Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

henrik777

These were documents within the Defendants’ control, if they
wished to launch a positive case, they could have done so.

A notice to driver can only be in THE DRIVERS control. (if they in fact received it which most DRIVERS would have although "There is also the point that Mr Donovan, on the evidence of Mr Hawkey, had been interfering with the contents of the pouches containing the notices to driver.")

There’s also the point which is a common theme, that what the Defendants wanted to say at trial was never set out clearly in advance.The, the nature
of the case that they were running on each of the issues was totally opaque until not even the beginning of the oral submissions, but well over halfway through them on some of the points.

Just like the improperly signed particulars of claim http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=26618&d=1479669098



2 hours for reviewing POFA ? However the POCs state "in accordance with pofa"

How could one possibly know to put that on the POCS but still need to spend 2 hours reading POFA ? Of course as we have no name, as required, we have no idea who said this.

Snakes_Belly

The Ninewells nurses case also failed.

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/ninewells-nurses-ordered-pay-4000-parking-fines/

One of the nurses in this case was a breast cancer nurse with 30 years experience. She worked between two sites so was paying two lots of parking fees. It seems to have been when she worked over her shift that the charges occurred. I would imagine that she was on occasions with a patient that had just undergone a mastectomy and was in recovery. That would be part of this nurse's role. What was she suppose to do? Leave a woman who had just gone through a very mutilating operation.

At my local hospital the volunteers have free parking so why can't the nurses have free parking when they have to work over. They don't get overtime and time off in lieu seems to be a thing of the past so they are in fact volunteering their time over their contractual hours.

The management of these hospitals have a lot to answer for, They have farmed off so many functions to third parties.

Cygnus_Alpha

henrik777 wrote: »

£350 costs which appear to be in line for a reduction and you think bankruptcy is an option ?

That's a very good point. Although that is just the costs. I understand that following the judgement, some of the defendants also owe Indigo a five figure sum for the parking "charges".

Fruitcake

henrik777 wrote: »

£350 costs which appear to be in line for a reduction and you think bankruptcy is an option ?

I was under the impression that some of those affected had said they were told they would have to pay thousands of pounds; amounts more than they earned and could possibly pay.

I don't know if bankruptcy is an option. How do you suggest these people cope with five figure sums that they don't have?

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

That's a very good point. Although that is just the costs. I understand that following the judgement, some of the defendants also owe Indigo a five figure sum for the parking "charges".

This is what I was referring to.

The_Deep

I realise that people must be able to park near their work, or use public transport, but part part of me questions why nurses should be a special case?

Lawyers have to meet clients/attend court, John Lewis staff have to serve customers, plumbers have to plumb, candlestick makers to make candlesticks, if you cannot get to work, change jobs.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I realise that people must be able to park near their work, or use public transport, but part part of me questions why nurses should be a special case?

Lawyers have to meet clients/attend court, John Lewis staff have to serve customers, plumbers have to plumb, candlestick makers to make candlesticks, if you cannot get to work, change jobs.

Fair point. And even diplomats have to get to their embassies, but can escape parking fines through diplomatic immunity.

But the situation at UHW was that staff applied for, and eventually received permits. The deal was that they had to pay £1.05 per day, which covered a 12 hour period.

The problems arose, in many cases, because there were far more permits issued than available spaces; the application process for permits took too long; the pay machines often wouldn't accept coins; and shifts often overran the 12 hours.

The Trust has now recognised all this, and set up park-and-ride areas away from the hospital. But in the meantime, they have done nothing about their contractors, Indigo, indulging in a feeding frenzy.

Had the Unions adopted a more militant approach, this could all have been quashed months ago. But defending the case on the basis of non-compliance with POFA, inadequate signage etc, might have worked for a one-off PCN, but in a car park which the defendants used on a daily basis, was always going to be a thin argument.

I helped prepare some of the skeleton arguments for the lead defendants, and the grounds of appeal, but in reality it was trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and the Judges recognised that.

The_Deep

I am not pointing fingers Mt C, merely stating that others also have parking problems,

When I worked in Petty France my daily commute to work from Bracknell was as follows.

Drive three miles to station, park, 15 minutes

Catch Train to Waterloo 50-60 minutes

Catch tube to Charing Cross

Change tube to Broadway.

Were I to drive, parking would probably have cost me £30 a day, and that was 25 years ago.

It is not as though there are too many nurses, they can work virtually anywhere they choose

beamerguy

Bargepole .... as your knowledge of what is happening
is far greater that the majority on here, have you any
further info as to what the proposed Members Bill will
provide ?

I ask because there is currently of a frenzy of court actions
taking place ?

Is there something people should know that the solicitors
working for the PPC scam maybe know about already ?

henrik777

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

That's a very good point. Although that is just the costs. I understand that following the judgement, some of the defendants also owe Indigo a five figure sum for the parking "charges".

The costs are on a per person basis, as i read it. Of course, the parking charges are on top of that but that's a serious amount of inflated charges to get to 5 figures.

bargepole

beamerguy wrote: »

Bargepole .... as your knowledge of what is happening
is far greater that the majority on here, have you any
further info as to what the proposed Members Bill will
provide ?

I ask because there is currently of a frenzy of court actions
taking place ?

Is there something people should know that the solicitors
working for the PPC scam maybe know about already ?

Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually have a direct hotline to No.10.

The detailed clauses of the PMB are in the draft stage, and won't be made public until a week or two before the second reading, when they will be published on the Parliament website.

I and others have made suggestions as to what should be in there, as no doubt have the BPA and IPC.

The solicitors who work for PPCs won't have any more insight than anybody else, but undoubtedly are making hay before new legislation comes in, which may curtail some of their activities.

But if the Bill goes through and becomes statute law, predicted to be in about a year's time (unless a GE is called), it will only apply to PCNs issued after the date it becomes effective.