Repeated hospital parking fines for taxi driver working for ambulance service

Fruitcake

I was referring to the later appeal decision heard by His Honour Judge Harris QC where he defined parking as opposed to stopping.

He actually refers to the act of, "accompanying a frail person inside" and "enabling passengers to alight" which is exactly the sort of thing a taxi driver transporting patients would be expected to do.

He says that this "must be a matter of fact or degree." I think how long a taxi driver must be waiting for a patient before it becomes parking can only be decided by a judge.

twhitehousescat

parking co would still issue ticket , not parked in bay

FestiveJoy

Fruitcake wrote: »

I was referring to the later appeal decision heard by His Honour Judge Harris QC where he defined parking as opposed to stopping.

He actually refers to the act of, "accompanying a frail person inside" and "enabling passengers to alight" which is exactly the sort of thing a taxi driver transporting patients would be expected to do.

He says that this "must be a matter of fact or degree." I think how long a taxi driver must be waiting for a patient before it becomes parking can only be decided by a judge.

That's the one, but what the judge actually said was:

...and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.

So no suggestion of requiring a judge to decide on each and every occassion; quite the opposite infact.

Furthermore, it related to an argument over the definition of 'parking'.

The reference to "must be a matter of fact or degree." also therefore referred to parking, with the judge citing examples such as :

A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be "parked". Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture.

That was because in that case, the respondant was relying on a term relating to parking.

This case is quite different. It appears the OP is stopping (or whatever term you choose to use) in a drop off zone at the hospital where waiting is strictly restricted to 20 minutes. The definition of 'parking' does not come into it.

The OP should park up in one of the visitors car parks provided, if the the purpose is not for dropping off that can easily be completed within the 20 minutes allowed.

At least parking at the Pilgrim hospital is paid for when the vehicle leaves the car park, based on the amount of time actually spent in the car park, unlike many other hospitals where they expect you to know how long you will be and you have to pay in advance.

twhitehousescat

FestiveJoy wrote: »

That's the one, but what the judge actually said was:

So no suggestion of requiring a judge to decide on each and every occassion; quite the opposite infact.

Furthermore, it related to an argument over the definition of 'parking'.

The reference to "must be a matter of fact or degree." also therefore referred to parking, with the judge citing examples such as :

That was because in that case, the respondant was relying on a term relating to parking.

This case is quite different. It appears the OP is stopping (or whatever term you choose to use) in a drop off zone at the hospital where waiting is strictly restricted to 20 minutes. The definition of 'parking' does not come into it.

The OP should park up in one of the visitors car parks provided, if the the purpose is not for dropping off that can easily be completed within the 20 minutes allowed.

At least parking at the Pilgrim hospital is paid for when the vehicle leaves the car park, based on the amount of time actually spent in the car park, unlike many other hospitals where they expect you to know how long you will be and you have to pay in advance.

in which case have the parking co LIED to the DVLA ?


form v888/3 and the electronic version are for PARKING not stopping

FestiveJoy

Treesrgreen wrote: »

... I am not on the hospital premises for long but I sometimes go over the 20 minute waiting limit while looking for patients that are not where they are supposed to be or they are delayed waiting for a doctor to discharge them or awaiting medication.

I took this matter to the Ombudsman, explaining the situation, that I need to visit this hospital for work purposes, but I can only guess that they didn't read my letter properly as they said that I must pay the fines. How can this be right?

....

Because you appear to be stopping in a drop off zone in excess of the 20 minutes permitted, and indeed are not actually dropping anyone off.

There are visitors car parks close by, and you should park up in those. You can park for up to one hour for just £1.70, but if you stay longer, don't worry as you pay on exit for the time spent.

I've given an indication of prices previously , but you will never pay more than £5 even if you stay 24 hours!

Concessions may be available, so next time you have time on your hands waiting for your fare, perhaps ask about these.
e.g. there's a frequent visitor tariff that you may be eligible for. (but that costs a minimum £2 per stay)
Or your passenger may be able to obtain you a discounted rate.

If only you were a member of staff, then perhpas you could have access to the staff parking.

But please don't block up the drop off zone for prolonged periods, especially when you are not even dropping anyone off.

twhitehousescat

I give in , obviously you understand UK laws and POFa better than anyone else on this forum . so I will leave you to explain to the op

bye bye

FestiveJoy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

in which case have the parking co LIED to the DVLA ?


form v888/3 and the electronic version are for PARKING not stopping

Technically, I suppose you could say HOMEGUARD SERVICES LIMITED did, but the judge gave no ruling on that aspect, and I suspect there is little mileage to ge gained in following that path.

As regards form v888/3, you only need to show "reasonable cause" to obtain the informatioon on the registered keeper of a vehicle from DVLA.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/v888-request-by-an-individual-for-information-about-a-vehicle

The form itself actually refers to a vehicle that is abandoned, or is trespassing, or is persistently parking on your property

FestiveJoy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I give in , obviously you understand UK laws and POFa better than anyone else on this forum . so I will leave you to explain to the op

bye bye

Bye, bye.:)

twhitehousescat

which ATA are homeguard ?

which ATA are parking eye

FestiveJoy

twhitehousescat wrote: »

which ATA are homeguard ?

which ATA are parking eye

You still here, I thought you were leaving? :cool:

HOMEGUARD SERVICES LIMITED were the respondant in the appeal case I was referred to, and which you quoted me when I responded about it.

Do keep up