Barnet A&E ParkingEye

samee15

Hi all
A while back I received a ticket from ParkingEye, I followed the newbies thread to formulate a contextualised appeal for stopping in the A&E ambulance zone for 16 minutes. My appeal was rejected presumably as it was based on mitigating circumstances. (Driver was not revealed).

The elderly patient had broken their ankle, I went to the main entrance and the A&E ward to get a wheelchair neither had one available for use. I had no choice but to drive into the ambulance only zone the closest proximity to the A&E ward's entrance to alight and assist the patient into the ward before moving to the A&E visitor car park and purchasing a ticket. (previously the ambulance zone was open to drop off of disabled passengers)

As advised I complained to PALS at length and bold noting the Trust's principles who politely told me to eff off, that they cannot and will not cancel such a ticket (no golden ticket for me). They seem to have changed their tune based on other threads, I believe ParkingEye gave them a slap on the wrist for cancelling so much revenue. As a next step I raised a formal complaint to the Trust but given its the NHS I assume there's a 3-month waiting line til I hear back. I've emailed my local MP asking for support and contacted over 10 newspapers for some press coverage. Hopefully, something bites to prevent this getting to court if POPLA fails.

In the meantime, I have 4 days to submit my (at present bare bones) POPLA appeal.
My concern is that I feel the case rests on mitigating circumstances although the signage is questionable and could be argued a grace period should be applied. I can't seem to form non-mitigating circumstances story.

I would appreciate any guidance on the best way to formulate the appeal to POPLA

I'm starting with the basics I've found on other threads:
1) Unclear, inadequate, illegible and mixed signage at the entrance and throughout the site

2) No indication where the photos were taken - at the entrance or within the site - ParkingEye have several cameras here in different places.

3) No reasonable grace period applied
The Trust’s parking principles, clause 2 state that:
Consideration should be given to the needs of people with temporary disabilities
I.e. patients rendered unable to walk without aid.

Furthermore, it is noted in the guiding principles:

Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable
Resonable is defined as ‘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).

In this case, there was no persistent flouting or non-legimtate reasons to park so quite simply the keeper would fall under reasonable usage and additional charges should not be imposed. There was quite clearly absolutely no intent to abuse the parking policy the mitigating circumstances and lack of resources forced the stopping anywhere in the closest physical proximity to A&E without calling an ambulance.

4) No standing or authority from the landowner to enforce this charge/this contravention
5. No legitimate interest - this charge is not like that in the Beavis car park/contract.
6. Keeper Liability nor established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

Thanks in advance for your advice

Umkomaas

6. Keeper Liability nor established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

That is the killer - if you can establish why. But you say the following:

no golden ticket for me

So, in what way have PE 'failed' PoFA?

Your other points are on the right lines, you just have to expose the chinks in the PE armour.

If you fail at POPLA, you need to see what PE's next move might be. If they issue court proceedings, you will need to defend yourself (with plenty of help from this forum), then see what a Judge decides. Hopefully a Judge would understand the 'human' aspect of all this and see PE for what they are!

If it goes to debt collectors post-POPLA, then that's positive news, as PE seem to have some reason for not taking it further themselves.

Barnet PALS are hopeless in the context of private parking issues, and are seemingly more in collaboration with PE than with their patients. Appalling positioning!

samee15

Thanks for the tip Umkomaas. I just looked back at the NtK and it states:
'A&E Drop-off zone'
Time in car park: 16 minutes

Even the naming of the site is favourable to me, especially as there is no further clarification on the contravention and when tied in the 20 minute grace period required... Eeek feeling better already. Thank you!! :beer:

I didn't know this before but apparently, it's very common place for landowners to receive % of revenues from services carried out on their land (seems obvious enough) but this stretches to PPCs. Given PALs harsh response, I assume the NHS have noticed they're missing an easy income source...

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Barnet PALS are hopeless in the context of private parking issues, and are seemingly more in collaboration with PE than with their patients. Appalling positioning!

I agree 100%. From personal experience. I've contacted them myself and they should be ashamed of their position, as you say, putting P/Eye before patients and stressed visitors who are not there trying to deliberately save £1 tariff like some sort of rogue parker.

It's as if Barnet don't know about the NHS Parking Principles set by Government, but believe me, I tried more than once to make them read that policy when helping people. Just got offhand rudeness, like P/Eye had told them what to say and they swallowed it.

:wall:

Coupon-mad

Surely there is no 20 minute drop off allowed for private cars at A&E, or is there?

Umkomaas

samee15 wrote: »

Thanks for the tip Umkomaas. I just looked back at the NtK and it states:
'A&E Drop-off zone'
Time in car park: 16 minutes

Even the naming of the site is favourable to me, especially as there is no further clarification on the contravention and when tied in the 20 minute grace period required... Eeek feeling better already. Thank you!! :beer:

Please read the POPLA assessor's reasoning for upholding this motorist's very recent appeal against PE. If there are 'hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country .....', there must be thousands of A&Es! (Only if 'Barnet' isn't showing against 'A&E').

The operator has provided a copy of the ‘notice to keeper’ issued. I am satisfied that the vehicle details and parking period were specified as required by POFA, however I am not satisfied that the relevant land was. The notice refers to the land only as “Lido (1)” with no reference to the specific address or even the general location of the site.

It is not possible to determine from the information on the notice which of the hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country that the vehicle was alleged to have parked on

Relevant thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922397#Comment_75922397

samee15

Ah damn it, that's a great point mine does say 'Barnet Hospital (A&E Drop-Off Zone)'. I did have my rose tinted glasses on, I feel there's still something I can drag from the fact the NtK has next to nothing in detail for why this is a contravention.. Will refer back to appeal rejection maybe it's equally as hollow.

Only until I went back to the site by foot for photos, carefully reading each sign did I realise the drop off zone has officially changed to ambulance only. In the past it was genuinely a drop off zone, there are still disabled bays in there now actually which makes it more confusing to me.

samee15

Not anymore apparently! Just to top off my confusion a lady who worked at the A&E ward saw me taking photos of the signage and said 'you can drop off for 20 minutes here don't worry!'

Coupon-mad

What would be good would be to ask the Barnet PALS/complaints fob-off team, when the A&E changed and stopped being a drop off zone (ask for the date) and why no extra prominent signs were added to alert locals familiar with the rules, to the change.

The reply by email would be useful for you at court, to stop P/Eye's rep from pretending that there is no evidence that it was ever a drop off zone.

samee15

Good point, I will do that when I hear back from the complaints team. I think I've burnt my bridges with PALS now

When I mentioned the lack of 'no parking' type signage, the PALS agent responded back noting there is BPA compliant signage stating: no parking at any time in red, bold and underline within the email made me chuckle as it's not even formatted like that clearly on the site's signage. Maybe PE should take signage tips from PALs

I must figure out a way to share the photo evidence I gathered from my signography trip.

Coupon-mad

If it says NO PARKING then there is no parking licence offered at all and P/Eye have no case to pursue a driver for breach of contract, as there is no contract on offer (no 'consideration' in the legal sense, means the elements of a contract are not there).