Rugby St Cross Hospital - CPP/ParkingEye

Smelly_Dog

Is this better?

I have studied the evidence pack provided by Car Parking Partnership (CPP) and would like to make the following notes on their evidence..

1) Lack of Landowner Authority

a) On page 10 (3rd paragraph from the bottom) of CPP's evidence in "The Letter of Written Authority" to CPP from ISS Mediclean Ltd it clearly states, "Please confirm authorisation as follows:

Where motorists park in a manner not authorised under the terms and conditions of parking as set out in the signage at ISS Mediclean Limited (St Cross and UHCW) subject to the agreed permit criteria and exemptions and in accordance with the aforementioned terms and conditions, "Parking Charges" may be issued (in its own name) on behalf of the Landowner to the motorist. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT THE PARKING CHARGES SHALL BE £50, REDUCED TO £25 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS."

The terms of the "Letter of Written Authority" clearly state that CPP are only authorised to issue PARKING CHARGES FOR THE SUM OF £50, REDUCED TO £25 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS - NOT the £100 reduced to £60 that they are claiming.

CPP have clearly shown with their own evidence that they have NO AUTHORITY to issue a PCN for the amount that they are claiming. Therefore the PCN should be cancelled. 

b) ISS Mediclean Ltd are NOT the Landowner so CPP have failed to prove that they have Landowner Authority. The burden falls upon the operator to prove ongoing landowner authority on the date of the event, not merely show they had historical authority from an unidentified signatory on a specific date in 2018.

c) The Letter of Written Authority from ISS Mediclean Ltd shown on pages 10 and 11 dated 19th April 2018 but not signed until 12th June 2018 is signed by the "Finance Director" of ISS Mediclean Limited (St Cross and UHCW.) Although CPP have redacted the name of this signatory for some reason a quick search of Companies House shows that ISS Mediclean Ltd never had a Finance Director at this time. In 2018 they had a Chief Financial Officer by the name of Barbara Plucnar Jensen who was appointed on 3rd October 2016 and resigned on 28th February 2019. She was replaced by Chief Financial Officer Bruce Andrew van der Waag on 13th May 2019 who was in turn replaced by the current Chief Financial Officer, Joanne Roberts as of 22nd October 2021. CPP have failed to produce any agreement signed by the current Chief Financial Officer or any other current Director of the company. I do not believe that Barbara Plucnar Jensen's (or whoever was the relevant ISS Mediclean Ltd Director in 2018) authority would extend beyond their employment so once again CPP have failed to demonstrate Landowner Authority.

d) The Letter of Authority provided by CPP is clearly a breach of the BPA Code of Practice specifically section 23.16b where it states that, "Witness statements were introduced as an alternative to the provision of a full/redacted landowner contract within an independent appeal evidence pack and as such these statements must be signed by a representative of the landowner or his agent, and not by a member of the operator’s staff."
This might explain why CPP have redacted the signature as they very obviously don't have an up to date, current Letter of Authority signed by a lawfully authorised current/existing employee or Director of ISS Mediclean Ltd. If they did I am sure that they would have provided it in their evidence pack. Therefore CPP has NO AUTHORITY and as such the PCN should be dismissed.

Previous POPLA decisions have confirmed that redacted, old contracts and those signed only by another agent (not the landowner and with no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner) are not acceptable as evidence, for the purposes of POPLA and that appeals should be successful on this point alone.

2) PCN never received

The Parking Charge Notice shown on pages 14 and 15 of CPP's evidence was never delivered or received. This is the first I have seen of it. CPP have not provided any evidence that it was ever even posted. I only ever received the PCN Reminder shown on pages 16 and 17 which has no mention of POFA so therefore there is no Keeper Liability as CPP cannot rely on POFA to transfer liability to the Keeper. I am prepared to sign an oath to this effect in the presence of a magistrate and/or solicitor. (If required.)

3) Signage

I am pleased that CPP have provided so many photos of the signs at St Cross Hospital. If nothing else it demonstrates quite clearly that the terms and conditions (in a tiny black font on a white background) are totally illegible in a zoomed in, close up photograph nevermind when placed 10 feet away and the bottom of the sign is 7 feet in the air! My photos demonstrate this far more clearly including a view from a driver's door as they exit a vehicle. My photos also show the faded road markings which CPP have conveniently omitted from their evidence pack.

The photos provided do not show my vehicle next to a sign as requested of CPP nor have they demonstrated the exact sign that showed the terms and conditions that the driver was supposed to have breached. They are a generic sample of multiple signs across the site. CPP have therefore failed to prove which signs were relevant. Their photographs of my vehicle do not show a vehicle in a parking space. They show a vehicle driving along a road which, quite frankly, could be anywhere and certainly cannot meet the threshold of acceptable evidence. Simply put they issue a PCN for alleged breach of contract and then supply as evidence four photographs of a moving vehicle with no parking space or signs in sight!

Crucially, upon visiting the site I discovered that the MAIN SIGN at the main entrance is twisted around by more than 90 degrees from the position shown in CPP's photograph and can only be read by looking back over your shoulder once you have passed it or as you are leaving. 

4) Despite my request for them to do so CPP have provided no evidence of the testing and maintenance of the ANPR system at St Cross Hospital. They have simply stated that they do it. That is not evidence.

5) They have also ignored or failed to provide evidence rebutting several other points that I made in my Appeal to POPLA.
 

I trust that I have provided one or more reasons for you to uphold my appeal and look forward to your deliberations and decision.

Coupon-mad

I'd just remove these superfluous bits:

 I am prepared to sign an oath to this effect in the presence of a magistrate and/or solicitor. (If required.)

4) Despite my request for them to do so CPP have provided no evidence of the testing and maintenance of the ANPR system at St Cross Hospital. They have simply stated that they do it. That is not evidence.

5) They have also ignored or failed to provide evidence rebutting several other points that I made in my Appeal to POPLA.
 

Smelly_Dog

Thanks Coupon. I'll do a final spelling and grammar check tomorrow then paste it into the notes section on the POPLA appeal.

Thank you all very much.

Enjoy your weekend!

Smelly_Dog

Appeal won at POPLA on point 1. Thank you everyone. Fantastic support and guidance as always. You really are marvellous people.

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Matthew Woodhouse

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds of appeal: 1) The PCN does not comply with PoFA 2) Parking Eye lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass 3) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver 4) Parking Eye have not produced any evidence to show the reliability of the ANPR system 5) Parking Eye have failed to produce an explanation of the alleged contravention 6) Parking Eye have failed to produce a close-up actual photograph of the sign they contend was at the location on the material date as well as any images of my vehicle despite a written request for them to do so 7) Parking Eye have failed to produce any evidence of the actual grace period agreed by the landowner despite a written request for them to do so 8) Lack of consistency with the name of the operator pursuing the charge The appellant has provided extensive comments, in three numbered points. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided six photos.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The appellant has challenged the operator on two points which require the operator to provide a copy of the contract or other authority document they have with the landowner. After reviewing that document, on page 10 of the evidence pack, the appellant points out that the operator is only authorised to issue PCNs of up to £50 for this site, reduced down to £25 if paid within 14 days. However, the operator issued a £100 PCN, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. As the operator has issued a PCN that does not comply with the agreement they hold with the landowner, I must conclude that the PCN was not issued correctly, and I allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however, as I am allowing this appeal, I do not need to consider those further grounds.

Coupon-mad

They were pretty stupid to put that landowner document in as evidence. Well done!

Smelly_Dog

Finally got a reply from PALS at the hospital.
Copied Below. Read from bottom to top for it to make sense.
As suspected their position is "Nothing to do with us mate!" Despite me pointing out the relevant legislation and guidelines to them. Still intending to complain to DVLA, The Hospital, The Parking Company and my MP.
Thoughts please?

Good afternoon,

 

PALS would like to apologise for the delay in responding to you we are presently experiencing high demand for PALS.  I apologise for the inconvenience and financial burden caused by the situation. However, PALS do not have authority to cancel the parking charge.

 

We would advise that the day-to-day operation of the car parking is under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract and the car parks are managed by our Private Finance Initiative Service Provider, ISS, and this is operated on their behalf by the Car Parking Partnership with no involvement from the Trust. Unfortunately, the Trust has no power to cancel penalty charges notices or intervene in any way.

 

However, if you wish to query this with the car parking service, you can do by emailing visitor.parking@uk.issworld.com.

 

We hope this information has been of assistance.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

[Removed by Forum Team]

Pals Officer

Patient Advice and Liaison Service

 

Room AEJ00004, Ground Floor

University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX

 

General Enquiries: 0800 028 4203

Direct Line: 0800 028 4203|  Extension 26063  |  Mobile: 0800 028 4203

 

Office Opening Hours: 8 am - 5:00 pm  |  Monday - Friday

Out of Hours: Contact Switchboard on 02476 964000

 

www.uhcw.nhs.uk

 

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Feedback (RKB) <Feedback@uhcw.nhs.uk>
Subject: Previous Complaint Ignored

 

You don't often get email from xxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important

Dear Sirs,

 

Can you explain to me why an email that I sent to PALS two months ago has not had so much as the courtesy of a reply? Other than an automated acknowledgement of receipt.

 

It really does come to something when you need to complain about the complaints department at a hospital, does it not?

 

As a reminder I sent the email below on June 27th 2024.

 

I should like a reply before I take it to the Ombudsman and my local MP.

 

Regards,

 

xxxxxxxxx

 

Private & Confidential Without Prejudice

CPP Invoice No.  xxxxxxxxxxx

June 27th 2024


Dear Sirs,

 

We are appealing to you as Keeper (not driver) of the vehicle registration [Removed by Forum Team]

We are hoping that you can help us. We recently received an invoice from CPP (Car Parking Partnership) after a visit to Rugby St Cross Minor Injuries Unit with our child. Our son was extremely poorly with tonsillitis and having telephoned 111 they advised us to visit the hospital as soon as possible. It took nearly two hours before we were seen and left with a prescription. As if dealing with a sick child is not stressful enough we are also carers for our recently widowed, 88 year old mother and had to drop our son off at home and then rush over to Daventry to take care of her.

 

We parked in the little area marked "A&E" which is reserved for visitors to what is now the Minor Injuries Unit (although the spaces are still marked A&E only.) The last time that we visited St Cross the parking was free for A&E visitors and we had no reason to suspect that this had changed. We have always paid if attending outpatients or another department in the hospital. How are we supposed to notice that one extra sign has been added amongst a myriad of signs, trees, parking spaces, roads and footpaths since our last visit?

 

Also, if it hadn't taken so long to be seen and treated, despite the unit being virtually empty, then we would not have run over the 30 minute free parking. May we draw your attention to the "NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts" where it clearly states that:

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned.)"
and furthermore
‘Reasonable’ implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (for example, commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (for example, blocking entrances)."

We have heard of PALS occasionally telling people that they "have no control over parking" or that "it is not their responsibility." The guidance is also quite clear about responsibility for parking so it most definitely the responsibility of University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire and therefore falls under the scope of PALS." 

"Contracted-out car parking

NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.

NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice[where applicable.

 

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example ‘income from parking charge notices only."

In addition, we never received the initial Penalty Charge Notice. We received a Penalty Charge Notice REMINDER on Monday 8th April. A full sixteen days after the alleged parking contravention. We were not even afforded the opportunity to pay the reduced amount for paying within 14 days! Therefore the invoice is unenforceable anway. The only invoice that we have received is a reminder. Not a PCN!

We have enough stress trying to cope with a full time job, chronically ill partners, poorly children and caring for a disabled mother without the need for further hassle and worry. Also, at the time of writing we have £48.50 in our bank account so can't even afford to pay a bloody "charge" of £100!
In order to avoid a lengthy legal dispute we should be grateful if you could contact CPP and ask them to cancel this charge/invoice.

For many years we have considered the NHS as a partner in the provision of health care. We pay National Insurance and Taxes and you (the NHS) provide us with health care. However, if the NHS is now in the business of extorting vast sums of money from the public it purports to serve and support and acting in an adversarial manner towards its patients then perhaps it is time for us to launch a malpractice lawsuit seeking redress, apologies and financial compensation for the numerous times that we have been the victims of medical  negligence and malpractice at the hands of University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire.

We sincerely hope that it doesn't come to this and that you can see fit to instruct that the PCN is cancelled immediately.

Yours Faithfully,

xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx

p.p. xxxxxxxxx

 

 

DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment or disclose the contents to any other person, nor take any action in reliance of its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error please accept our apologies and contact us at the address below or by email at feedback@uhcw.nhs.uk Any files attached to this email will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. UHCW (University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust) accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of the Trust unless explicitly stated. The information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed. Address: University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX

Coupon-mad

Tell her that this late and dismissive response is completely unacceptable given the NHS Car Parking Guidelines.  As such, you want to escalate the complaint to the CEO of the NHS Trust itself and ultimately to the Ombudsman.  You expect to see a copy of the Complaints Procedure and clear information on the dispute 'impasse' stage and the route to the Ombudsman.