1 Hour Overstay - Hospital

sillyhilly

I have emailed the MP already, TheDeep, as well as PALS.

I have yet to receive a response.

Coupon-mad

You should first forward the letter from the Senior Manager to the CEO of the NHS Trust and ask them to step in. Never do POPLA before absolutely exhausting complaint levels, and not just to PALS.

Your POPLA code will last 32 days. Not just 28.

sillyhilly

So ParkingEye provided an absolutely shocking defence.

I'd be grateful if you could review my response to their evidence as follows, and let me know of any areas that I need to 'strengthen'!

- Operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority and has therefore not provided strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP

- Operator is presuming that the Registered Keeper is the liable party, and have not provided proof that my father has personally not complied with the contractual terms in place

- The picture of the signage provided in the evidence pack is the sign on EXIT of the restricted area (per signage plan, the ‘blue’ outlined sign type 1) and it is therefore impossible for a Driver to be aware of a contract that they are entering into prior to entering any restricted area.

- No strict proof has been provided 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.

- As per our appeal:

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.

This has not been provided.

- The signage plan is factually incorrect, as there is another entrance point through the Bus Stop section – no reference to this is included on the plan.

- Operator has provided signage relating to “Ambulance Vehicles Only” which is entirely irrelevant to this appeal

- No evidence of ANPR audits as per s21 of the BPA CoP has been provided

- No evidence has been provided confirming how the £100 charge is commercially justifiable / proportionate

- No evidence has been provided evidencing how the Operator believes the NTK to be compliant with POFA / BPA CoP s20.7.

- No evidence has been provided as to how the Operator believes that the initial ‘appeal’ was reviewed fairly/reasonably.

- No evidence has been provided to counter the arguments that this PCN contravenes Department of Health and Social Care policy re: car parking management in hospitals.

sillyhilly

To confirm, PE have provided this as evidence for Landowner Authority. I'm assuming this is worthless?

Authority
Car Parking Partnership can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we
have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or
landowner’s agent).

Redx

If the proof isn't there in the evidence pack , then rebut it

Lack of landowner authority is a reason for them to fail

Stating they have it is hearsay

And it's either CPP on that site , or its Parking Eye , so query that too , it cannot be both , any contract is with the company named on the signs

KeithP

Did you do what Coupon-mad suggested in post #13 above?

sillyhilly

Yep. And no response / desire to help.

Although I did have a phone call with my local MP!

steve1500

Which hospital.

My local hospital use CPP aka PE. For quite a few of the signs you need climbing gear.

Assume you have taken the necessary photo's showing how awful the signs are.

Unless I have missed it, you haven't said if the invoice was via ANPR or attached to the windscreen

If it was via windscreen, FoI asking if CPP / PE staff are working on NHS land - sure people can think of quite a few requirements that need to be met when working on another businesses premises

If not, ask for everything relating to NHS staff being sub contracted out, to work for PE

sillyhilly

A very confusing and unclear finale, however I see the word "successful" so I'm happy:

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Mark Yates

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked in a pick up and drop off area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is the operator does not have the landowners authority to issue Parking Charge Notice’s, the operator has not shown the individual is liable for the Parking Charge Notice, the signage on site is inadequate, the signage is a breach of section 21.1 and 21.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the amount of the charge is disproportionate and commercially unjustifiable, the operator did not review the appeal fairly of reasonably, the reason for the delay was due to a the appellants medical condition, which took the driver over the 10 minute threshold,

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant’s case is the operator does not have the landowners authority to issue Parking Charge Notice’s, the operator has not shown the individual is liable for the Parking Charge Notice, the signage on site is inadequate, the signage is a breach of section 21.1 and 21.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, the amount of the charge is disproportionate and commercially unjustifiable, the operator did not review the appeal fairly of reasonably, the reason for the delay was due to a the appellants medical condition, which took the driver over the 10 minute threshold,

sillyhilly

Now it's been resolved, it is University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire

Adding for future search terms.