Barnet Hospital pcn but could not park

dadsma

Hi all, 
The driver dropped off the relative of a heart attack patient then attempted to park. Early evening on a Friday was very busy and after circulating the car park several times trying and failing to find a vacant space the car left. It returned later to pick up the passenger on the public highway.

The Pcn shows time from arrival to departure was 23 minutes.

The pcn says by not paying for the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the car park longer than permitted £100 charge is now payable to ParkingEye.

The hospital were asked to get the pcn cancelled but said we must appeal to PE.

The registered keeper sent the forum PE template appeal and added the driver was only able to drive around the car park unable to park and that driving round and round a car park and having to leave because there are no vacant spaces is not parking.

PE responded asking only for the name and address of the driver and put the appeal on hold for 28 days. We ignored that request.

30 days later they said they “previously requested further evidence in response to the appeal….The 28 day period has now passed, and we are not in receipt of any further correspondence or evidence to confirm that the terms were not breached……. Your appeal has been unsuccessful. Popla code provided.

Is it significant that their first response to the appeal was only to ask for driver details but the subsequent rejection letter says they requested further evidence to confirm the terms were not breached.?  Is it important that they did not challenge that we were unable to find a parking space and left the car park.?

I would be grateful for any suggestions of points for our Popla appeal. 

thank you

dadsma

Here is the pcn

GrannyKate

Complain to PALS at the hospital - do not be fobbed off.  The Trust is jointly responsible for the actions of their agents.  Make it a formal complaint to the CEO - details will be on their website.

LDast

As above, do not be fobbed of by anyone there telling you they can't do anything about it and that you must go through the ParkingEye farce of an appeal. At the same time, get the NHS Trust CEO details and email them your complaint.

I would advise the you do not reveal the identity of the driver and use terms like "...the driver was searching for parking space". Do not use terms like "...I was driving around whilst searching...". The reason is that the NtK is not strictly compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as I cannot see anywhere on the NtK an invitation (or other synonym) for the keeper to pay the charge. This will come in useful later if Plan A is unsuccessful.

Gr1pr

Plus Parking Eye lost this case 10 years ago, not a persuasive case but nonetheless outlines that driving round is not parking and so could be a reasonable defence in this case too 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

saajan_12

dadsma said:

30 days later they said they “previously requested further evidence in response to the appeal….The 28 day period has now passed, and we are not in receipt of any further correspondence or evidence to confirm that the terms were not breached……. Your appeal has been unsuccessful. Popla code provided.

Is it significant that their first response to the appeal was only to ask for driver details but the subsequent rejection letter says they requested further evidence to confirm the terms were not breached.?  Is it important that they did not challenge that we were unable to find a parking space and left the car park.?

IMO even if they had asked for proof at the outset, what could you have given? Not saying its necessarily your responsibility to give, but you couldn't give contradictory GPS data as you were physically there, you can't video yourself driving around the whole time. 

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Plus Parking Eye lost this case 10 years ago, not a persuasive case but nonetheless outlines that driving round is not parking and so could be a reasonable defence in this case too 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

This one is far better for this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

"Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site."

If the 'Drop off area' still allows 20 minutes parking for setting down passengers, then the Defendant can put PEye to strict proof of where the vehicle actually was within the site between the two times and which cameras picked the VRM up as it drove in and out of different areas and round & round in search of a suitable spot to stop.

Gr1pr

saajan_12 said:

dadsma said:

30 days later they said they “previously requested further evidence in response to the appeal….The 28 day period has now passed, and we are not in receipt of any further correspondence or evidence to confirm that the terms were not breached……. Your appeal has been unsuccessful. Popla code provided.

Is it significant that their first response to the appeal was only to ask for driver details but the subsequent rejection letter says they requested further evidence to confirm the terms were not breached.?  Is it important that they did not challenge that we were unable to find a parking space and left the car park.?

IMO even if they had asked for proof at the outset, what could you have given? Not saying its necessarily your responsibility to give, but you couldn't give contradictory GPS data as you were physically there,

you can't video yourself driving around the whole time. 

I definitely do , every time with my Next base GW522 dashcam. !

As for previous cases,   I could not remember the other case but now I see that Mr Mustard case above it brings back that distant memory too

Thank you. 😇👍

Coupon-mad

So do I.  Love my Dashcam. 

dadsma

LDast said:

As above, do not be fobbed of by anyone there telling you they can't do anything about it and that you must go through the ParkingEye farce of an appeal. At the same time, get the NHS Trust CEO details and email them your complaint.

I would advise the you do not reveal the identity of the driver and use terms like "...the driver was searching for parking space". Do not use terms like "...I was driving around whilst searching...". The reason is that the NtK is not strictly compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as I cannot see anywhere on the NtK an invitation (or other synonym) for the keeper to pay the charge. This will come in useful later if Plan A is unsuccessful.

We have had no response from the Trust ceo as yet.

It is almost time for our POPLA appeal as keeper.  As suggested, one point will be that the NtK is not compliant with the provisions of POFA re transferring any liability to pay the charge from the unidentified driver to the keeper.  Is it sufficient to say the NtK fails to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) or does it need to be laid out in detail for the adjudicator by quoting both the PoFA provision and the NtK wording?  

I don’t really understand the PoFA compliance point because the NtK does say that if after 29 days PE are not provided with the driver’s details then under PoFA they can pursue “you” (the keeper).  Isn’t that an invitation for the keeper to pay the charge?

Gr1pr

dadsma said:

LDast said:

As above, do not be fobbed of by anyone there telling you they can't do anything about it and that you must go through the ParkingEye farce of an appeal. At the same time, get the NHS Trust CEO details and email them your complaint.

I would advise the you do not reveal the identity of the driver and use terms like "...the driver was searching for parking space". Do not use terms like "...I was driving around whilst searching...". The reason is that the NtK is not strictly compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as I cannot see anywhere on the NtK an invitation (or other synonym) for the keeper to pay the charge. This will come in useful later if Plan A is unsuccessful.

It is almost time for our POPLA appeal as keeper.  As suggested, one point will be that the NtK is not compliant with the provisions of POFA re transferring any liability to pay the charge from the unidentified driver to the keeper.  Is it sufficient to say the NtK fails to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) or does it need to be laid out in detail for the adjudicator by quoting both the PoFA provision and the NtK wording?  

I don’t really understand the PoFA compliance point because the NtK does say that if after 29 days PE are not provided with the driver’s details then under PoFA they can pursue “you” (the keeper).  Isn’t that an invitation for the keeper to pay the charge?

Then read it again, especially between the first paragraph and the second paragraph regarding after 29 days 

Question to you , where does it actually invite the keeper to pay the PCN. ? ( Hint, it should really be in that first paragraph, definitely should say so, in writing. )

It definitely does not invite the keeper to pay the charge, no invitation whatsoever 

Its not on the front, its not in the INFORMATION section, not in paragraph one in the POFA section either