Parking Charge Notice - Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Jan 2023 - Grace Periods?

Coupon-mad

Dear [Removed], 

Uncomfortable about this case being discussed on a forum and escalated to my MP, PALS and the CEO of the NHS Trust?  I'm not surprised.

You and I both know that trying the so-called 'IAS' is futile for consumers. Did you forget to tell the NHS Trust that MPs consider it a kangaroo court, that it is being replaced by the Government and that the anonymous 'adjudicators' support the parking operator in an astonishing 95% of decided cases?

It would seem reasonable to conclude that this has not been shown to be a fair or worthwhile appeals service, according to all the evidence including an IPC firm calling it 'futilely going through the motions' in an email they infamously copied by mistake to a victim consumer.

You seem to have also forgotten that the new incoming statutory Code (no longer self-serving) says:

2.24 parking period

"the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

Cease and desist.

Don't add your industry's "extortionate" £70 false damages/fee.  Do not send debt demands. If you think you have a case I will see you in court.

Yours sincerely,

Jayd30

Coupon-mad said:

Dear [Removed], 

Uncomfortable about this case being discussed on a forum and escalated to my MP, PALS and the CEO of the NHS Trust?  I'm not surprised.

You and I both know that trying the so-called 'IAS' is futile for consumers. Did you forget to tell the NHS Trust that MPs consider it a kangaroo court, that it is being replaced by the Government and that the anonymous 'adjudicators' support the parking operator in an astonishing 95% of decided cases?

It would be right to conclude that this is not a fair or worthwhile appeals service, according to all the evidence including an IPC firm calling it 'futilely going through the motions' in an email they infamously copied by mistake to a victim consumer.

You seem to have also forgotten that the new incoming statutory Code (no longer self-serving) says:

2.24 parking period

"the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land."

Cease and desist.

Don't add your industry's "extortionate" £70 false damages/fee.  Do not send debt demands. If you think you have a case I will see you in court.

Yours sincerely,

@Coupon-mad thank you!! I am now waiting for a response to an email I have sent him directly. It was really odd as when he messaged at 15:30ish today his tone was quite, we are right as you wont even appeal to the IAS, an hour later I got a direct email from him in quite a different tone which is below, if he comes back with a response and is not satisfactory I will respond with your very well worded response!!

This was received direct from him to me at 15:47 today  

Dear (Removed by Forum Team),

 

Should you wish to continue our discussion, please feel free to use my personal email address.

 

All the best,

[Removed]

B789

OP... please take a moment to think about what you are doing. "[Removed]" (a bit too matey for my liking as he is just another of those ex-clamper scammers) is reading this forum and his response to you is saying that he doesn't want to have this discussion on an open forum. CPs post above is not something for you to now copy and use in another of your futile email exchange with your mate Stu. It is her responding directly to your mate Stu, right here on this forum.

You will not get anywhere by entering into an email exchange with your mate Stu. Your arguments are best saved for the future if this case ever proceeds to court. In the meantime, your plan A with the PALS team and the NHS Trust CEO should be your main concern.

If you really want to communicate with Stu, try a "Without Prejudice" letter telling him what you really think about his company and their scavenging scamfest and where they can shove their threats. You can see from the posts on this forum that they are just scammers out to get your money and nothing else really matters to them.

Get a grip and concentrate on expending your energy at the right people. Not your mate Stu.

Fruitcake

You are wasting your time contacting dear Stu. On the flip side, you are wasting his.

If you do intent to contact him again then I suggest you include the comments made by C-m with the ones I made earlier where I quoted court cases. Include the judge's comments and the court case numbers.

Tell Stu that PoPLA generally allow about 40 - 50% of appeals, whereas the IAS normally allow 4 - 5%. It is inconceivable to believe that motorists behave differently when parking in a BPA member car park compared with those that park in an IAS member car park. Tell him that he is deluded if he believes you refusing to use the proven IAS Kangaroo court is proof that the PCN was correctly issued.

The UK Government prohibits the use of ANPR scameras in council and local authority car parks because it is not fit for purpose. They recognise that ANPR does not record parking time, only time on site.

Coupon-mad

Like all PPCs he is trying to appear reasonable.  Making it look like you are getting some sort of 'personal' attention.

To us, none of this comes across as remotely reasonable and we find it ludicrous that this new firm (that offers no independent appeal service worth trying as they are IPC, and has precisely no background - that we know of - for running Hospital car parks) has inexplicably been awarded a NHS Trust tender.

In fact everything we've seen from Wise looks like it's a one man band outfit.

Reply as I suggested.  They'd lose in court.

You realise you are NOT risking a CCJ? 

Le_Kirk

Jayd30 said:

Thanks, I will ensure that any further correspondence I do mention this, I would of have thought (maybe I should not assume things though) that these parking companies would actually know that the time they record the vehicle entered the car park, cannot dictate that that is the time the parking period commenced, else they are making the assumption that motorists are pretty much entering the car parks and immediately finding an available space. 

Just a polite heads up, if you are going to enter into further correspondence, be sure to use correct English spelling and grammar.  Of course they know that entry to car park does not dictate parking time but where is the profit in acting reasonably?