Nurses in Cardiff NHS face huge bills

Softwaremad_2

This Health Board - @CV_UHB have permitted ParkinEYE onto other sites that they operate - IPAD systems in play that parkingeye pay little heed to.

The Health Board has allowed them to operate free of charge - not a penny for the lease and authority they say has also been granted. I have one case coming through already. Many others have CCJ's etc - people are not understanding at all.

How does permitting a parking company free reign over sites to terrorise staff and patients - when the NHS does not get any financial benefit whatsoever - make good business sense?

Chumps we have at the helm here

Another Fact - that deal they made in April 2016 - paperwork giving authority was not signed until 14/10/16 - so did they actually have authority for taking civil action over tickets issued in april & may 16?

then the exciting authority from lessees Indigo Infra Cardiff - permission granted to Indigo Park Services UK Ltd dated 5/5/17 - covers every whole identified in defences

Apparently they had preceding authorities but when new ones are issued the older ones are destroyed. Really when important documents are less than 6 yrs old! I call thee a liar! you did not have authorities - no big international organisation would destroy paperwork like that!

Softwaremad_2

TW1234 wrote: »

I thought that the Trust had leased the land---full stop. (Some 20 years ago)
Not just contracted parking management to the PPC.
I am not even sure whether Indigo were the leaseholders.

If that is the case,the parking would be no different to a parking company operating on its own land in any manner it chose.
How the Trust could issue permits, though, is also unclear, without sight of the lease.

August 1996 land was leased to Impregilo for a period of 20yrs in exchange for a multi storey
21 years later we are in court - contract expires in august 2018

Parking management firm were APCOA - still in operation elsewhere - contract states written additional authority to permit other company to replace parking company - none presented

So many holes in this - i may be mad but i think the judge ruled as she did to help us. Without the loss we would have no public support and no opportunity of raising funds to fight an appeal as had we won - they would have appealed anyways.

If we win in round 2 and indeed if there is a round 2 - the greedy vultures of ZZPS specifically and their butty boys Wright Hassall will continue - and Indigo have deep pockets - despite their utter incompetence at running parking management (because the office is provided by the ex clampers who want to bring it back ZZPS)

Ryandavis1959

bargepole wrote: »

AFAIK the money from the first crowdfunding appeal has been added to the 'official' fighting fund, the one which I linked.

Appeals from small claims cases are heard at the County Court again, but by a higher level Judge, one with HHJ as part of his title. Many such Judges also sit as High Court judges.

If the losing party wishes to appeal further, and is given leave to do so, it can then go High Court --> Court of Appeal --> Supreme Court.

Thanks - one last question, why do we need a barrister if it's only in the County Court? Surely a quality Lay Rep would suffice?

bargepole

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Thanks - one last question, why do we need a barrister if it's only in the County Court? Surely a quality Lay Rep would suffice?

The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 only applies to first instance hearings in small claims cases.

There is no right of audience in Appeal hearings.

Ryandavis1959

bargepole wrote: »

The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 only applies to first instance hearings in small claims cases.

There is no right of audience in Appeal hearings.

Thanks, really useful information. It also seems to be very unfair as if it wasn't for the crowdfunding appeal, I suspect the cost of a barrister compared to a Lay Rep would mean this would be the end of the road for the nurses.

Softwaremad_2

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Thanks - one last question, why do we need a barrister if it's only in the County Court? Surely a quality Lay Rep would suffice?

After reading Pranksters blogs, we had used the services of John Wilkie - after seeing him in action i was not a fan of his particular style. It's mostly bluff and bluster with quite a comprehensive knowledge underpinning this.

However after seeing his Ego and Personality trying to grandstand when he had not undertaken due diligence to ascertain the full facts around the case, i decided to go for the best - who would be Bargepole and Barry Beavis as a team.

Bargepole was unavailable for the dates listed unfortunately and then JW over asserted his position in terms of one Defendant having gone to that company to have the Defence and Witness Statement prepared. We were stuck with him as he does not take telling!

His conduct with email correspondence was absolutely atrocious, the nasty side cannot be pulled in and reigned. Vitreol oozes out regardless.

As the other side sent representatives for set asides to contest along with 100 page bundles that were conveniently delivered the day after the hearing, i had no option other than to call in someone with more experience. I fell for the Wilkie Hype - now i know better.

They had a barrister in from Case Management hearing - and they ensured his availability also for the appeal and consequent trial. We now need an appropriate team to be able to counter their assertions and hold them to account for the non existent documentation

RobinofLoxley

bargepole wrote: »

You are highjacking this thread. Please go away.

Oooh so sorry. I'll delete my post as it offends you that much

Ryandavis1959

bargepole wrote: »

The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 only applies to first instance hearings in small claims cases.

There is no right of audience in Appeal hearings.

Softwaremad wrote: »

After reading Pranksters blogs, we had used the services of John Wilkie - after seeing him in action i was not a fan of his particular style. It's mostly bluff and bluster with quite a comprehensive knowledge underpinning this.

However after seeing his Ego and Personality trying to grandstand when he had not undertaken due diligence to ascertain the full facts around the case, i decided to go for the best - who would be Bargepole and Barry Beavis as a team.

Bargepole was unavailable for the dates listed unfortunately and then JW over asserted his position in terms of one Defendant having gone to that company to have the Defence and Witness Statement prepared. We were stuck with him as he does not take telling!

His conduct with email correspondence was absolutely atrocious, the nasty side cannot be pulled in and reigned. Vitreol oozes out regardless.

As the other side sent representatives for set asides to contest along with 100 page bundles that were conveniently delivered the day after the hearing, i had no option other than to call in someone with more experience. I fell for the Wilkie Hype - now i know better.

They had a barrister in from Case Management hearing - and they ensured his availability also for the appeal and consequent trial. We now need an appropriate team to be able to counter their assertions and hold them to account for the non existent documentation

Thanks for the explanation and best of luck with the appeal!

Softwaremad_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The real tragedy here, as I understand it, is that there are insufficient places for staff to park when any shift is in and the nearest car parking is 45 minutes away.

Now you don't need to be a genius to see that if staff can't get into work, operations get cancelled and patients suffer. If no additional space is in the area, then a reallocation of space giving staff more space and visitors less is sensible.

But sooner or later the staff may very well be forced to take industrial action.

One question - do administrative senior managers have guaranteed parking??????????????

All 16 Unions agreed to the deal that was struck - its all very hush hush and secretive, possibly even with the welsh assembly involved.
There will be no industrial action because no union will assist any member stating that it is not a work related issue. Also overly aggressively stating you were all told to pay!

Yes the issue here is staff using "essential staff areas" i.e. senior management saved spaces which are never fully utilised.
Staff would never block roads or paths of ambulances - the problem we have here is these staff members care so much about those that they look after that despite being derided by the most senior management and resented by some of the so called 98% of compliant staff - they still want to go in and help. their aims to park are to not take over visitor parking areas so that there is space for those who urgently need it.

It is when all parking is blocked and the new route around the site - when the multi storeu has queues which jam up the round abouts grid locking the site that the abandonment issues occur - again not staff. This is the new traffic plan - dreamt up by some clown on a cloud without a clue.

As a parent of patients it now takes me an hour to drive around the site to park - previously no such time used at all!

Softwaremad_2

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Wow

Why oh why did they think they would win this.

I do feel very sorry for these people but believe they have acted with blind stupidity

Why did we think we would win?

Because we believed they wouldnt lie on the stand under oath
Because we didnt realise they would put new signage up everywhere then present it as if it was there the year before
Because they have parking attendants that have no evidence to back up their alleged first seen times
Because the notices to driver were non compliant
Notice to Keepers non compliant (post judgment ZZPS have changed their BPA gold award template in line with our defence!)
Because their authority was not proven and paperwork and dates not in order
Most of all because the permits issued or lack of issue is wrong and unfair

the staff are set up to fail
without the fact that enforcement officers have stated that they have been told to target staff
Ticketing from 10pm -3am each dry night, then from 5 am - 11am

catching the shift switches