent, is an unenforceable and unjust amount. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.
f. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event
5. No authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
a. ParkingEye do not own the land where the alleged offence took place in the Notice to Keeper, and have not provided me with any evidence to show that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from the registered keeper.
b. In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed byParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.
6. ParkingEye does not confirm to the NHS Parking regulations
a. The NHS Parking rules clearly state that the NHS should make sure the users can get to (and park) as safely, conveniently and economically as possible.
b. They state that concessions, including free or reduced charges should be available to the following applicable group: disabled people, and specifically mentions that consideration should be given to the needs of people with temporary disabilities.
c. NHS parking charges state that additional charged should only be imposted where reasonable, and should be waived when overstaying s beyond the dreivers control, such as in this instance.
d. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."
e. In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.
f. under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, the sum they demand must be deemed ‘fair and reasonable.’
g. The ParkingEye contract breaches the NHS parking regulations - To their credit and the delight of their investors, ParkingEye have managed to devise a wonderfully complicated scheme which is very easy to fall foul of and which allows them to trouser huge amounts of cash from vulnerable people. Although the system is unfit for purpose, and directly against government directives, the hospital have so far refused to replace the system with one which is fair to both the hospital and the motorist.
h. private firms do not advertise is that they are not legally allowed to fine or penalise drivers for misusing private land – they can only impose a charge for potential losses or damages.
7. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi
a. Parking eye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Parking eye has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.
b. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.
c. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Parking eye and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013
Therefore, I wish to have this parking charge cancelled with immediate effect as I am not liable for the alleged offence.
Sincerely,

Half_way

Section 1, Exceptional circumstances reads under "mitigating circumstances" and should either be dropped or shunted right to the bottom, otherwise you run the risk of the POPLA assessor reading - Mitigating circumstances- wall of text, reject.

POPLA will reject anything that smells of mitigating circumstances, it may be wrong but thats how they work.

Coupon-mad

That is based on such an old appeal that it will lose, it even has 'no loss' in it and ANPR stuff and VAT invoices stuff that never wins, and really old cases like PE v Smith, and the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (they no longer exist).

If your POPLA code is only 28 days old, it will in fact work for some 31 days so get some sleep and come back tomorrow or later this week. Or later, if the POPLA code is fresh. You have ages if so, the entire month if it was rejected in March.

DO NOT put that in at POPLA, it will lose.

You should also be seeing through the PALS complaint before trying POPLA, because it is easier for a landowner to cancel a PE PCN pre-POPLA than when the case is at POPLA.

So, complaint first. POPLA later (if needed) and based on the NEWBIES thread template POPLA appeal points in post #3 of that sticky thread (appeal points already written).

Half_way

Just spotted this via parking prankster:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/tv-parking-programme.html

it may be worth getting in touch, if they take it up it almost certainly will lead to a cancellation, plus all the items that I mentioned in the above post should also be used when contacting the TV company.
As a bonus, if the film crew was BBC, this research is for an ITV programme, noting like a dig at the old enemy (ITV vs the BBC)

TV Parking Programme


TV Parking Programme

ITV's Tonight Series is making a current affairs programme about issues, injustices, and campaigns relating to parking. Do you have a personal story to tell?

Are you going through an injustice at the moment? If so, contact Dave Raddings with brief details: dave.raddings@itv.com


Happy Parking


The Parking Prankster