Parking or Stopping?

nameavailable

I recently took a friend to Norwich & Norfolk University Hospital for for some outpatient eye surgery because, obviously, he was not able to drive himself.

I dropped him off and subsequently got 'lost' in the extensive hospital grounds so I found a quiet spot in a remote part of the hospital grounds and stopped off the road in front of a locked gateway so I could check directions on my phone.

Unfortunately, unnoticed by me, the gate was CCTV monitored and I subsequently received a PCN from National Parking Enforcement Ltd for a 'period of parking' of less than 7 minutes (06:24).  I've since seen the gate sign stating 'no parking - this entrance must be kept clear at all times'.

The gate leads into a field and during the time I stopped there I saw no other cars pass by and I did not get out of my car.  Thus, I caused no obstruction or loss to anyone or anything in the 7 minutes I was there checking my route out of the hospital grounds.  Even if anyone had turned up wanting to use the gate I would have moved before they'd even unlocked the gate.  A £100 charge for this seems totally unreasonable and disproportionate.  A scam even.

I appealed to them on their website in the hope that they would be reasonable.  Of course they rejected that (by return!) and having now read the newbies thread here I feel foolish for being so naive.  I've also made the mistake of admitting I was the driver.

I intend to complain to the hospital administration, though I don't yet have contact details for the appropriate person or department but my basic question is have I scuppered myself by admitting being the driver?  

I'm inclined to just pay the charge and forget the whole thing but I know that's how they get away with this totally unfair behaviour.  I really don't want to end up defending myself in court though so what are my options other than pay up but complain to the hospital and my MP?

JerryJ64

You don't pay the unless you want to be marked as a "mug" for future reference. You complain to The Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) of the hospital.

Having admitted to being the driver may not matter if the NtK was PoFA compliant.

Coupon-mad

I'm inclined to just pay the charge and forget the whole thing 

No you aren't!  Not seriously.  You are on MSE. No informed person pays these fake PCNs all the time that the industry remains unregulated.

Come back if they try a small claim within 6 years and of course you must tell them to erase the old address if you move house in that time.

But there's no appeal worth a consumer trying. IPC Firms are best ignored these days.  There is no POPLA, if this is an IPC AOS firm.

IMHO, their Trade Body provides no fair or independent appeal service that consumer reviews and their own - now unavailable - archive Annual Reports suggest is worth trying.

Their bad.  Let them dig their holes.

They seem very good at it, from my perspective.  Ignore IPC AOS parking firms.

DO NOT PAY PCNs FROM IPC AOS FIRMS.

nameavailable

Coupon-mad said:

I'm inclined to just pay the charge and forget the whole thing 

No you aren't!  Not seriously.  You are on MSE. No informed person pays these fake PCNs all the time that the industry remains unregulated.

Half-seriously I suppose.  Half of me says these are outrageous scammers and half of me accepts that there needs to be some form of parking regulation.  The problem seems to be that there's no common sense middle ground or 'reasonableness' on the part of the parking enforcers.  It's a bit like speed cameras - I'm sure we'd all agree that speeding needs to regulated because of the potential harm but we'd probably also agree that 80mph on an empty motorway in dry weather with good visiblity is not really a problem.  A traffic cop would likely apply a level of common sense reasonableness in such circumstances but a speed camera will not.

This is a great resource but, as a newbie, I have to say that the plethora of good help and information on here is almost its own problem.  I've read through the newbie faqs and it's all good stuff, but it took me an hour and that was skimming through many of the linked references.  I've also heeded the advice to complain to PALS, but again that took me almost an hour to write what I thought was a suitable email.  And that doesn't include all the time I've been fretting over the PCN before posting here, plus there'll be more concern down the line when I no doubt will receive further threatening letters etc, not to mention the possibility of having to defend myself in court if they decide to take it that far.

So yes, with a lot of research, advice and effort, it seems I've got a good chance of being able to get the PCN cancelled albeit with it hanging over my head for up to 6 years.  Do I really want all that hassle?  Of course not, and £60 would make it all go away . . .. except of course for the inherent injustice of the whole thing!

And that, of course, is what these scammers rely on.  Arrrgghh!!!

Hopefully, PALS will do the right thing and get the PCN cancelled.  Fingers crossed.

fisherjim

They are not enforcers or regulators or reasonable or even regulated, they are chancers that say they "manage" parking, in reality they are not interested in managing anything except their own bank accounts.

A PPC's only source of income is through issuing parking charge notices, they provide their "services" free of charge to the landowner and there fore rely on people like you making mistakes or breaking their made up rules.

Of course the process is time consuming and a maze to negotiate, that's the way they and their ATA want it because it wears you down into paying.

They do this every day with their template invoices and accusations along with lies about how they are always right and you are wrong, if you give in they just laugh at you, and we have even seen that in under cover filming in a certain ppc's office.

1505grandad

"...... and we have even seen that in under cover filming in a certain ppc's office."

That was years ago which the DVLA must be well aware of and the scams (Hansard) going on since then but still think it is ok to provide them with yours and tens of millions motorists private data.

nameavailable

All good points but the landowners must also know about this behaviour so why don't they do something about it when signing contracts with these companies?  Why not tell them (contractually) to 'go easy' on minor infringements that cause no material loss or inconvenience?  The landowners are being tarred with the same 'scammers' brush so I'm a little surprised they seem to be so passive about it all.  Presumably they also get fed up with all the complaints as well?

Coupon-mad

I think in many cases the landowner gets approached by the PPC who convinces them they have a parking problem.

They are caught off guard then bamboozled by practised patter about the 'rich data' and 'security' benefits of ANPR.  Neither of which are true/beneficial really but it's new technology and the landowners lap it up.

They are buttered up and told that all this will be set up free because the (imaginary) 'rogue parkers ' will fund it.  Sounds too good to be true but they fall for it all because it's 'free' and someone told them there were parking problems (maybe they even had complaints around the same time - convenient, eh?! Wonder who from?).

Clever scam, this.

And PPCs even cover their backs from the word go:

(Clever, this): as part of the pitch they tell the client that "parking is an emotive matter" (THEY LOVE THAT PHRASE) ..."so don't get involved with complaints; don't worry your pretty little heads: instead, send those people to us as we have a 'robust appeals procedure' and we belong to an Approved Trade Association, doncha know..."

So, when complaints come rolling in, the duped landowner thinks "oh we were told to expect this but our 'partner' parking agent handles all that." So ALL the staff at the retailer/managing agent office, pub, gym or GP surgery are pre-programmed to brush away complaints and it can be years before the penny drops who is really causing all the problems...

e.g. Yarm Medical Centre where patients and staff relationships have broken down so much since they signed on the dotted line with CEL, that a GP Partner has had to publicly apologise to patients (after initially BLAMING them for desperate outbursts) and after seeking legal advice they've realised they can't get out of the contract till next year.

PENNY WELL AND TRULY DROPPED.

ONLY TOOK NEARLY 4 YEARS...

Look at the timeline of how long it took the surgery to take off those rose-tinted specs and eventually realise exactly what level of harm they'd inflicted on people:

2020
Clearly they were starting to get complaints and angry swearing patients, so what did they do? They published this, clearly part written by the parking firm for them.  Fell for it hook, line and sinker:
https://www.yarmmedicalpractice.nhs.uk/_common/getdocument/240790


2021
(one of several articles):
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/woman-slapped-disgraceful-60-parking-20938796.amp

Nov 2022
the surgery was blaming patients:
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/gp-surgery-hits-out-after-25481812

Now; watch this video right through:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100063617558246&story_fbid=812074820923096

Doctors operate under an oath to "do no harm". No wonder she looks shocked now they've finally twigged.

The BPA must be so proud...

Umkomaas

Now; watch this video right through:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100063617558246&story_fbid=812074820923096

CEL 'solution' to the crappy VRM recording tablet in the surgery - send an engineer who will add a QR code option. Wonderful news for the technologically challenged/excluded vulnerables who will now have another layer of stress thanks to this latest stunt. This move provides only one party with an advantage. Answers on a postcard to Haywards Heath please!

nameavailable

That video says it all!  The poor doctors have a tough enough job without all the hassle heaped on them by the parking company.

Just one question though.  The advice here is to always complain to the landowner, which is fair enough.  I thought this was so that the landowner could tell the parking company to cancel a PCN, in which case and easy solution for the practice in the video might be to instruct the parking company to not issue any further PCN for the remainder of their contract. 

But I'm sure they'd have thought about that, so perhaps landowners don't have that option under their contracts?  Does anyone know if that's the case?

fisherjim

Coupon-mad said:

Now; watch this video right through:

https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100063617558246&story_fbid=812074820923096

Doctors operate under an oath to "do no harm". No wonder she looks shocked now they've finally twigged.

What a terrible video, shifty, unprepared, rambling, talking about fines, no wonder the PPC walked all over them!