A bit urgent please

paxtonroad

Short precis

Seat belt light came on as leaving Frimley Park Hospital. stopped to check ok and left. Got letter from UKPC now doing an appeal ..last date to submit is Thursday.Mater keeps asking questions and i keep changing the appeal. Now he thinks it is too long When there taking pictures found several other anomalies concerning signage Have pics but not sure as newbie if i can upload.

Here is my latest effort..hopefully without the pics it should explain things just need advice if ok and why not so i can at least have a fighting chance of saving £80.00

APPEAL

1 I would contest that the halting of the car was a brief stop for safety reasons and was solely to ascertain why the seat belt warning had been activated,and as such that no contract could have been made in the time stated. I refers to Article 2,9 re consideration periods which states:

..a period of time in addition to a parking period where all terms and conditions have been complied with, when no parking charge can be issued is allowed to read and understand the applicable terms and conditions and decide whether to accept them and remain or reject them and leave.

However this period of time is not mentioned in the CoP

2 I also contend that as the sign is an absolute prohibition on parking, no contract for parking could be entered into, as, in order to enter into a contract the sign needs to OFFER parking for £100. By stating you're not allowed to park can be classified as a forbidding contract .However even if a contract had been agreed, it would be considered frustrated, due to the incident mentioned in point 1which occurred beyond the power of both parties.

3 Even if a contract was created (which is denied) it was frustrated as per point 1 the main argument is that is no contract was formed as the vehicle was not parked. But if it is determined that the contract was formed the terms were breached because of a vehicle fault. As this is outside of the control of both parties, therefore the contract was frustrated.

Following a further visit to the site , i consider that UKPC

SIGNAGE

Placement and Prominence of Signage

A further visit to the site to compile this appeal showed some anomalies which in my opinion, the parking company has not adhered to the BPA code of practice. I attach several pictures along with a aerial view of the location which may assist you

Now addressing the signage as laid down in the Code

4 Article 3.1.1. states

An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted/subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited

There are no UKPC signs on the entrance side of the road at the entrance. The first sign that is encountered is approximately 15yds inside the curtilage of the Hospital (pic in appendix or embedded) and does not comply with the sections a,c,d

5 Article 3.1.2 sections a,c,d state

The entrance sign must display:

a) the fact that terms and conditions apply to accessing/parking on the site;

c) the name of the parking operator;

d) the logo of the ATA to which the parking operator belongs

This sign does not show any of the mandated requirements

However there are three UKPC signs sited about on the other side of the road, approximately 15yds away from a driver entering the premises

These are not instantly noticed as the entrance road is a sharp left hand bend well over 90 degrees and is not in direct view of a driver, except for a second or two on entering, in his peripheral vision.

I then found this in the CoP in Appendix A

A.2.2 The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to

look away from the road ahead.

Which, i submit, these do not meet that criteria, as the driver will be checking the completion of the turn and to attempt to read these signs would entail a movement of the head 90 degrees to look through the side window thus taking his vision of the direction of the vehicle, and the distance is such that they are totally unreadable

The pictures show the views, albeit from the pavement on a drivers view on entering the hospital grounds pics 3 4 5 6 . As you will see from a forward view they are just in a drivers peripheral vision

6 Article 4.4. states

( previous relates to Blue Badge).......

The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and

conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the

vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision

on whether to park at the premises.

Article 3.1.6 clearly mentions

Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in

all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be

accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to

be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or

having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.

Note 1 also adds

For example, in car park premises open to the public in the hours of darkness,

lighting of the premises and/or the signs might be necessary depending on the location of

the signs in order to meet the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair

The only two UKPC signs that are visible are on the outgoing lane and are placed with the bottom edge 7ft above the ground

. It is impossible to read these signs from a drivers position close enough to read the ‘small print’

As you will see from the photos there is not a sign meeting these requirements and a further search of the area proved fruitless in locating one that meets the criteria

I would also point out that as the only ambient lighting available in the vicinity are the high streetlights on the opposite of the road a minimum of 20 yards away, and the the prime use of the lighting is to illuminate the carriageway,and coupled with the notices on the opposite of the road being under foliage could well be considered not to be considered sufficiently lit in the hours of darkness and they would certainly require a torch due to the height.

Gr1pr

Far too long, more like a popla appeal, not an initial appeal

What happened with plan A in the newbies sticky thread in announcements. ? A complaint about the pcn to PALS. ?

paxtonroad

Apologies

Yes it is to Popla.. PALS totally useless just handed me a piece of paper with a number on which just rang and rang . and the website they gave never replied..to me that looked a bit iffy and gave me the impression that it went to UKPC even sent out several emails in case i out the wrong address on ity .co.uk/.com

So this is wht time is now running out..Just need some kind words if this is winnable

Coupon-mad

Don't go by the POPLA website or UKPC's rejection letter. POPLA codes last 33 days not 28 (please don't tell us otherwise. We know it's actually OK until day 33).

Time is not running out before the weekend.

Email the CEO of the NHS Trust tonight: a formal complaint about UKPC and about PALS and the Trust's clear breach of the 'NHS Parking Principles' (Google them) which says the hospital remains liable for the actions of parking firms and that contracts MUST NOT be on the basis that the firm makes money from fake fines alone.

Really complain. Not an appeal.

Do that now.

GrannyKate

Whilst PALS function is to resolve things informally where possible and sign post patients to things that are not related to their Trust (ie a complaint involving the council) it is also their role to facilitate formal complaints where that is the patient's wish. In line with the NHS Parking Principles you cannot just hand off the concerns back to the patient (or relative) and leave them to do the work.

27 years ago when I set up one of the early PALS services car parking was a daily issue (usually the lack of) and that was before we were infested with parking firms.

paxtonroad

This is a draft to the CEO at Frimley Park

As it is my first attempt at sending such a letter, does it need any major alterations?

Any comments suggestions appreciated

I am writing to complain about the Frimley Park Hospital PALS. I realise that this is rather late in contacting you , but i have just found out via the Martin Evans website MSE that PALS should have been more helpful at my initial contact with them in Early April. On 8th April i received an invoice from UKPC requesting 80.00 ( 40 if paid within 14 days) for my vehicle stopping on the exit road from Frimley Park Hospital for less than one minute to check on a safety warning light that the drivers seat belt was inoperative. This was checked, found to be ok, and driver proceeded out.

I understood that situations like this can be handled by by PALS to have the invoice voided as the parking company, is employed by the trust and not there under its own free will.

When i initially contacted the PALS unit at Frimley they told me that they do not deal with such situations and handed me an email address to deal with. I despite several emails , never had a reply and a further enquiry to PALS for other contacts, was met with indifference as they only had one email address. I therefore tried various domain suffixes eg .com/.org/.co.uk but none were successful. MSE has advised me to contact you about PALS and the Trust's clear breach of the 'NHS Parking Principles'

Can i refer you to The HM Govt guidance 2022 about NHS parking and particularly item 3 which states

‘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). A period of grace should normally be applied before a parking charge notice is issued.’ (My Bold )

I am sure you will agree that a period of no more than one minute as claimed by UKPC certainly falls within the phrase ‘period of grace’ and as such i vigourously request that you contact UKPC at once to cancel the invoice The invoice reference is xxxxxxxxx

GrannyKate

I think I would be inclined to complain about the circumstances of the invoice being issued when you were not parked and the refusal of your appeal when the circumatnces were explained.

I am writing to complain about the circumstances in which I was issued a parking charge at Frimley Park Hospital and the lack of any useful support by the PALS service. On 8th April I received an invoice from UKPC requesting £80.00 ( £40 if paid within 14 days) for my vehicle stopping on the exit road from Frimley Park Hospital. My vehicle stopped for less than one minute to check on a safety warning light that the drivers seat belt was inoperative. This was checked, found to be ok, and driver proceeded out. I am sure that it is not the Trust's intention to penalise visitors who are forced to stop (not park) in these circumstances.

I understood that situations like this can be handled by PALS to have the invoice voided as the parking company, is contracted by the Trust and is acting on the Trust's behalf. When I initially contacted the PALS unit at Frimley they told me that they do not deal with such situations and handed me an email address to deal with. I, despite several emails , never had a reply and a further enquiry to PALS for other contacts, was met with indifference as they only had one email address. I therefore tried various domain suffixes eg .com/.org/.co.uk but none were successful. It has been suggested that I contact you about the invoice and PALS. The Trust must comply with the 'NHS Parking Principles' published by the government in 2022 and ensure that any contractors do the same. I am sure that to penalise a visitor for stopping (not parking) for one minute in an emergency can not be reasonable and I would remind you that the guidance is clear that "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf'.

This is only my suggestion - other posters may suggest something different

GrannyKate

I tried to find the Trust's parking policy but it appears the majority of their policies are only available through an FOIA request rather than openly published on the website. The website interestingly still says the hospital manages its own parking but this is clearly no longer the case.

They obviously outsourced and 'improved' the parking arrangements this time last year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86pd1372y7o

Coupon-mad

" via the Martin Evans website "

Sorry what? And why mention a forum?

GrannyKate

@Coupon-mad I suggested an alternative way of wording the complaint to the poster.

The Trust appear to have used Intelli-park Ltd to come up with a plan to manage parking. Their two current officers listed on Companies House are also officers of UKPC, Total parking and other iterations of various parking company names. Intelli state on their website that We are also a founding member of the British Parking Association's approved operator scheme, which sets expectations for fair, transparent and accountable parking practices.

paxtonroad

GrannyKate

That is fantastic..have an internet hug