Wise Parking QE Hospital drop off area night time PCN

nalin

The Appeal process - https://www.theias.org/appeal-flow-chart

Fruitcake

nalin said:

The Appeal process - https://www.theias.org/appeal-flow-chart

That flow chart is incomplete because it omits the two most important steps: -

Only allow 4% of appeals at random.
Reject the remaining 96%, no matter what the reasons for appeal.

Jenni_D

Actually the amount of appeals "won" is closer to 24% ... but only because the PPCs drop out for 20% of the "won" appeals.  

Coupon-mad

Yes - so that doesn't count but is useful to know. Those are the cases they should have accepted at first appeal stage.  Such as this one...

cesurman

Coupon-mad said:

Ok good, so Frtuitcake makes a good legal point.  There are no t&cs that relate to the conduct of 'picking up' a patient except (arguably) the ten minute maximum intended for that bay.

The two signs are independent. The top sign creates a contract only with drivers who are 'dropping off' (i.e.alighting) a patient and the t&cs state that those drivers have to stay in the car. Now that term is impossible and unfair at A&E, in cases where the patient needs 'assisted alighting' such as a disabled passenger or anyone so injured that they'd need assistance to get into the building. But that's by the by.

Because this driver wasn't 'dropping off' anyone so that term doesn't apply anyway.  This driver was picking up (boarding) passengers from A&E and the only sign about that is the lower blue sign in the evidence pack which creates no contractual terms at all. But it does allow 'picking up' so there is no breach.

In any event, even if an appeal Assessor thinks the top sign somehow applies to people who are not dropping off (yet the wording on that is only about dropping off) the term is unfair and impossible for drivers picking a patient up as that would require vulnerable A&E-discharged patients to stand shivering in the dark and waiting at this random bay near moving traffic and ambulances, rather than sheltering at the A&E doorway.

It is clear that the intention of this being a '10 minute area' is to allow drivers to locate and help patients to or from from the door of A&E. That's what assisted boarding & alighting means.

In any event all that is moot because no consideration period has been allowed.  This breaches the IPC CoP. An observation time of N/A to N/A indicates immediate ticketing and that's not allowed in the code.

There must always be a consideration period. One second would not be sufficient for a driver to read the two different signs in the dark and wrestle with the ambiguity of whether terms applying to people dropping off also apply to people not dropping off.. Due to the doctrine of contra proferentem (in the Consumer Rights Act 2015) any ambiguity in the drafting of terms must be decided in the way which most favours the consumer.  The driver cannot be bound by an ambiguous term nor an unfair one that impacts on the rights and safety of patients who need picking up and have to be located and escorted to the car.

PALS responded suggesting to appeal. I told them I already appealed and reminded their responsibility with the NHS car parking guidance.

I'll keep pursuing the PALS way, although they don't want to involve, but in the meantime what would be the summary of grounds to appeal the IAS? Is there any other advise other than above quoted one?
I think I have time till 8 August..

Fruitcake

If you want to make an appeal to the IAS kangaroo court, there are no templates. You just need to make as many points as you can, backed up with evidence, and play ping-pong every time they respond.
Your main point is that the Ts and Cs do not cover motorists who are picking up, therefore there was no breach of contract. (No offer, no consideration, and no agreement, therefore no contract could have been formed).

Do keep on at the head of the hospital trust, and PALS.
Has your MP responded yet?

nalin

Last day to make representation is today - 20.7.2022

Health Technical Memorandum 07-03 NHS car-parking management: environment and sustainability 2015 edition -

Charges should be reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (e.g. when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift

nalin

I had also received a Wise Parking PCN on the same day, allegedly  breaking T&C , the reason:

Not Parking Wholly Within a Single Marked Bay.

I had parked near a kerb where there is no specific marking or signage prohibiting parking. I was not in any marked bay!!!

I think they were on a mission to smash the ATM machine by issuing as many PCN as they can on that day.

Coupon-mad

When you register with IAS and verify your email, it gives you an extra 5 days to actually put in the (usually pointless) 'appeal', just so you know.

nalin

cesurman said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ok good, so Frtuitcake makes a good legal point.  There are no t&cs that relate to the conduct of 'picking up' a patient except (arguably) the ten minute maximum intended for that bay.

The two signs are independent. The top sign creates a contract only with drivers who are 'dropping off' (i.e.alighting) a patient and the t&cs state that those drivers have to stay in the car. Now that term is impossible and unfair at A&E, in cases where the patient needs 'assisted alighting' such as a disabled passenger or anyone so injured that they'd need assistance to get into the building. But that's by the by.

Because this driver wasn't 'dropping off' anyone so that term doesn't apply anyway.  This driver was picking up (boarding) passengers from A&E and the only sign about that is the lower blue sign in the evidence pack which creates no contractual terms at all. But it does allow 'picking up' so there is no breach.

In any event, even if an appeal Assessor thinks the top sign somehow applies to people who are not dropping off (yet the wording on that is only about dropping off) the term is unfair and impossible for drivers picking a patient up as that would require vulnerable A&E-discharged patients to stand shivering in the dark and waiting at this random bay near moving traffic and ambulances, rather than sheltering at the A&E doorway.

It is clear that the intention of this being a '10 minute area' is to allow drivers to locate and help patients to or from from the door of A&E. That's what assisted boarding & alighting means.

In any event all that is moot because no consideration period has been allowed.  This breaches the IPC CoP. An observation time of N/A to N/A indicates immediate ticketing and that's not allowed in the code.

There must always be a consideration period. One second would not be sufficient for a driver to read the two different signs in the dark and wrestle with the ambiguity of whether terms applying to people dropping off also apply to people not dropping off.. Due to the doctrine of contra proferentem (in the Consumer Rights Act 2015) any ambiguity in the drafting of terms must be decided in the way which most favours the consumer.  The driver cannot be bound by an ambiguous term nor an unfair one that impacts on the rights and safety of patients who need picking up and have to be located and escorted to the car.

PALS responded suggesting to appeal. I told them I already appealed and reminded their responsibility with the NHS car parking guidance.

I'll keep pursuing the PALS way, although they don't want to involve, but in the meantime what would be the summary of grounds to appeal the IAS? Is there any other advise other than above quoted one?
I think I have time till 8 August..

cesurman said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ok good, so Frtuitcake makes a good legal point.  There are no t&cs that relate to the conduct of 'picking up' a patient except (arguably) the ten minute maximum intended for that bay.

The two signs are independent. The top sign creates a contract only with drivers who are 'dropping off' (i.e.alighting) a patient and the t&cs state that those drivers have to stay in the car. Now that term is impossible and unfair at A&E, in cases where the patient needs 'assisted alighting' such as a disabled passenger or anyone so injured that they'd need assistance to get into the building. But that's by the by.

Because this driver wasn't 'dropping off' anyone so that term doesn't apply anyway.  This driver was picking up (boarding) passengers from A&E and the only sign about that is the lower blue sign in the evidence pack which creates no contractual terms at all. But it does allow 'picking up' so there is no breach.

In any event, even if an appeal Assessor thinks the top sign somehow applies to people who are not dropping off (yet the wording on that is only about dropping off) the term is unfair and impossible for drivers picking a patient up as that would require vulnerable A&E-discharged patients to stand shivering in the dark and waiting at this random bay near moving traffic and ambulances, rather than sheltering at the A&E doorway.

It is clear that the intention of this being a '10 minute area' is to allow drivers to locate and help patients to or from from the door of A&E. That's what assisted boarding & alighting means.

In any event all that is moot because no consideration period has been allowed.  This breaches the IPC CoP. An observation time of N/A to N/A indicates immediate ticketing and that's not allowed in the code.

There must always be a consideration period. One second would not be sufficient for a driver to read the two different signs in the dark and wrestle with the ambiguity of whether terms applying to people dropping off also apply to people not dropping off.. Due to the doctrine of contra proferentem (in the Consumer Rights Act 2015) any ambiguity in the drafting of terms must be decided in the way which most favours the consumer.  The driver cannot be bound by an ambiguous term nor an unfair one that impacts on the rights and safety of patients who need picking up and have to be located and escorted to the car.

PALS responded suggesting to appeal. I told them I already appealed and reminded their responsibility with the NHS car parking guidance.

I'll keep pursuing the PALS way, although they don't want to involve, but in the meantime what would be the summary of grounds to appeal the IAS? Is there any other advise other than above quoted one?
I think I have time till 8 August..

Today is the last date (20.7.2022) either to pay discounted pcn of £40 or to make a representation or pay £80 before 28.7.2022