Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Yvo
    • By Yvo 7th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 8Thanks
    Yvo
    Pcn at hospital
    • #1
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    Pcn at hospital 7th Feb 18 at 6:19 PM
    Hello,

    First of all, please forgive me if this has already been covered. I've beem through the newbie thread but couldn't find anything about my situation. I just wanted a 2nd opinion to continue the fight to my PCN or to pay up the discount. I have no problem fighting it to court bit not if I don't have a chance of winning.

    The situation is as follows; I work in a statutory role within the mental health act. I had a job to do in the hospital in Basildon and entered a multi storey carpark ran by First parking. When i entered it the digital display said there were spaces. But i drove around for quite some time (between 15 and 20 minutes) and couldn't find a space. I got proor for this because i own a dashcam. Therefor I double parked because I would be breaking the mental health act code of practice if I would be late. When i returned 2 hours later sure enough, I received a PCN.

    I already appealed to firstparking (I only stumbled on this forum now) arguing that they broke the contract in the first place because they said there were spaces when there were in fact none. Secondly because of that they said there were spaces but there weren't i didn't have a choice and had to double park or I'd break the law. I also started paying for just driving around in a carpark.

    I had about 6 pieces of evidence but could only upload one. The appeal by them was refused because they said I did double park and that it was clear i shouldn't, not mentioning any of the other circumstances. I didn't expect them to clear it anyway.

    Anyway, foolishly I did admit I was the driver, once again only stumbled on this very useful forum now.

    What do you think, try POPLA or take the discount?
Page 1
    • Yvo
    • By Yvo 7th Feb 18, 6:25 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Yvo
    • #2
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:25 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:25 PM
    Correction in my terminology, I in fact got a ticket for parking outside a marked area. There were some lovely pictures attached.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Feb 18, 6:26 PM
    • 7,261 Posts
    • 6,782 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:26 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:26 PM
    What do you think, try POPLA or take the discount?
    Originally posted by Yvo
    Go for PoPLA and take the 100% MSE discount.
    .
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Feb 18, 6:27 PM
    • 36,652 Posts
    • 83,020 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:27 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Feb 18, 6:27 PM
    PoPLA, definitely. The mugs discount is for Mugs.

    Have you complained to the hospital management and/or PALS. You should do so, as well as complain to your MP. Have you read the NEWBIES with the information there about what MPs said in parliament last Friday? You should use those very damning words about the unregulated private parking industry in every complaint you make.

    Use all the template PoPLA appeal points available to you from the NEWBIES and post your draft here for checking before you submit it. Get your own pictures of the entrance and signage in the car park.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 7th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    • 2,621 Posts
    • 3,286 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #5
    • 7th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    you have know idea as to how unregulated this industry has descended into ...

    while you look how to fight this .... and please do

    take a few mins out to see what our MP's think about this massive scam ...

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    it may help your resolve

    Ralph
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 8:59 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 7th Feb 18, 8:59 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Feb 18, 8:59 PM
    No-one here pays F1rst parking.

    First of all complain to the Facilities Manager at the Hospital, demand they cancel it.

    If they will not, then appeal to POPLA of course (plan B, must be within 32 days of the POPLA code issue). Read the NEWBIES thread post #3 and show us your POPLA draft.

    If you lose, so what, it's only F1rst and yes, they are beatable in court, if they try (not huge players).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Feb 18, 9:05 PM
    • 3,246 Posts
    • 4,299 Thanks
    waamo
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 18, 9:05 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Feb 18, 9:05 PM
    Ask the hospital for a copy of their parking policy. It may even be online. I have come across some that are so out of date they would give POPLA a right laugh.

    Some predate POFA and may be full of ways out.
    This space for hire.
    • Yvo
    • By Yvo 8th Feb 18, 8:42 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Yvo
    • #8
    • 8th Feb 18, 8:42 AM
    • #8
    • 8th Feb 18, 8:42 AM
    Thank you for all the pointers; I'll contact PALS and will draft a letter for Popla and share it with you before I send it off.

    I will also complain to my MP. It is so ridiculous I can't even do my job without getting fined. These companies are absolute thugs.
    • Yvo
    • By Yvo 22nd Feb 18, 5:37 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Yvo
    • #9
    • 22nd Feb 18, 5:37 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Feb 18, 5:37 PM
    Small update; I have learned the hospital does not have an actual written policy. However, they let the signs say there are spaces available when the carpark is full on purpose. They say they do this so emergency vehicles so there is not a queue and emergency vehicles can pass more easily, and they justify misleading people by saying there is a high turnover rate of cars.


    I have experienced firsts hand there is no high turnover rate and people sometimes spend 1 hour looking for a space and missing appointments or parking outside the bays and getting fines after they are misled.
    I requested data on how many cars enter and leave the carpark during set times, and how many of the cars that enter leave again within 30 minutes (they usually do not park but just drive around looking for a space).


    But what a surprise, they did not want to share this information. But I have requested it via the Freedom of Information Act so I guess i'll get it anyway at some point. I will then send a letter to the local MP explaining that people are being misled and then ripped off so hopefully something will then be done about it.


    In any case, I still have to file an appeal with POPLA. Do you think the misleading entrance signs will qualify in the POPLA online appeal as 'I was not improperly parked' or under 'extreme circumstances'?


    Thank you in advance for your reply.
    Last edited by Yvo; 22-02-2018 at 5:57 PM.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 22nd Feb 18, 5:46 PM
    • 4,124 Posts
    • 5,853 Thanks
    Half_way
    Have you contacted the Hospital, reminding them of the NHs parking principles?
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles
    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 practice6where applicable.
    Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg 'income from parking charge notices only'
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 5:50 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do you think the misleading entrance signs will qualify in the POPLA online appeal as 'I was not improperly parked' or under 'extreme circumstances'?
    I never use either of those choices, we just tell people to do a decent POPLA appeal including all the usual template points and embedded with your photos (NOT uploaded separately, make it one pretty, illustrated and readable document), save it as a PDF and upload it to POPLA under OTHER.

    Only 'OTHER'. No point ticking the rest of the boxes when your appeal is in a PDF.

    You will not be able to say 'I was not improperly parked' anyway.

    Can you get the fact that they deliberately advertise spaces, when there were none, in writing from the Facilities Manager, or was this hearsay in a chat? Doesn't help...

    Read other Hospital POPLA appeals by searching for something like this on the forum:

    POPLA NHS Car Parking Principles Landowner authority

    ...and then show us your POPLA appeal draft over the weekend, cribbing from other ones. DON'T look for one about F1rst - you'd do well to copy a decent Gemini one and adapt that, as long as it includes all the usual stuff from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, plus a section about breach of the NHS Car Parking Principles.

    You cannot use anything re the POFA. Annoying, because the keeper would have 100% won!

    Even if you lose it's no big deal. You won't be PAYING!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-02-2018 at 5:54 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 22nd Feb 18, 5:51 PM
    • 7,261 Posts
    • 6,782 Thanks
    KeithP
    As said over two weeks ago...
    ...show us your POPLA draft.
    .
    • Yvo
    • By Yvo 23rd Feb 18, 6:10 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Yvo
    Hello,


    Can you please check my POPLA draft below before I submit it and give me any pointers? I could identify 2 major faults why I should not be paid. As you might expect from the language and legal terms used, the first part is largely copied and adapted, while the 2nd part I drafted myself.
    ---------------------------------





    POPLA code:


    Vehicle Registration:





    On the XX/XX/XXXX, I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a PCN on my windscreen acting as a notice to the registered keeper. I appealed to F1rst Parking as the registered keeper and received an email denying my appeal dated XX/XX/XXXX. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:





    1. The signage is inadequate and unclear





    2. Due to the poor signage, I had no choice to park where I did or I would break the mental health act.

    1. The signage is inadequate and unclear The BPA CoP, (Section 18.2) states:



    !!!8220;Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.!!!8221;





    When I entered the carpark on the morning of XX/XX/XXXX at 9:30, the digital signs at the gates stated that there were spaces available. However, upon entering it soon became clear there were no spaces available at all in the carpark. There were countless cars driving around aimlessly looking for spaces that were not available. After I have contacted the hospital, I found out that the digital signs are purposely stating there are spaces available, when there are none, actively misleading people who enter the car park to avoid congestion. Since it is a hospital, the vast majority of people who enter the car park have important meetings regarding their health. If they are being misinformed that there are spaces available at the entrance and can!!!8217;t find a space, they have no choice then to park outside a marked bay because they would miss their appointment otherwise.





    Furthermore, the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.. I have attached a photo taken from the space where my car was parked. It is impossible to read any terms and conditions, the only legible part is the top. The circumstances of when a PCN will be issued are completely illegible. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.





    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs).





    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate: ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.'' From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. A letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park.





    Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms. Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast.





    2. Due to the poor signage, I had no choice to park where I did or I would break a statutory law.





    I am an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) under the Mental Health Act 1983. This means I have to carry out mental health act assessments and take appropriate action after that. That morning the police had taken in a patient under S136 of the Mental Health Act.





    S136 is a emergency power of the police under the MHA a patient can be detained by the police if they have mental health concerns and be held in a place of safety. This patient was brought in to the place of safety in Basildon Hospital and referred to me on XX/XX/XXXX. Code 16.27 of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code Of Practice issued by the department of Health states that after a person is brought in S136 of the MHA:


    The person should be assessed by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP as soon as possible after the person is brought into the place of safety. As soon as practicable after the assessment and interview, the person should either be discharged, informally admitted, further detained under the act or other arrangements made for the treatment in the community (..).


    I would delay this assessment due to not being able to park, I would be forced to break the guidance under the Mental Health Act and neglect my statutory job. Because of the misinformation purposely given to me at the entrance of the carpark I had no choice to park outside of a marked bay to prepare and conduct the assessment. If I was given the correct information upon entering the carpark, I could have found alternative methods of parking and not waste 30 minutes of driving around in the carpark.


    I have attached a still of the time I entered the carpark, where it said you had spaces but in fact you had not. I also have 30 minutes of footage of my dashcam, driving around in the carpark looking for spaces. These files are too large to upload but I can share these files upon request.


    Due to patient confidentiality I am unable to send a confirmation of when the patient entered the place of safety.






    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Feb 18, 7:02 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.


    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.


    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.


    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41


    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

122Posts Today

1,699Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin