Rugby St Cross Hospital - Car Parking Partnership (CPP) and ParkingEye

GrannyKate

I should also add that PFI is not like a contracted out arrangement but there must be some sort of formal arrangement for working together like a Memorandum of Understanding. It is ridiculous to suggest that the two parties would not have some sort of agreement to manage day to day operations.

Coupon-mad

@dangdoggy3 that is brilliant and you are exactly the sort of robust person who should shortly be reporting CPP (not the Trust) to the CMA to investigate the fairness angle (in consumer protection law) of parking operations at Hospitals and GP surgeries.

I say 'shortly' because first you should - now - send an email complaint to CPP (see their website) saying what happened on the day and asking them to consider this as a complaint about their poor unlit signs and the missing NTK, and as an allowable late appeal, given only the 'reminder' arrived and you have been abroad so could not respond quicker.

Attach proof of the child's hospital visit if you have it and do not name the driver … but do say in the complaint that it wasn't you. Also attach proof you were out of the country (that proof should open up a late appeal door) and say you want a POPLA Code.

Do that first.

Then a CMA complaint EVEN IF THE PCN IS CANCELLED PLEASE.

It's for the greater good!

See below for the CMA complaint.

Coupon-mad

The main concerns about the unfairness, intrusive data processing and lack of good faith of ANPR private parking firms positioning their business model to work without the possibility of case-by-case client or PALS intervention at NHS sites, are as follows:

Background and the fundamental elephant in the room concern: parking firms have what cynics have called a profiteering 'protection racket' business model, which harks back to the sector's (illegal since 2012) wheel-clamper MO

The MHCLG will likely be able to confirm exact figures (from parking firm 'census' figures and recent fact-gathering from trade bodies in readiness for the statutory Code of Practice) but it has been estimated that some 95% of AOS firm 'managed' private land sites in the UK are run free of charge by operators.

This is the biggest consumer protection concern of all: should this not be illegal: what other consumer-facing sector works like it?

They only make any money (or make the vast majority of income from a site) when they penalise a motorist. Due to this inherent incentive to issue as many PCNs as possible and not be open to cancelling many/any on first appeal, the suspicion is that systems are set up in a way that will deliberately catch out some 3% of motorists. Parking firms wouldn't run the site otherwise because they aren't paid by the landowner client. Penalising 3% of visitors to a busy hospital or retail park is a lot of PCNs, per week.

In ParkingEye v Beavis (the Supreme Court landmark case which upheld an £85 PCN as covering 'all the enforcement costs' of the automated letter-chain model of a remotely-surveilled car park) it was heard at the hearings that ParkingEye operated free.

They even had a contract promising to pay the landowner a weekly 'bung' out of the PCNs they issued. The court heard that ParkingEye paid c£1000 a week to the landowner and the very tight '2 hours free' that their ANPR system imposed at Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford (now back to 3 hours free after consumer and retail unit complaints) was calculated to catch out motorists who were the slowest shoppers, disabled or (in Mr Beavis' case) delayed in Staples stationers by a machine function error, outside of his control.

The CMA is urged to take a very close look at the unfairness (across the UK) of the ANPR and CCTV remote monitoring 'protection-racket style' business model, especially considering the consumer-targeting effect at high street retail parks, blocks of flats where victims live, leisure/restaurant/gym/pub sites, and (as in my case) NHS sites including GP surgeries and Hospitals.

My evidence and harrowing experience with Car Parking Partnership ('CPP') is a prime example of unfairness and the NHS Trust have refused to even consider a complaint because, they say, what CPP do to Hospital patients isn't something they have control over.

FOI responses which are publicly available have stated that the NHS Trust in my case retains 20% of the revenue from the St Cross Rugby parking. It is unclear if this means 20% of parking fees or tariffs paid at a machine or by app, or whether (as seen in their Supreme Court case) CPP promise to pay the Trust a bounty from the PCNs that they know - from their expertise and calculated business approach - will flow in at a certain rate, especially where signage is unlit or poor.

The CPP brand is owned and administered by the same firm that saw an £85 PCN given the Supreme Court's green light: ParkingEye, trading as 'ParkingEye Limited T/A Car Parking Partnership'. In turn, ParkingEye was originally independent but was bought first by Capita then sold for £235m (link here). This is the UK's biggest monster of a PCN-churning parking company, reportedly with wider profit margins than Apple Inc. ParkingEye is reportedly now owned by a combination of private equity (venture/growth capital) and foreign institutional investors including Macquarie Group, an Australian HQ global financial services group dubbed the “vampire kangaroo” for its ability to extract profits.

Mirroring what has happened to my family, Bloomberg journalist Matthew Brooker reported in an opinion piece (link here) that he too was also caught out when he took a sick child to A&E, at a hospital in north London. He overstayed his parking ticket outside the hospital by 23 minutes and was hit with a £100 PCN, with an appeal rejected out of hand.

Under the trading names CCP or ParkingEye, they operate at many UK Hospitals, some under a PFI agreement and some as an agent. There are countless news articles from consumers hit with unfair PCNs for attending hospitals across the UK and there is even a blog about ParkingEye's alleged 'rape and pillage' approach to hospital car parks, linked here by a person reporting concerns as a whistleblower ex-staff member.

CMA, please read that account and investigate this firm and their approach to hospital and retail parking management.

Specific concerns about CPP's conduct in my case:

Unclear and unlit signs -

The driver (not the same person as the registered keeper) took a child to Urgent Care/out of hours for an X-ray. It was dark, late at night and the driver never been to this place before. They struggled to even find a car park and initially tried using three roads into the hospital and had to turn around, as this wasn't the entrance. They ended up going through a service/back entrance, didn't see any contractual parking signs and even struggled to even find the way out, it was so poorly lit and signed in the dark.

No timely consumer notice issued on site as a first step -

No PCN was affixed to the windscreen, so the driver was not alerted to the situation. They had no fair opportunity to complain to the hospital staff nor even to gather evidence on-site, such as seeking out and taking photos of any hidden/unlit signage, as would be the case in any Local Authority car parks.

My research tells me that the Deregulation Act 2015 banned councils from using surveillance camera systems to issue automated PCNs by post because there were concerns about ANPR and CCTV being unfair automated decision-making in consumer penalty situations. There was evidence cameras were being used as a covert cash-cow with no meaningful human intervention. That was banned, but only for local authorities.

Does the CMA agree that the same concerns exist (and more) about the proliferation of 24/7 ANPR and CCTV surveillance systems in the hands of venture capitalists?

But in readiness for the regulation of private parking firms, the Government has moved to change just two pieces of legislation:

1. The definition of 'relevant land' in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was changed last December to include railway car parks.
2. The Scottish Government included in the Transport Act, an extra provision (set to go live when independent appeal and a statutory Code are in place) with a section that copies the POFA Schedule 4 and is set to inflict the much abused and ill advised power of 'keeper liability' on Scottish motorists without warning, for the first time.

In the final fiscal years leading up to the introduction of 'keeper liability' for parking events on 'relevant land' in England & Wales under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) processed the following numbers of keeper data requests for access to its Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) database from private parking companies:

• 2010–11: 1.17 million requests
• 2011–12: 1.57 million requests

Numbers have soared ever since as the industry cashed in on what the British Parking Association had secured for its members. Parking firms' KADOE electronic link automated look-ups are expected to have soared this past fiscal year to a record high of over 17 million DVLA requests (up an eye-watering 3 million) according to extensive analysis. Official figures from the RAC as reported in that link are anticipated to confirm this massive surge.

Yet the only two legislative changes made in anticipation of the regulatory framework will have the object or effect of making it easier for private parking firms to pursue registered keepers and to take them to court in higher volumes! This rush to further enable the parking industry and pave the way to more consumer harm is completely the wrong priority for Parliament, especially given the purpose of the 2019 Parking (Code of Practice) Act was in fact to protect consumers from what MPs lined up to call an 'outrageous scam/Wild West cowboy' industry.

One wonders why no UK government seems to have consulted the CMA or the Information Commissioner's Office about how to address the consumer protection and excessive surveillance and data harvesting concerns, and why not start by extending the surveillance camera PCN issuance by post ban seen in the Deregulation Act, to apply to private firms too?

Oddly, in February 2022 when the last Government tried to enact the statutory Code but were blocked by moneymen, the DLUHC (now MHCLG) said in their rationale for part of the Code, that self ticketers must issue PCNs to windscreens and not mimic remote camera surveillance PCs "because windscreen PCNs are a timely consumer notice". They correctly relied on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 fir this decision,

CMA, please consider this:

Why did the same rationale not apply to cases where the patrol is done by PPC staff or where businesses like hospitals and supermarkets have security staff? If a person is on foot then they can affix a PCN and they should. Especially in sensitive areas like hospital and all GP car parks (regardless of landowner), all disabled bays and all residential car parks. These are sensitive sites where patients, disabled people and residents have time and again been shown to be the targets; sitting ducks to predatory and late postal PCN issuance.

Both the ICO (in its ANPR and CCTV guidance) and the DVLA (in KADOE contracts) state that camera surveillance must never be the first resort. But neither legislation nor regulator has taken any steps to ensure this is the case and the statutory Code is silent about it.

Lack of material information and lack of Notice to Keeper ('NTK')

The driver still doesn't know what they supposedly did wrong because the first letter failed to give any material information about the alleged breach or any other option except to pay up or appeal to CPP, and nor was it even the required NTK.

It seems that CPP skipped that step.

The first we heard of the allegation that a parking charge was overdue was a supposed Reminder letter (see my evidence attachments) which arrived at/after the (inadequately short and unfair) '14 day discount' time was up.

And of course, it came addressed to the registered keeper, which is a huge data protection red flag when it concerns a visit to hospital and identifying photos are online for the keeper to view. As part of my complaint I raised a data protection concern with PALS and in my attached evidence, you can see my email exchange where they refused to intervene because it seems CPP are untouchable.

Whilst it isn't a problem for our family, for others this could easily put the patient in danger. The data concern is this: the use of ANPR or CCTV to issue a postal PCN as a first resort allows a third party with no clinical duty of care or confidentiality to send an unsolicited letter telling a third party (the registered keeper) that an individual attended the hospital. In my case, the keeper and driver are different people and this is fairly common because families share a car, or use more than one and the keeper could be their partner or employer.

The danger to vulnerable patients is clear and would not happen if the MHCLG 's new Code recognised hospitals and GP surgeries (plus all disabled bays and residential car parks, for other data privacy reasons) as sensitive enough to require patrols in foot and windscreen PCNs first. It would not leave landowners or operators with no remedy, and drivers would have a timely consumer notice on the day.

continued…

Coupon-mad

continued CMA complaint:

There is a serious concern about operators choosing remote camera surveillance because it's cheap and requires no human intervention before the first letter hits the keeper's doormat. According to the ICO guidance, cost and a leaner business model isn't a valid justification to use ANPR or CCTV 24/7 and I have seen no evidence of the mandatory Data Protection Impact Assessment. Nor did the 'reminder' inform me about where to view that, nor about our other site-specific options such as complaining to the client (the Trust wasn't even named on the letter) nor was there anything signposting me to the PALS service that covers patient concerns at NHS sites.

I had to find out about all these options myself. I have been abroad so could not even appeal, due to the fixed 28 day window being missed and the NTK not being received at all. Which is not a one-off, apparently. I have found reports that more than one person has reported that the NTK was never received.

It is somewhat of a strange coincidence that NTKs (with their blink-and-you-miss-it discount time) are going missing in a year when CPP aka ParkingEye are now sending extremely premature 'reminders'. Mine is dated just 7 days since the date of the alleged (in this case 'ghost') NTK.

A cynic who is aware of the profit-led MO of this sector could be forgiven for wondering if all PCNs are even being posted…after all, seven days is very premature for a reminder and would double CPP's postage costs - in every case - which a cynic might say is highly unlikely to be happening given the number of PCNs this punitive juggernaut of an operator issues. ParkingEye made approximately 2.3 million KADOE requests to the DVLA in the full 2024–2025 financial year. This was about 16% of all KADOE requests by the sector and averaged roughly 7,423 requests per day during that period.

If they are genuinely sending over two million NTKs followed just a week later by another two million 'Reminders' then (at a cost of less than £2 per first class letter handled by an auto-interface with a mail consolidator) sending two letters instead of the single NTK required by the Code of Practice is costing ParkingEye an extra £4m.

Hmmm…and two letters isn't even required, so how likely is that, CMA? Where is the evidence that NTKs are actually being posted first in every case and by first class post where the physical letter itself is actually with Royal Mail (not queued on the nail consolidator middleman's database) on the date shown as 'posted' or 'issued'?

All I can say is we only got a Reminder and it was lacking all necessary detail.

Material Information must include much more than the industry's own self-serving Code.

As well as landowner clients being identified (what would they have to hide if their agent is behaving fairly?) what about a requirement for all significant communications and demands to include a picture of the sign on site? Bearing in mind the sign is the contract and the registered keeper may never have seen the sign or visited the car park then or ever, how else can they make an informed decision?!

What about signposting consumers as well, to the Surveillance Camera CoP and the ICO's guidance on ANPR/CCTV operations?

And site specific info too: as well as identifying the NHS Trust and signposting to the PALS option as a route for hospital patients aggrieved by a PCN or the behaviour of the parking firm, what about a requirement to point motorists to the NHS car parking guidance for NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts (updated March 2022, which superseded the 2015 NHS Patient, Visitor and Staff Car Parking Principles / HTM 07-03)?

That guidance makes clear that patients and visitors are the Trust's first priority, and it requires Trusts to provide concessions for those most in need. Since 2015, carers have been included as an explicit group for whom concessions should be considered – a category that plainly covers someone bringing a child for urgent treatment. The guidance also expects that where car parking is contracted out, the operator acts reasonably and in accordance with these principles on the Trust's behalf.

I wasn't given this information in the 'reminder'.

Finally, across the board with this industry, the paltry 14 days discount is an inadequate. Like the false 'debt recovery fee' - which is in fact double recovery of the same letter-chain heads of cost already covered by the PCN - the 14 day timeline was invented by the sector and it only exists in their self-serving Code of Practice because they say it does. Given the MHCLG has figures confirming that over 90% of private PCNs are now issued by post, the industry should not be using the short discount period that only applies to windscreen PCNs served on the day.

14 days is a 'blink-and-you-miss it' unfair timeline which cannot be described as a fair or timely consumer notice. This is why not:

A mere 14 days at the discount doesn't mirror the Local authority rules for camera PCNs issued by post. The British Parking Association is well aware that comparable local authority rules relating to camera-issued PCNs must offer discounts for 21 days from service delivery). It is bad enough that the private parking industry invented a 40% discount to make more money (councils offer 50% which is more likely to encourage early settlement) but even if the 40% remains in place for now, to avoid another Judicial Review, the first iteration of the Code cannot start with an insufficient discount period, made up by this sector and not correct or fair for notices sent by post to a third party who may know nothing about the location and needs time to gather evidence to make an informed decision.

Ironically, a contact has told me that ParkingEye has an unadvertised 'request discount' button on its website, unlike any other firm. Apparently this would have extended the discount but it is too late for my case and it is only seen if you know where to look. It is a hidden longer discount which shows that there's no reason why all parking firms couldn't offer the discount for 21 days from service, as standard.

Further, the main PCN processing software firm, Unity5, confirmed at the Parkex Conference last year that the discount period is flexible and would be cost-free and immediate to adjust to 21 days from service.

This secret longer discount is not stated as material information in CPP aka ParkingEye's Reminder. This misleading omission coupled with the BPA remaining silent about the 14/21 day discrepancy cannot be right.

GrannyKate

The information re 20% of parking fees at St Cross Rugby was from 2018/19 so it is possible that is not correct now but I couldn't find anything more up to date. The situation re PFI is much more complicated than contracts and the laws of agency but I fail to see how the hospital can completely wash their hands of what is happening to their patients.

dangdoggy3

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82085075#Comment_82085075

A formal complaint has been raised!

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received by the Patient Relations Department on xx July 2026.

Your correspondence will be reviewed by the Patient Relations Department to establish how best to respond to your concerns.

We endeavour to provide a final response to you on xx September 2026, however, a member of staff will be in contact with you in due course to provide an update on this timeframe when all information has been reviewed and confirm details and final response date with you.

We value feedback on the complaints process to improve the support we provide to our patients and families. On receipt of your final response, please could we ask that you follow the link below and complete our short survey: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=8dhxX-9p0UGfHk18S3tH5F17_pwdb1lHpFCRF8ZFDgxUOVJLUURRNFlZSFBaWUlSSjROQTRYMU1KVS4u

Coupon-mad

Nice. But September?!? That's a long time.

Please do the CMA complaint this week. These complaints are designed to lead change and see the CMA look at more issues quickly this Summer, before the Government issue the statutory Code of Practice this Autumn.

I have finished writing it now. Re the last section I just edited in above, please look on the website and see whether 'Request Discount' still shows as a payment option for your case if you go to the payment page?

Yes or no?

Please could you screenshot the page either way?

dangdoggy3

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82088788#Comment_82088788

Will sort CMA asap

It doesn't look like a discount is on offer. Appeal button is not clickable, nor Provide authorisation

Coupon-mad

Thanks, I am looking for proof of that offer so will ask others with an earlier stage PCN!