NHS emergency badge...UKPC, private estate

barbiedoll

Hi all.

I’m a healthcare worker with a midwifery team. I visit postnatal women and their babies at home. I have a “Healthcare Emergency Badge” (HEB) for the rare occasions when I can’t park near a woman’s home, I also have a council-issued permit for on-street parking, which is usually sufficient for my needs.

Lots of the new-build estates popping up in London are now controlled by the private parking firms. My team and I have never really had a problem parking on these estates, even though our HEB’s state that they aren’t valid on “private estates”, most parking attendants seem to have a bit of common sense, and realise that we aren’t shopping or visiting at leisure etc. However, several of us have received UKPC tickets at one particular estate, some of us have appealed and got them cancelled, but it appears that they realise that we may be a bit of a cash cow, and are now starting to reject our appeals.

I was at a visit recently, a baby was displaying symptoms of a potentially serious condition. I got the ticket, despite having my HEB badge in my window (clearly seen in their photos). I obviously can’t give details of my patients to UKPC, but despite them asking 3 times for information, and me telling them that this was an urgent medical visit, they have now declined my appeal and have given me POPLA code.

Is it worth me appealing this? Signage was clear, I was in a parking bay without one of their permits, so am I wasting my time in thinking about appealing? I am going to complain to the landowners at some point, we cannot do our job if we are going to get hounded for cash each time, but that’s a different issue I guess?

Any advice gratefully received!

Fruitcake

It is always worth appealing. The option is to pay £100 to a bunch of scammers.

How do you know the signs are clear? The UKPC signs I have seen do not meet the requirements of the BPA CoP.

Construct a draft appeal using all the template points available from post 3 of the NEWBIES then post it here for checking before you submit t.

Did you reveal the driver's identity and throw away a valuable PoPLA appeal point in your initial appeal? If not then you should edit your post to remove information about who did what. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.

You should also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

KeithP

Paragraph 9.3 of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice states:

9.3 You must respect the needs of the emergency services to carry out their duties without your taking enforcement action against them. This means that you must not issue parking charge notices to:

• liveried vehicles being used for operational fire, police or ambulance purposes
• vehicles being used by a doctor or other health worker (such as a midwife or district nurse) who is on an emergency call at the address under control, and the vehicle is displaying a BMA badge or authorised Health Emergency badge.

Parking companies must abide by the Code of Practice of their trade association. That is a condition of their contract with the DVLA which allows then to ask for the Registered Keeper's details.


In my opinion, surely that is a winning PoPLA appeal point.

twhitehousescat

more than a popla win , it sanction time by bpa for them

tell the bpa immediatly

Johno100

Well there's the bit the OP and his/her colleagues may struggle with.

9.3 You must respect the needs of the emergency services to carry out their duties without your taking enforcement action against them. This means that you must not issue parking charge notices to:
- liveried vehicles being used for operational fire, police or ambulance purposes
- vehicles being used by a doctor or other health worker (such as a midwife or district nurse) who is on an emergency call at the address under control, and the vehicle is displaying a BMA badge or authorised Health Emergency badge.

Routine calls in non-liveried vehicles wouldn't be covered by those clauses.

Le_Kirk

You could read 9.3 as referring to any vehicle used by doctor etc. (including a nurse) providing they are displaying a HEB, which perforce means they are on an emergency. It doesn't say the vehicle has to be liveried, that is two separate clauses they are displaying.

Johno100

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You could read 9.3 as referring to any vehicle used by doctor etc. (including a nurse) providing they are displaying a HEB, which perforce means they are on an emergency. It doesn't say the vehicle has to be liveried, that is two separate clauses they are displaying.

So why include the phrase "who is on an emergency call at the address" if it is superfluous?

twhitehousescat

to stop doctor smith parking at will and going shopping

I was at a visit recently, a baby was displaying symptoms of a potentially serious condition.

= emergency

or do we want to read this that NO doctors can do call outs , and ambulances collecting /returning people get tickets?

Le_Kirk

From the OP it could be read that the poster was on an emergency call especially as the HEB badge was displayed. Let's say clause 9.3 was written to differentiate between an occasion when the health worker had to be there quickly and not have to faff about finding somewhere to park elsewhere (i.e. an emergency) and a time when it was a routine follow-up visit.

Johno100

twhitehousescat wrote: »

to stop doctor smith parking at will and going shopping

I was at a visit recently, a baby was displaying symptoms of a potentially serious condition.

= emergency

I agree, provide evidence and it should be cancelled. I just don't see it as a breach of the CoP for issuing it in the first place.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

or do we want to read this that NO doctors can do call outs , and ambulances collecting /returning people get tickets?

Ditto.

Johno100

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Let's say clause 9.3 was written to differentiate between an occasion when the health worker had to be there quickly and not have to faff about finding somewhere to park elsewhere (i.e. an emergency) and a time when it was a routine follow-up visit.

I agree, but how is PPC meant to differentiate between those two scenarios prior to the issuing of a PCN (most likely by ANPR)?

To be clear of course the tickets should be rescinded, but I just don't see the action of issuing a PCN in those circumstances as a breach of the CoP.