Wise Parking QE Hospital drop off area night time PCN

Coupon-mad

Well you won't be paying! No-one looks at the discount bribe here!

I already explained how to get 5 days more. 

Fruitcake

nalin said:

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

This is not correct. The OP has 21 days from the date their appeal to Wise Parking was rejected to make an appeal to the IAS if they wish to do so, which by my calculations is the 2nd of August.

Alternatively they can ignore unless and until they get a court claim within six years from the date of the alleged event.

cesurman

Fruitcake said:

nalin said:

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

This is not correct. The OP has 21 days from the date their appeal to Wise Parking was rejected to make an appeal to the IAS if they wish to do so, which by my calculations is the 2nd of August.

Alternatively they can ignore unless and until they get a court claim within six years from the date of the alleged event.

Agree wıth Fruitcake. The date on their appeal rejection letter is 12/07/2022. My previous calculation of 8 August was incorrect.
Initially I was confused to see how others came up with 20 July.

cesurman

Pals responded with a message suggesting to contact the Parliamentary and Health ombudsman service.

 On the other hand, my MP contacted Wise parking and forwarded me their response:

 Dear Clive Efford, The details you have submitted to us are partially correct. There is more than one condition of parking at the Drop Off area at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The reason the Parking Charge was issued is due to the vehicle being left unattended, where the signage clearly states the driver must remain with the vehicle at all times. The evidence provided by the parking attendant clearly showed the vehicle was left unattended, as does the testimony you have shared, so this would show the parking charge was issued correctly. All our signs (a copy of which is below) and the signage plan had been audited by the IPC as being suitable and correctly positioned, and PALS (the hospitals complaints team) are mentioned as being unhelpful, which I have never seen, but they do understand that Wise Parking need to handle complaints so I would expect they directed the driver to ourselves. Although we do have sympathy with anyone needing to park within a hospital, it is imperative we follow the correct process for all users as we need to be shown to be fair to all. As this parking charge was properly issued, the appeal they submitted to us has been declined. Within the appeal reply, the driver has been advised they can apply to the Independent Appeals Service if they disagree with our decision, which they have not yet done. [Embedded Image] I hope that brings some clarity to the situation and explains the correct actions the driver may take in contacting the Independent Appeals Service as detailed on their appeal response. There would have been plenty of space in any of the paid for public car parks at this time of night, which is where the driver really should have parked and just paid the small associated fee. If I can be of further assistance, please do let me know. Best regards


 WISE attached an image instructing drivers not to leave their cars whe dropping of patients. I requested my MP to elaborate on that in addition to the consideration to be made when picking up patients in extraordinary situations.

cesurman

Just conscious  of my credit score as planning to apply for a loan soon. At which point could this have an adverse impact on my cedit score ?

Le_Kirk

cesurman said:

Just conscious  of my credit score as planning to apply for a loan soon. At which point could this have an adverse impact on my credit score ?

Only when you have been to court and lost and even then, failed to pay the amount the judge set within the timescale set by the judge.

fisherjim

All our signs (a copy of which is below) and the signage plan had been audited by the IPC as being suitable and correctly positioned

I bet they can't supply a copy of said audit, they are just a mouthpiece of the PPC

Coupon-mad

cesurman said:

Just conscious  of my credit score as planning to apply for a loan soon. At which point could this have an adverse impact on my cedit score ?

Absolutely no danger.  Relax.

It's as Le_Kirk says and you are not going to be taken to court, lose and then refuse to pay!

This is obviously a fly-by-night operation in my personal view, and these terms are wholly unsuitable for a Hospital drop off and pick up, for the reasons we've already said.  And they gave no consideration period which is a breach of the IPC CoP.

Did you complain to the CEO of the NHS Trust about this?  It is appalling that they have given a contract to such a new set up and one wonders why...

IAS is a kangaroo court but worth the laugh.  Also looks more reasonable to try to deal with it properly and the lack of consideration period might be enough to see Wise fold.

cesurman

fisherjim said:

All our signs (a copy of which is below) and the signage plan had been audited by the IPC as being suitable and correctly positioned

I bet they can't supply a copy of said audit, they are just a mouthpiece of the PPC

Possibly yes. Would IAS or a judge request the copy of the audit as part of their assessment of the case? 

Coupon-mad

Nope.

And there is no audit as you or we would expect from that word.  It's done online with a nod and a wink, based on photos of what a sign looks like.