Civil Enforcement PCN/NTK

Coupon-mad

Dear MP,

I'm glad you are interested in helping but the DfT aren't responsible for parking on private land, the MHCLG are.

As explained here, it is already known what the Government is doing to ensure private parking companies are properly regulated. A relevant law was enacted on this matter in 2019, yet still the Government has not come up with a regulatory regime or final Code of Practice so there is no point "asking the DFT":

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8736/

Also, on private land these extortionate charges are not 'fines' or penalties, they are invoices alleging breach. Please don't refer to these as fines, which is buying into what MPs in 2018 debates called "the outrageous scam" operated by this known rogue industry.

Civil Enforcement Ltd ('CEL') is well known for targeting ill and vulnerable people attending GP surgeries. Their camera surveillance is wholly unacceptable at these sites and I urge you to concentrate your efforts not on the DFT, but by challenging the landowner and the surgery leadership team.

The surgery is currently fobbing people off with a template response pre-written by CEL, effectively giving that firm carte blanche to terrorise and sue patients. CEL are highly litigious. Their fake fines and greedy, court-threatening final demands are terrifying for patients.

The fact that the surgery is primed by CEL not to get involved and instead to send 'it's your fault, so shut up, go away and speak to the parking firm' phrases that pretend there is a fair appeals process is embarrassing for our town, and it's happening under your watch while you go off on a tangent asking the wrong question to the wrong Government ministry.

I'm sorry to tell you but that helps no-one.

The surgery is enabling a greedy unregulated sector and specifically, a surveillance firm that is wholly unsuitable to be filming cars and people in GP surgery car parks, not least due to the breach of patient privacy angle, where they send pictures of the visit to the registered keeper (often a different person).

But it is far worse than that. CEL sue people (bulk litigation is their very business model) and whoever signed the CEL contract has no control over cancelling the charges, yet has likely signed up to this for years. They signed it because it's "free" and it seems, nobody thought that might just be a red flag when handing over a right to medical patients' data.

I suspect they were taken in by the promise of 'free' technology. I would wager that no-one even Googled this firm plus the words 'medical centre'. There are multiple articles about what CEL do to patients.

Whoever signed that agreement letting CEL loose on patients should be ashamed.

Kindly raise this complaint with the senior leaders of the Surgery and the site landowner on my behalf, and also please challenge and raise as a concern with the MHCLG, CEL's 'protection racket' style model.

A BBC article only this month shows a case of an 82 year old lady who died as a result of a fall caused by the stress, just minutes after she came out of court having beaten a very similar BPA member ANPR firm like this one. Nobody should be sued for attending the doctor.

I hate to think how elderly or very ill people who have received these fake fines for daring to use this car park are coping; oh yes, they've mostly already paid out of fear, thinking they were fined.

Please challenge the doctors: what happened to patient confidentiality and the doctrine 'do no harm'?

Please support me in this matter.

yours sincerely,

disgruntled01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82049115#Comment_82049115

thanks. I have tweaked slightly and sent on. I await another fobbing off.

The GP surgery is a tennant and the landowner is PHP Group. From the looks of it they own a lot of primary care sites that provide care via the NHS.
I have tried emailing the chairman and secretary but had no response.

Gr1pr

Strange responseby that MP, its the MHCLG that are involved, not the DfT. ! ( standard fob off when you have not researched the topic properly as an MP or as a staffer ) possibly a matter for any MP tasked with dealing with NHS matters or sometimes the Equality Act

Its definitely NOT a transport issue

disgruntled01

I'm in the process of putting in my appeal (no progress on Route A). I've read the PCN/NTK letter again, and it does say in small print on the back about para 9 schedule 4 of POFA 2012 it's the drivers responsibility to pay etc. So maybe it is compliant. In completing the appeals process, I'm given the question to declare who I am, of which the only sensible option seems to be "3: I am unable to provide the driver's details/Appeal as Registered Keeper". It then asks me why I'm appealing from a drop down:

I assume it makes no real difference what I click here… As the keeper, I was not the driver, the driver was attending for a genuine appointment (had a permit?) and it is believed they registered on the tablet… Is one better to go for then the other… or no difference…?
Just appeal on genuine appointment (I can provide a copy of a NHS app screenshot of appointment for the doctors, although obviously that declares a name…) or on keying error (do they ever actually check for similar registrations entered…?)

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Well obviously only "I was not there" works.

😀

disgruntled01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82052098#Comment_82052098

I wish it did. It then asks "so when were you there"!

What about replying with the following image uploaded against "I had a permit/Customer/Delivery driver" option.
There is no free-form text able to be provided, so an image of a document is the best approach I can think of…:

Coupon-mad

If you choose an option starting with "I" you must state that you weren't driving.

disgruntled01

Thanks, update to say I have selected the option out of the limited few, now submitted.